Hi, I'm Laurel Wamsley, and I cover personal finance for NPR. That means I report on some of the questions that might keep you or your loved ones up at night. Like, will I ever be able to buy a home? What about retirement? As interest rates drop, where should I put my money? Economic headlines can be confusing, but NPR is here to help you make sense of them. To support this coverage, please give today at donate.npr.org. This is Dane and Kim, and we're at the Gallatin County Courthouse.
in bozeman montana about to get our marriage certificate this podcast was recorded at 1206 p.m eastern time on friday december 6 2024 things may have changed by the time you hear this But one thing that will definitely have changed is it will be married. Enjoy the show. Love it. Was that a kiss at the end? I think it was. I kind of like that. That was very sweet. Yeah.
Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Ashley Lopez. I cover voting. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. And I'm Domenico Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent. And today on the show, we're going to be talking about two facets of the incoming presidency.
First is how Donald Trump is doing more as a president in waiting than many of his predecessors before him. Tam, I want to start with his cabinet. Usually nominations for cabinet positions sort of trickle in out throughout late November. December and into January. But it looks like most of Trump's proposed appointees have already been named. Why do you think he's moving so quickly? I think this is part of the whole shock and awe thing. Really, I think that Trump is trying.
to take Washington by storm. And part of that is just getting all of these out. In his last transition, he took a longer time. It was a little bit of a reality TV show with people coming in and out of the lobby. Trump Tower. This time he has just been like putting out one truth social post after the next with details about his intended appointees. And it's just been going really fast.
Earlier this week on Wednesday, I counted more than a dozen administration picks announced in a single day. That is a whole lot. You know, there's no need for a getting to know you phase this time around for Trump. Just remember, you know, when Trump came on the scene in 2015, 2016, when he won, he didn't really have a lot of friends in Washington. He was reliant more on sort of the established Republican class, elected senators, etc.
And he was kind of feeling people out, trying to figure out and taking people's recommendations on who should fill what spots. This time around, he's had years now to be able to say he has weeded out the people who he thinks are actually loyal to him. people he likes, people he's seen on TV, what have you, who he really trusts. And he wants to, as Tam said, you know, sort of shock and awe, but also show that he's ready right away, right out of the gate. Because as we know, you have...
You have a short amount of time after an election to be able to get done what you want to get done. And he has a slim. majority in the House and a fairly slim majority in the Senate as well. But he has a lot of big priorities that he wants to try to get done very quickly. And he is instantly a lame duck in a way. I mean, he... is not running for reelection. So that gives him in some ways more power because he doesn't have to worry about politics.
But also there is an acknowledgment that he has an expiration date. That's true. He doesn't have to worry about politics anymore, which is also true. And he doesn't have the guardrails, you know, sort of the restrictions put on place by whether some.
thing you do is legal or not legal or whatever, you need Congress to do X, Y, Z. The fact of the matter is the Supreme Court has essentially given carte blanche to a president now to be able to do what they want because there's presumed immunity essentially.
for anything a president does that's within a president's official duties. So get ready. I mean, Trump has said that he wants to do certain things like mass deportations, and he's probably going to try to do as much as he possibly can without needing Congress as quickly.
as possible. But Domenico, I do wonder if there are any risks in naming so many people so far in advance, though. Yeah, I think there are. And I think one of the things that can be risky is that when you give too much time to, you know. whether it's senators on the Hill or it's the media, there's more time to be able to get out some of these.
Folks, past skeletons, you know, in a deeper examination of their experience or lack thereof, emails that might surface from your mother to say whether or not you've done things appropriately or not in past versions of your life. So, you know, there's a lot of. There is another explanation for this, though. They have put these people out so quickly that the typical...
So that if these skeletons come up in the vetting, you'd go, oh, do you really want to put your family through this? And people withdraw before their name is ever announced. It's like the cart before the horse in some ways. And so some of these nominees who are out there twisting in the wind, having more and more skeletons come out and you've got a whole month until even Senate hearings begin. Part of that process would have happened.
quietly and Trump by saying, I'm doing things my way, I'm doing it differently. Is making it so these things happen? Not quietly. Just this week, the Trump transition did sign an agreement with the Justice Department to begin FBI background checks, which will be needed for for administration officials.
to get security clearances, to get into agencies early and begin their work. And also because senators were asking for those FBI background checks. Pete Hegseth, for instance, the nominee who is... Getting the most attention this week to head the Defense Department. He and his lawyer have said he welcomes an FBI background check.
We also are in this weird situation where we essentially have Joe Biden, who's essentially shrinking from the spotlight and Donald Trump, who is kind of the flame for the moths in how much he. captures the limelight and attracts the limelight. So we have this, you know, kind of overlap and transitions we know can be times of angst, whether you're a teenager who's changing schools or, you know, person who's changing jobs, whether it's two.
the presidency again or not being in that office anymore when it was something you've wanted your entire life. Yeah. And this does bring me to the other... sort of space where he has been filling the sort of power vacuum. And that's in foreign policy. When Trump posted on Truth Social that he wanted to hit Canada and Mexico with tariffs, Canada's prime minister, Justin Trudeau, flew to Mar-a-Lago.
to meet with him. And Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum called Trump to try and get him to change his mind. So world leaders are already treating Trump like He's the man in charge even before he takes office. Right, Tam? I want to be clear that world leaders always call to congratulate the incoming president. Conversations do happen. Trump is attempting to.
do foreign policy before he takes office. Another example of that, in addition to the social media post about tariffs, he also made a pronouncement about how there will be hell to pay The hostages are not released from Gaza before January 20th. Part of this is these leaders know that Trump doesn't do foreign policy in the way that President Biden does. He is not an institutionalist in the same way. He does business by tweet. He announces.
Big tariffs. And then he gets people to come and talk to him and then he backs down. That has typically been the pattern of the way he led the last time. And so you're seeing some of those same patterns emerge again where. leaders are appealing to him. Yes, you had Trudeau fly to Mar-a-Lago. You had Trump get an invitation. He's this weekend going to Notre Dame for the grand reopening of the cathedral there in Paris. We don't know yet whether he's going to have a meeting with President Macron.
But we know that President Macron is someone who has. Done a really good job over the years of kissing up to Donald Trump. And there's an argument for this kind of approach when it comes to how Trump deals with foreign leaders. You know, I mean, he basically sketched it out in Art of the Deal, the book that he'd written. And it's kind of not unlike how he's operated. in his business.
life because, you know, he'll throw out sort of big bombastic things to try to get people's attention. And then he wants to get them in the room so that he can make a deal. And that's what he's all about. That's what he wants to try to be able to do. And you can argue over his success rate in the. But that's really his approach. Yeah. I mean, he would say that his success rate is incredible. The reality is sometimes people are.
calling him and promising him things that they're already doing and he can claim victory. And to the point about President Biden, let's just be honest, he shrunk. the second that debate went wrong. And as soon as he dropped out, all the attention went to Vice President Harris and Donald Trump. Overnight, you know, the White House press briefing, you know, there were empty seats, which is just like an indicator of where the attention was. It wasn't on the outgoing incumbent president.
Making a deal with him right now is kind of pointless. Yeah. Well, we're going to take a short break. Thank you, Tam, for bringing your reporting and have a good weekend. Yeah, you too. When we come back, how Trump and his allies want to reform the shape of the federal. government. This message comes from NPR sponsor, the UK government. It's time to make your UK visa digital.
If you have a BRP card that expires on the 31st of December, 2024, or a stamp or vignette sticker in your passport, you should change to an e-visa now. This means it will never be lost and can be accessed online at any time to prove your right to live, work or study in the UK. It's free and your immigration status won't be affected. Find out more now at gov.uk forward slash e-visa.
From the online trends that dominated 2024. On the spectrum of rat to demure. Where are you right now? To spicy TikTok viral reads. These romance fantasy books about dragons. NPR kept you up to speed on pop culture. Hi, it's Mariel Segarra from LifeKid. There's a first time for everything. including giving to NPR. Whether you're a brand new listener or a longtime fan, please join the community of NPR network supporters today. Make your gift at donate.npr.org. And thank you.
And we're back. And joining us now, we have NPR political correspondent Susan Davis with us. Hey, Sue. Hey, Ashley. So you've been reporting on an effort from two big Trump allies. That's Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. and their effort to drastically shrink the size of the federal government. Can you talk to me about what they're doing?
Sure. So back in November, Donald Trump announced what he's calling the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, and that it would be led by Musk and Ramaswamy, Musk being a huge donor to his 2024 campaign and Ramaswamy being a formal rival. and turned big supporter and surrogate on the campaign trail. And in the beginning, when it was first announced, I think it's fair to say it was met with at least a little bit of ribbing on the internet because...
The name Doge, which I think several of our listeners would probably get the reference to, but it's sort of steeped in internet culture. Back in 2013, there was a Doge dog meme. That meme was one of the most popular memes of the year. It went on to spur the... cryptocurrency named Dogecoin, which is something that Elon Musk had been invested in. And then using that Doge moniker, which I think has sort of steeped in internet.
tech bro kind of culture for an effort that's going to be led by Musk and Ramaswamy. It was not as serious as a lot of Washington acronyms often take themselves. There was also some jokes about needing two men to run an efficiency organization. But this has broadly been a long term, long existing goal of the Republican Party to shrink the size of the federal government and to make it run more efficiently. It's not a new idea. It might be one of the oldest ideas in Washington.
And we're just starting to see the framework by which it will take shape. And Musk and Ramaswamy were up on Capitol Hill this week talking to those key lawmakers who could be their partners in this effort to basically start to begin buy-in. support for what they're trying to do. The thing I find interesting about this, always this claim, never mind Doge and sort of the way that, you know, Ramaswamy and Elon Musk sort of push. that out there, you know, almost in a
PR kind of way, you know, where they gain a lot of attention. There have been a lot of efforts in the past to try to, you know, get rid of, quote unquote, waste, fraud and abuse within the government. There's a lot of discussion, you know, dating back to the Tea Party about the size of government. how they want to get rid of certain agencies.
Talking about the national debt, which was a big thing that a lot of people ran on. The problem is the drivers of the national debt are things like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which are things that are essentially walled off where no. And there just isn't enough discretionary spending, you know, domestically that you would be able to make the kinds of.
amount of cuts that they're talking about doing, despite the fact that it seems to be popular among people to say government is inefficient and need to make these big cuts. And Domenico is right. This is not the first effort.
During the Obama administration, there was two very high profile efforts to try to create debt commissions to reduce the debt. There was a super committee made up of members of Congress that tried to do it and ultimately failed. I have the reporting battle scars from both of them to prove it.
And so this time around, it's like, what could be different? And I do have to say that there's a lot about this that might just not make it work. To that I mean, it's a bit of a mirage. This is not a government agency. It hasn't been authorized by Congress. There's been no money or resources appropriated to support it. Musk and Ramaswamy are doing it for free. There's no money to hire staff.
And they don't have any decision-making authority. It doesn't have any real power behind it. But I will say this. It does have buy-in. A lot of these ideas are incredibly popular on Capitol Hill, especially when it comes to streamlining the... federal government. And I talked to a bunch of senators about that this week in anticipation of their visit.
And one thing they clearly want Musk and Ramaswamy to focus on is on the executive branch of government, like what the president can do within his own power to reduce the size of the government, which is obviously something that Donald Trump campaigned very clearly on.
reducing the size of the federal workforce, and also just making government agencies much more efficient. They say they want to embed people into the agencies once the Trump administration starts to sort of identify the areas which they could make these agencies run more efficiently. efficiently.
And also they've been very clear. And I admit that this will start to veer into a policy lane that I don't have a ton of expertise on. But in the post-Chevron world, that Supreme Court decision in the last session that basically will make it a lot easier. for an administration to slash regulations. They think there's a huge opportunity there to change the regulatory framework of the United States government that will make things a lot faster to happen.
A lot of support in Capitol Hill and maybe even some buy-in on some of those efforts from Democrats. One thing that has not changed, and this is where I think the buzz saw is that they're going to walk into, is it's so easy to be on the outside of government and be like, We don't need to spend money on that stuff. Right. And I think where the rubber will meet the road is if and how they make suggestions to Congress, which has the power to spend money to say to them, hey, eliminate these.
program. Stop funding this. As anyone who has ever covered any element of that, you soon learn that one person's wasteful spending is one senator or lawmaker's favorite project or program. And the idea that you could balance the budget by... Somehow making trims to discretionary spending, which is not the money spent on Social Security and Medicare that has to be spent. It's on things like the Department of Education, on law enforcement agencies, on child care funding. Like that stuff's popular.
And that's going to be really, really hard to find the political will to make substantive deep cuts to anything that lawmakers actually support. There's also a risk in cutting while still being efficient. Right. I mean, I think that that's like a huge key here because, you know, Elon Musk, if you look at his business practices, yes, he's, you know.
one of, if not the wealthiest man in the world and has certainly done quite well for himself and has been a visionary on a lot of different things. You know, in his taking over Twitter, now X, you know, he cut back on a significant number of employees. And there have been a lot of complaints about customer service or what even the company is seen as being worth anymore. So there's going to be some.
And some discussion about when these cuts are suggested, whether or not the government and those agencies can still do their job well. This proposition puts them in a little bit of a political box right now, because broadly speaking.
Who is against a department that's looking for a more efficient government? That's a really easy thing to sell. Hey, we want to make government work better. Who's going to stand on Capitol Hill and say I'm against this? One of the Democrats I talked to, Chris Van Hollen, he was a veteran of a lot of these past budget wars.
He sits on both the Budget and Appropriations Committee. And I said, like, look, what are you going to do here? Like, they are provoking a conversation that don't Democrats at least want a seat at the table. And he was like, is this good faith or not? He's like, look, if they really want to have a broader conversation.
about how to make government work better, we should absolutely put ideas forward and engage. But I think Democrats are very skeptical, to your point, Domenico, that the efficiency is code for just gutting the federal government. That if they just...
want to do this to significantly reduce the federal workforce, like take a hatchet to it and not a scalpel, I think people like Van Hollen are going to be very much against it, especially for senators like him who come from a state like Maryland where, look, the federal government is the biggest employee. So again, like even efforts to shrink the federal workforce, I think could be met with. significant pushback, especially from people that represent the broader D.C. area.
Yeah, I mean, I do think it's interesting, too, because when you look back to the George W. Bush administration, you know, after 9-11, there was all this discussion about the inefficiency and the lack of discussion between the CIA and the FBI. So what was the conservative solution? to that and making it more efficient.
Creating a new agency in the Department of Homeland Security, which now employs thousands of people. So trying to roll back those things is really, really difficult once they get in place. And I also think people should keep this in mind going into the second Trump.
term. Donald Trump historically, and not in his first term, had much interest in actually cutting spending. Donald Trump raised spending more during his administration than Barack Obama did during his. And I think that fact surprises a lot of people. And so the idea that Trump wants deep spending cuts isn't something that's been borne out by history. Donald Trump really wants tax cuts. He really likes business friendly solutions, but he doesn't.
have a strong record of wanting to cut spending. And if anything, he has campaigned as wanting to protect Social Security and Medicare, which is not a position that has been taken by past Republican presidents who had been more interested in potentially privatizing these services. So I...
I'm really curious to see how far he is willing to go, how much buy-in he will give Musk and Ramaswamy if they go to him with some more provocative spending cut proposals. Which does bring me to a practicality question here because both Ramaswamy and Musk say they won't. want to find $2 trillion in spending cuts. But like as Domenico mentioned, they're not going to be looking at things like Social Security and Medicare. I mean, what is on the chopping block here?
Yeah, I mean, I always try to avoid math, but it's worth doing a little bit of it. $2 trillion, if you think about it this way, that is more money than the federal government spends in an annual year on everything, on the Pentagon, on the entirety of domestic programs. It's a lot of money, but $2 trillion to cut it out of the existing budget if you take Social Security and Medicare off the table.
It's almost impossible. And I don't think that that's a that's not a partisan statement. I don't think there's a conservative or liberal budget expert who could tell you you can balance the books on non-defense discretionary spending because Republicans will fight too. and nail to protect defense spending. Democrats will fight tooth and nail to protect domestic spending, particularly programs that help poor people. And so how you get there, I don't know. I will say this.
There's a million and one creative ways to come up with a budget gimmick in Washington. And when they come up with that $2 trillion figure, things I would look for is things like reduction in workforce. You can argue money saved is money not spent, which is different than a spending cut. I also think in the reduction of regulations, I think that they will likely be able to say, hey, if we reduce all these regulations, it'll save time and money. So how they get to $2 trillion could be kind of...
a creative solution, there's virtually no way you can do it on the federal budget if you take mandatory spending off the table. Yeah. And I'm just curious about the optics of having two rich guys do this. That's a great question. Tell the government how to spend its money.
Look, I think that's a really good point. And I think that's why Democrats are a little bit hesitant to fully lean into this right now. Musk and Ramaswamy in this role, they're not really accountable to anyone. Unelected and two very wealthy men putting forward potentially.
cuts that could help less advantaged people in the world has the potential to create political backlash. And I think that that's something that Democrats might also see a political opportunity in, depending on where they take this.
Trump ran on cutting the federal government and talking about the deep state over and over again. And he's putting two people in charge who he trusts, who he thinks are smart, who also have a similar point of view when it comes to the efficiency of the federal government.
I do think that there are likely to be cuts, you know, because if there's something that Donald Trump winds up pushing and there's, I think, some degree of sympathy for sure on the right with that and wanting to make those cuts. And the last thing I'd say is this won't last forever. It's a short-lived effort. They're expected to wrap their work by July 4th, 2026, which will coincide with the 250th anniversary of Our Great Nation, by which point Donald Trump says he will have made...
America great again. Yeah. All right. Well, one more break and then it's time for Can't Let It Go. This is Eric Glass. On This American Life, we specialize in compelling stories. From everyday life. I was like, wow, you literally just died and came back. And the first thing you ask is, do you need any money? Your life stories, really good ones in your podcast feed. This American Life.
Ho, ho, ho. Santa here. Coming to you from the North Pole. Where the elves in our podcast division have just completed work on this season's best gift for public radio lovers. NPR Plus. Give the gift of sponsored free listening. and even bonus episodes from your favorite NPR podcasts, all while supporting public media. Learn more at plus.npr.org. You might have heard this song on TikTok, Blow Up. this summer. I'm looking for a man in finance. Trust fun.
On It's Been a Minute, we're asking the big questions about dating. Like, is it okay to date with money in mind? And what are we really looking for from a man in finance? To find out, listen to the It's Been a Minute podcast from NPR. And we're back and it's time for Can't Let It Go. That's the part of the show where we talk about the things from the week that we just can't stop talking about, politics or otherwise. Domenico, I want to start with you. What can't you let go of this week?
Well, I just want everyone to pull up the Billboard Top 100 and see if you notice a theme. All right. You're going to hear me type. I'm actually doing this. Oh, my gosh. It is Kendrick Lamar's entire album. I contributed to this, to be honest. So did I. Ten of the top 14 songs are Kendrick Lamar songs from his new album, GNX, including the top five, Squabble Up, TV Off, Luther, Whacked Out Murals, and Hey Now, which are all... in my view.
Great songs. And this is all in preparation for the Super Bowl, which Kendrick Lamar is going to be the halftime show for. He got some very well-produced songs that are going to be bops. And I think this is Kendrick Lamar. He's always been a, you know, kind of a big. deal in the industry but this is him sort of taking it to another level where he's trying to really cash in on what has been all this attention he got through the drake beef that he had and now being able to use this for the
Super Bowl and then he's going on tour. We're seeing a new era here and it's kind of fascinating to see. all of these songs on the Billboard Top 30. Big year for Kendrick, man. First the Drake beef, and now he's coming up on top. It's all coming up. Yeah, I wonder who won that beef. Not an open question.
Ashley, what about you? What can you let go of? Actually, I read something in the Los Angeles Times that made me laugh a lot. This is the perfect time of year to have this conversation about how much I dislike the movie Love Actually. Okay. I like that movie. I know a lot of people do. I'm a hater. Although I do feel like more people are hating it every year, which I love. It's like my own version of like.
Grinch-type Christmas joy. I am a rom-com sucker, though. Yeah, me too. But I feel like this is not a romantic movie. And here's a good example of why. So the interview in the Los Angeles Times was with Keira Knightley. And I don't know if you know this, but she was 17 when... And they filmed that movie.
When she was filming her character in that scene with the Q cars that's really famous, she apparently had to do a couple reshoots because she was looking at the guy like he was a creep because she was like really creeped out by the storyline. Like this guy was basically a stalker who was like...
also hitting on his friend's wife. It was just like a very weird storyline. Anyways, and she said, yeah, I always thought that that was a really creepy role. I'm glad that people like Love Actually, but I thought that whole storyline was super weird. Yeah, I mean...
It came out in 2003, so maybe it doesn't carry into this decade and generation as well. I haven't seen it in a long time. Yeah, you should. I think it has aged like a glass of milk. I'm curious to hear what you think of it now. I just like that this time of year is...
when the two great American debates are reignited over movies. And one is about Love Actually, where people feel very strongly, whether it's a great movie or terrible, and also whether Die Hard is a Christmas movie or not. And those debates get kicked up every single year.
will never be unified around one answer of those two questions. All right, Sue, what can't you let go of this week? The thing I can't let go of is a very silly thing that just gave me a ridiculous set of the giggles this morning. I don't know if this ever happens to you or something that's... Ultimately, not that funny, but hits you at the right moment, just cracks you up. And for me this morning, it was.
a New Yorker cartoon, which is not words I normally say. I was doing the thing all of us do in the morning after Kid Drop Off. I was disassociating and scrolling through Instagram, and I came across a New Yorker cartoon, and it is a picture of Santa Claus sitting at a... computer and it has that uh tab that we all get haunted by that just says do you accept cookies you know and you always have to click it yes or no and the caption just says hells yes i do it's so cute He just loves cookies.
All right. Well, that's a wrap for this week. Our executive producer is Mithoni Maturi. Our editor is Casey Murrell. Our producers are John Yoon Han and Kelly Wessinger. Special thanks to Dana Farrington. I'm Ashley Lopez. I cover voting. I'm Susan Davis. I cover politics. I'm Domenica Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.
What's good, y'all? It's Gene Demby from Code Switch. And on Code Switch, we are deeply curious about race and identity and the way it shows up in the news headlines or in our personal lives. With a wide range of voices in front of and behind the mic. we see how race shows up all over the place. So come rock with us on the Code Switch podcast, only from NPR. Tis the season for rich meals, twinkly lights, and New Year's resolutions.
At LifeKit, NPR's self-help podcast, we're here to help you make those resolutions less of a December and January thing, and more like a year-long affair. We've got shows that'll help you draw up plans to meet your goals, whatever they are. Get the tools you need all year round with the Life Kit Podcast from NPR. Listen to this podcast sponsor free on Amazon Music with a Prime membership or any podcast app by subscribing to NPR Politics Plus at plus.npr.org. That's plus.npr.org.