0:02

Okay, business leaders, are you

0:04

here to play or are you

0:06

playing to win? If you're in

0:09

it to win, meet your next

0:11

MVP. Net Suite by Oracle. Net

0:13

Suite is your full business management

0:15

system and one convenience suite. With

0:18

Net Suite, you're running your accounting,

0:20

your finance, your HR, your e-commerce,

0:22

and more, all from your online

0:24

dashboard. Upraid your playbook and make

0:27

the switch to net suite, the

0:29

number one cloud ERP. Get the CFO's

0:31

guide to AI. slash

0:33

daily. Hello. Oh, Carlos, you have

0:35

a mustache. Oh wait, is this

0:38

a grief mustache? A Notre Dame?

0:40

Well, it is related to Notre

0:42

Dame's playoff run. What happened is

0:44

that was just gonna, I was

0:46

gonna keep it until Notre Dame

0:48

lost. And then of course, I

0:50

went to the national championship game

0:52

in Atlanta. Oh, you were there,

0:54

I didn't even realize you were

0:56

there. I was there, I was

0:58

there. I was there. I was

1:00

there. Oh, I didn't want to

1:02

be lost. And now my kids hate

1:05

it, which is an incentive to keep

1:07

it. From New York Times

1:10

opinion, I'm Carlos

1:12

Lozada. And I'm

1:14

Ross Dauphin. And

1:16

this is matter of

1:19

opinion, where thoughts are

1:21

always allowed. So Michelle

1:24

couldn't join us this

1:26

week, but never fear

1:29

our forever friend of

1:31

the pod and founding

1:33

Musketeer. Lydia Paul Green

1:35

is joining us today.

1:38

Welcome back, Lydia. Hi, Lydia.

1:40

Guys. Ah, so nice to see you both.

1:42

Good to see you back. Yeah.

1:44

Well, this is the first week

1:47

in office for our 45th and

1:49

now 47th, Otis. Donald Trump took

1:51

the oath of office on Monday

1:53

and gave his inaugural address and

1:55

then got busy issuing, what's the

1:58

proper journalism word, a flurry. of

2:00

executive orders. We would also accept

2:02

a raft, a slew, or a barrage.

2:04

I think a blizzard. I've actually read

2:07

a Blitz that may have been somewhere

2:09

in the times. Blitz. That's a martial

2:11

love. I can see what people are

2:13

trying to evoke there. Yep. And of

2:15

course, he issued some pardons too, which

2:18

we can get into. I want us

2:20

to unpack what we know of this

2:22

first week, what you think are the

2:24

most significant actions Trump has taken

2:26

so far, where we're seeing a break. I

2:29

also hope we can figure out what week

2:31

one might tell us about year one

2:33

and where we think the administration

2:35

is going in the months ahead.

2:37

Let's do it. You're in control.

2:39

So, you know, wherever we go,

2:41

you will take us there. I'm

2:43

never, I'm never in control.

2:45

But for the moment then, let's

2:47

stay in this week and rewind to

2:50

Trump's inaugural address on Monday. I

2:52

don't know what, what stood out

2:54

to you. Was this... American

2:56

carnage the sequel? Or are you

2:58

already basking in this golden age

3:01

and all the sunlight pouring

3:03

over you? Lydia, why don't you

3:05

kick us off? I actually read rather

3:07

than watch Trump's speech in

3:09

preparation for this conversation. And I

3:11

could sort of juxtapose that with the

3:13

images that I've seen. And, you know,

3:16

one of the things that really struck

3:18

me was this invocation of a radical

3:20

and corrupt establishment that has extracted power

3:23

and wealth. That was one of the

3:25

early lines in the speech, and that's

3:27

quite a thing to say when you

3:29

have, you know, the wealthiest men in

3:32

America standing right behind your family, but

3:34

in front of your cabinet. And so

3:36

I think it's been an interesting week

3:38

of dissidents in that regard. I

3:40

think... will obviously talk about this

3:43

huge number of executive actions and

3:45

things like that, but I guess

3:47

the question that I have overall

3:49

is, who's this for? And is this

3:51

actually responding to what the voters want?

3:53

There's just been a lot of action

3:55

and a lot of it seems, I

3:57

don't know, strange. So the speech, it's...

4:00

which I did watch, and

4:02

I agree with Lydia that

4:04

the atmospherics sent a distinctive

4:06

signal that was different from

4:08

the speech itself. Speech itself

4:11

was sort of mostly

4:13

teleprompter Trump, right? Like

4:15

controlled, slightly sing-song,

4:18

not, you know, not that entertaining.

4:20

I think, you know, it was

4:22

clear enough. who voted for what

4:24

Trump was selling. The promise was

4:26

we're going to whip inflation, we're

4:29

going to end illegal immigration, and

4:31

we're going to roll back some

4:33

form of the excesses of wokeness.

4:35

All of that was there. Trump

4:37

talked a lot about being a

4:40

peacemaker, right? The idea that his

4:42

presidency would sort of restabilize the

4:44

world. I think stitch all those

4:46

together, and you basically have the

4:48

narrative that he won the presidency

4:50

on. It's notable that while he

4:52

did sort of offer a foretaste

4:55

of the executive orders to come,

4:57

some of the most controversial and

4:59

aggressive moves were not in the

5:02

speech. There was no mention to

5:04

undue birthright citizenship. There was no

5:06

mention of the fact that he

5:08

was planning to pardon everyone convicted

5:11

after January 6th. So in a

5:13

sense there was a sort of...

5:15

contrast between what you

5:17

can regard the speech as

5:20

kind of general public salesmanship

5:22

and the executive order action

5:25

as containing a lot more

5:27

different kinds of Trumpist

5:29

tendencies. I mean I think

5:32

it's an interesting question

5:34

whether you read the people

5:36

around Trump as Trump presenting

5:38

himself as the man of the

5:40

people even as he is captured

5:42

and controlled by these oligarchs. I

5:44

think that's one narrative that Democrats

5:47

have been fastening on. To me

5:49

it seemed a bit more like

5:51

a Roman triumph kind of scenario

5:53

where Trump is like parading

5:55

the guys who tried to ban him

5:57

from the internet four years ago, right?

6:00

And I think you can read it, and

6:02

I certainly think many of Trump's

6:04

supporters will read it, not as, oh

6:06

look, this guy is captured by the

6:09

oligarchs, but oh look, this guy, you

6:11

know, Silicon Valley tried to cancel

6:13

him, but guess what? They're here

6:15

to kiss the ring, too. So I watched

6:17

the speech ahead of the

6:20

national championship game in Atlanta, sitting

6:22

in my car on my phone. But

6:24

then later I went back and watched

6:26

the 2017 inaugural address by Trump. I

6:28

was struck by some real similarities

6:31

and some differences. The corrupt establishment RIF

6:33

is one he gave also in 2017.

6:35

He also in both speeches he declares

6:38

America first as his organizing principle. In

6:40

both he says we're in serious trouble

6:42

but the trouble is going to end

6:45

right away. In the first speech it's

6:47

the American carnage stops right here and

6:49

right now and now it's from this

6:51

moment on that America's decline is over.

6:54

The differences that struck me First, the

6:56

specificity of the speech, even though I agree

6:58

with Ross, there were things he left out.

7:00

This was a far more detailed policy outline

7:02

than you tend to get in an inaugural

7:04

address. It was more like a state of

7:07

the union in that sense. It's not just

7:09

protecting the border and fighting terrorism,

7:11

which he said in the first

7:13

speech. Now it's like, we're going

7:15

to designate the cartels as foreign

7:17

terrorist organizations. You know, we're going

7:19

to declare a national emergency at

7:21

the border, a national energy emergency,

7:23

despite the... the peacemaking Russ talks about it.

7:26

So we're going to take back the

7:28

Panama Canal, right? That sort of thing.

7:30

For peace. Carlos, for peace. It's a

7:32

Monroe doctrine. I know that would well.

7:34

The other difference I thought was a

7:36

little bit more subtle. In the 2017

7:38

speech, he talks about transferring power not

7:41

from one party to another, but from

7:43

Washington to the people. This latest speech

7:45

was more about him. about sort of

7:48

all the things he's going to do,

7:50

how God saved him from the assassin's

7:52

bullet, so he could live to make

7:55

America great again. If the first inaugural

7:57

I thought was more kind of pure

7:59

Trumpism... the second felt like it was

8:01

much more about Trump. So that was

8:04

just my impression of the address. Of

8:06

course, as Ross mentioned, there were many

8:08

things that did not make it into

8:10

the address, that in fact made it

8:12

into the executive orders. So let's move

8:15

into that for a moment. There have

8:17

been so, so many. In 2017, Trump

8:19

issued 33 orders in his first hundred

8:21

days. Now he had more than two

8:24

dozen on day one alone. So again,

8:26

this seems like a more prepared administration

8:28

this time around. You guys have had

8:30

now a few days to reflect on

8:32

the executive actions. Are there one or

8:34

two that you've each been thinking about

8:36

the most? I mean, one of the interesting

8:39

things about this Trump administration versus

8:41

the last is in the last

8:43

one, there was basically nobody there,

8:45

right? There were some establishment Republicans who

8:48

didn't ever like Trump, who ended

8:50

up working for him. There was

8:52

Stephen Miller and a few true

8:54

believers, but there were not a

8:56

lot of different... constituencies that were

8:59

sort of ready, participating in the

9:01

administration, sort of eager to be

9:03

served. In this administration, it's quite

9:05

different. Trumpism now contains all

9:07

kinds of different factions that

9:09

have very specific demands and

9:12

ideas about what his administration

9:14

ought to stand for. There's

9:16

hawks and doves and foreign

9:18

policy, and on domestic policy,

9:20

just to actually answer your question,

9:22

Carlos and draw a contrast, I

9:24

think it's really striking that you

9:27

have on the one hand

9:29

a set of

9:31

executive orders around

9:33

permitting and environmental

9:35

review and basically

9:37

reforms to how America

9:39

builds things and does things and

9:41

gets projects off the ground that

9:43

are I'm sure things that sort

9:46

of the tech right the Silicon

9:48

Valley people support but they're also

9:50

in the wheelhouse of you know

9:52

some of our center left colleagues

9:54

at this newspaper right and then

9:57

you have the birthright citizenship move

9:59

which is you know, you can,

10:01

I mean, it's interesting to try

10:03

and make these ideas compatible, but

10:05

there is, I think, a pretty

10:07

clear tension between we're building everything,

10:09

we're doing new things, we're opening

10:11

America up, and, you know, we're

10:13

changing the citizenship rules because America

10:15

is effectively full, which is not,

10:17

you know, that's not the view

10:19

of everybody who supports an anti-birth-right

10:21

citizenship, but the kind of animating

10:23

impulse of the birthright citizenship. move

10:25

is in an interesting kind of

10:27

tension with the abundance and growth

10:29

oriented aspects of the regulatory reform

10:31

that I think reflects a real

10:34

and important tension that's just going

10:36

to run through this administration. Yeah,

10:38

I've been spending a lot of

10:40

time thinking about migration across the

10:42

globe and, you know, looking comparatively

10:44

at different countries and how they

10:46

handle citizenship and residency and visas

10:48

and all of these kinds of

10:50

things for, you know, skilled or

10:52

desirable immigrants. And the birthright citizenship

10:54

thing, I think, really does go

10:56

right to the heart of what's

10:58

at the tension here. You know,

11:00

you've got someone like Stephen Miller,

11:02

who really believes that we should

11:04

just stop all immigration and that

11:06

we don't want any more people.

11:08

And people like Elon Musk and,

11:10

you know, Mark Zuckerberg and Senator

11:12

Pasha, who of course is a

11:14

person of Indian origin. who are

11:16

very strong advocates, and Trump himself

11:18

is a strong advocate of, you

11:21

know, visas for employment. You know,

11:23

he, I think, keeps confusing the

11:25

program that he uses to get

11:27

seasonal workers to, you know, wait

11:29

tables and wash dishes at his

11:31

resorts with the visas that computer

11:33

engineers from India and other countries

11:35

get. But, you know, there's a

11:37

very real tension between those things,

11:39

as Ross points out. I think

11:41

it gets at this sort of

11:43

tension about the story that you're

11:45

telling about America. You know, the

11:47

land of... of the future and

11:49

abundance with a kind of limitless

11:51

frontier? Or are we emulating Hungary,

11:53

basically saying we? We don't need

11:55

any immigrants, we don't want any

11:57

immigrants, we'll just accept the fact

11:59

that our economy is going to

12:01

decline as a result of that,

12:03

or we'll make a deal with

12:05

China to come and build electric

12:07

cars in our territory in order

12:10

to kind of goose our employment

12:12

numbers and then we'll quietly let

12:14

in guest workers. And I think

12:16

that those are the sort of

12:18

competing visions of like what the

12:20

future could look like. The one

12:22

I've been thinking about isn't, it's

12:24

a little bit more boring. More

12:26

boring than permitting reform. Carlos. I

12:28

find permitting reform fascinating. You know,

12:30

really, this is the second coming

12:32

of Jimmy Carter, right? Who was

12:34

the great deregulatory president, not, you

12:36

know, never, never gets enough credit

12:38

for that. I just, you heard

12:40

it here first. The first comparison.

12:42

Whenever Carlos mentions Jimmy, Jimmy Carter

12:44

drink, it's, uh... So, but let

12:46

me mention a couple of things.

12:48

First, on birthright citizenship, what's interesting

12:50

is the very concept of birthright.

12:52

itself. Because I think birthright citizenship

12:54

in the United States upends how

12:56

I usually think of a quote-unquote

12:59

birthright. Historically birthright is an exclusionary

13:01

idea. It's a title of nobility

13:03

that's passed to the first born

13:05

male. It's a privilege that by

13:07

definition belongs to someone at the

13:09

expense of someone else. It's not

13:11

shared. And America's birthright citizenship runs

13:13

counter to that. It's for all.

13:15

That's the first line of the

13:17

14th Amendment. Like all... people born

13:19

or naturalized in the United States.

13:21

And the interpretation of the next

13:23

line, which is going to be

13:25

at issue, right, subject to the

13:27

jurisdiction thereof, has also been interpreted

13:29

exercise in very expansive terms as

13:31

well. Trump is wrong when he

13:33

says that we're the only country

13:35

who does this, but I think

13:37

he's right that the practice does

13:39

make America distinct. Birthright citizenship has

13:41

been this essential part of the

13:43

American character and the American story

13:46

for a long time. It's a

13:48

source of equality before the law.

13:50

What makes his interpretation so tragic

13:52

to my mind is that now

13:54

illegality is the birthright. If your

13:56

parents violated a law to come

13:58

here... their actions are passed on

14:00

to you automatically at birth. The

14:02

sins of the father laid upon

14:04

the children. You're no longer stamped

14:06

with the opportunity that citizenship gives

14:08

you at birth. You're stamped with

14:10

illegality. Well, but it's not even

14:12

just illegality, right? I mean, it's

14:14

student visas, you know, potentially people

14:16

on H-1B, you know, work visas.

14:18

It's a lot of people. I

14:20

think it was more likely designed

14:22

to try and give the Supreme

14:24

Court an opportunity to... uphold part

14:26

of it and strike down part

14:28

of it, which I don't think,

14:30

and you guys can, you know,

14:32

hold me to this because we

14:35

will come back to this again.

14:37

I think it would be, it's

14:39

both very unlikely and would be

14:41

very unconservative along a bunch of

14:43

different dimensions from textualism to stare

14:45

decis and precedent for the Supreme

14:47

Court to agree with this executive

14:49

order. It has a kind of

14:51

extremely expansive claim. that encompasses student

14:53

visas and other things like that

14:55

in the hopes that the Supreme

14:57

Court will say, well, obviously that

14:59

goes too far, but, you know,

15:01

maybe it's okay about people who

15:03

are explicitly here illegally. That would

15:05

be my guess. I mean, on

15:07

this issue, I am much more

15:09

of a, you know, a lib

15:11

than on some things, and I

15:13

basically agree with Carlos's argument. I

15:15

think that the challenge here is

15:17

that... We are, and especially in

15:19

the Biden presidency, have been in

15:21

a pretty novel situation in terms

15:24

of ease of migration globally and

15:26

just the scale and numbers of

15:28

people arriving without legal status. Other

15:30

countries are having these same debates

15:32

because of those trends, right? But

15:34

the appeal of ending or limiting

15:36

birthright citizenship right now, I think,

15:38

is clearly linked to the changing

15:40

way in which migration is happening.

15:42

And birthright citizenship itself is not

15:44

what's driving that migration. Obviously it

15:46

has some effect, but it's not

15:48

the main thing. It's people coming

15:50

for work and opportunity. I also...

15:52

think and this connects to the

15:54

you know the oligarchs and so

15:56

on question right there's also maybe

15:58

a way in which the Trump

16:00

administration would rather make a move

16:02

like this have it get knocked

16:04

down by the courts then actually

16:06

get into like e-Verify and other

16:08

policies that would limit the ability

16:11

of American firms to hire illegal

16:13

workers that would be my very

16:15

cynical read on this that in

16:17

an odd way anti-immigration people could

16:19

end up being played by this

16:21

they get the sweeping gesture that

16:23

goes nowhere but then there's less

16:25

of a crackdown in the end.

16:27

But we'll see. I think the

16:29

notion of this being a test

16:31

case for the court is spot

16:33

on. And it just feels like

16:35

a similar long game as happened

16:37

with Roe, which took 50 years.

16:39

But you had Casey in, I

16:41

guess, the early 90s that did

16:43

exactly what you're saying, Ross, that

16:45

sort of limited the scope of,

16:47

you know, preserved the constitutional right,

16:49

but created more limits around it.

16:51

But I think far more likely

16:53

is that they want to get

16:55

it on the agenda, they want

16:57

the court to have to specify

17:00

what this is, and perhaps start

17:02

building limits around it. The only

17:04

other thing that I'm thinking about

17:06

in terms of these early actions

17:08

is, you know, because I work

17:10

here in Washington, D.C., what's happening

17:12

to the federal workforce? Trump made

17:14

a lot of noise about that

17:16

this week. First of all, a

17:18

federal hiring freeze. you know, bringing

17:20

back the idea of Schedule F,

17:22

which gives fewer protections to career

17:24

civil servants makes them easier to

17:26

fire. Terminating D.I. programs across the

17:28

federal government and reviewing all actions

17:30

by the Biden administration related to

17:32

the weaponization of law enforcement and

17:34

weaponization of the intelligence community, basically

17:36

start hunting for things that are

17:38

wrong. And this is the attack

17:40

on the deep state. This is

17:42

what Trump has been complaining about

17:44

for so long. Jady Vance has

17:46

spoken about this, right? He once

17:49

called for firing every single mid-level

17:51

bureaucrat, every civil servant in the

17:53

administrative state, and replaced them with

17:55

our people. Maybe this produces a

17:57

lean or more efficient government. I

17:59

worry it will drain expertise, produce

18:01

a government of loyalists, and encourage

18:03

witch hunts throughout the federal government.

18:05

In that sense, it's very consistent

18:07

with my reading of what was

18:09

in Project 2025. But that's the

18:11

other one that I want to

18:13

follow as we move forward. Yeah,

18:15

I feel like a lot of

18:17

what we're seeing does feel like

18:19

chapter and verse from Project 2025.

18:21

There are elements of it that

18:23

have not yet come to the

18:25

fore, but absolutely this seems like

18:27

the sort of the promised rollout

18:29

that was disavowed and then now

18:31

kind of re-embraced, which is really

18:33

striking, that, you know, Trump felt

18:36

the need to disavow it and

18:38

then now seems to be, you

18:40

know, following the blueprint. liberal bugaboo

18:42

was basically just, you know, it

18:44

included some things that aren't going

18:46

to happen and it included a

18:48

bunch of things that we're just

18:50

like what conservatives always want, right?

18:52

And so there's inevitably going to

18:54

be some project 2025 in the

18:56

Trump administration because it was a

18:58

conservative document. I think on the

19:00

federal workforce question, we just have

19:02

to see exactly how far this

19:04

kind of effort. goes. And I

19:06

tend to have a lot of

19:08

confidence in the federal bureaucracy's ability

19:10

to sort of swallow up all

19:12

such efforts. I'm sure there will

19:14

be prominent cases of people removed

19:16

for ideological reasons, but I think

19:18

we should check back with this

19:20

in six months to a year

19:22

just to sort of see exactly

19:25

how it's cashing out. So the

19:27

last thing I want to ask

19:29

you about in terms of week

19:31

one is the... Pardon Palouza that

19:33

we got coming from both the

19:35

outgoing and new presidents. Trump issued

19:37

pardons to more than 1,500 people

19:39

charged with crimes related to January

19:41

6, commuted sentences for others. There

19:43

were folks who thought he would

19:45

do a sort of a more

19:47

contained version of this, but it

19:49

was pretty far-reaching. So what do

19:51

you make of this exercise of

19:53

the pardon power, both by Biden

19:55

and by Trump? Well, I mean,

19:57

clearly it's awful, right? I mean,

19:59

I think that the place that

20:01

we've gotten to of preemptive pardons

20:03

for Biden's family, and I'm never

20:05

really that interested in games of

20:07

who started it, but obviously, you

20:09

know, this is payback for Russia

20:11

Gate, for all of the various

20:14

sort of prosecutions investigations that Trump

20:16

underwent. My question is like, who

20:18

actually cares about this? I understand

20:20

that there is among Trump's core

20:22

faithful base, a sense that, you

20:24

know, these people have been wronged

20:26

and also that the Justice Department

20:28

has been weaponized. I just don't

20:30

know that that's like actually that

20:32

important to many Americans. It seems,

20:34

you know, to the contrary, that

20:36

most Americans would think like, if

20:38

you assault a police officer, you

20:40

should probably, you know, pay some

20:42

consequences. I also think that there's

20:44

a real risk for Republicans for

20:46

ending up in some strange cul-de-sacs

20:48

in the same way that the

20:50

Democrats did after 2020 when Trump

20:52

lost, which is you spend a

20:54

lot of time investigating things and

20:56

going back over the past like

20:58

they did with Russia Gate. And

21:00

you sort of squander a lot

21:03

of momentum on doing things that

21:05

actually, like, people want. And so

21:07

I sort of, it sounds like

21:09

we're going to have another January

21:11

6th Commission that I guess is

21:13

going to investigate the overreach or

21:15

I don't know the details. But

21:17

it seems a little foolhardy, given

21:19

the past history here. Yeah, I

21:21

mean, I think I agree with

21:23

Lydia's last point. I think in

21:25

terms of the question of who

21:27

cares about it, the answer is

21:29

that, you know, an important part

21:31

of Trump's base cared deeply about

21:33

this issue, and Trump himself obviously

21:35

cares about it as well. I

21:37

think what you're seeing here is,

21:39

you know, the pardon power is

21:41

very expensive, and on paper, right.

21:43

So it's always just been constrained.

21:45

by you know what we norms

21:47

right you know these these things

21:50

that we we talk about this

21:52

sort of sense of propriety and

21:54

so on. And the more that

21:56

sense of propriety drops away, the

21:58

easier it becomes to just sort

22:00

of, you know, for not the

22:02

president himself, but just like people

22:04

around him to sort of push

22:06

a little harder. And it's like,

22:08

well, why worry our heads about

22:10

figuring out which of these four

22:12

people should be pardoned? We'll just

22:14

pardon all four. And that seems

22:16

to be where Trump ended up

22:18

with the January 6 stuff, right?

22:20

That you had, you know, you

22:22

know, Jady Vance went out. Jady

22:24

Vance went out. prominent Republicans went

22:26

out before the inauguration and said

22:28

look we're going to do pardons

22:30

for you know nonviolent protesters but

22:32

not for people who committed violence

22:34

against cops and then it seems

22:36

like Trump was like we're not

22:39

going to get into the nitty

22:41

gritty you know whether to pardon

22:43

person X or person Y we're

22:45

just going to pardon everybody because

22:47

that's what people were asking him

22:49

for and that's the bad it

22:51

seems like a bad system to

22:53

have but I don't know how

22:55

we get out of it. by

22:57

the notion that Trump just didn't

22:59

want to get into the nitty

23:01

gritty of like who deserved it

23:03

or who doesn't. It had to

23:05

be everyone, right, including those who

23:07

committed acts of violence against, say,

23:09

the Capitol Police, because saying that

23:11

even some of it was bad.

23:13

even some of it was wrong.

23:15

Undercuts the whole day of love

23:17

carried out by true heroes' story

23:19

that Trump has been selling about

23:21

January 6th, right? It undercuts the

23:23

goodness of the actions and the

23:25

story of the great victory that

23:28

was taken away from him. So

23:30

it had to be everyone. I

23:32

agree that the pardon power in

23:34

general feels like this kind of

23:36

monarchical vestige that is more of

23:38

a problem than it is a

23:40

solution the way it's being exercised.

23:42

I think it's nice if it

23:44

can be contained by norms and

23:46

propriety, having this kind of monarchical

23:48

vestige, I think is actually kind

23:50

of a nice thing. It's like

23:52

there is this sort of last

23:54

place of appeal and so on.

23:56

Right, but by pardoning all 1500

23:58

tells you that it's not being

24:00

exercised in the way. were angels,

24:02

government, etc., etc. etc. All

24:04

right, let's take a quick break

24:07

there. When we come back, we'll

24:09

try to look beyond week one

24:11

and see where all these early

24:13

actions might take us in the

24:15

year ahead. You

24:27

just realized your business needed to hire

24:30

someone yesterday. How can you find

24:32

amazing candidates fast? Easy. Just use

24:34

indeed. Join the 3.5 million employers

24:36

worldwide that use indeed to hire

24:38

great talent fast. There's no need

24:40

to wait any longer. Speed up

24:42

your hiring right now with Indeed.

24:44

And listeners of this show will

24:46

get a $75 sponsored job credit

24:48

to get your jobs more visibility

24:51

at indeed.com/nyt. Just go to indeed.com/nyt

24:53

right now and support our show

24:55

by saying you heard about indeed

24:57

on this podcast. indeed.com/nyt, terms

24:59

and conditions apply. Hiring? Indeed

25:01

is all you need. This

25:04

is a mini meditation guided

25:06

by Bombus. Repeat after me.

25:08

I'm comfy, comfy. I'm cozy,

25:11

cozy. I have zero blisters

25:13

on my toes, blisters. And

25:16

that's because I wear Bombus.

25:18

The softest socks, underwear and

25:21

t-shirts that give back. One

25:23

purchased equals one donated. Now

25:25

go to bombus.com/N-N-Y-T and use

25:28

code N-Y-T for 20% off

25:30

your first purchase. That's B-O-M-M-B-A-A-A-S-S-S-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-S-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N

25:39

I want us to cast forward a little bit

25:41

more and try to figure out what week

25:43

one tells us about what we can expect

25:46

in year one. In the month leading up to

25:48

both the election and the inauguration there are

25:50

three stories that we've been hearing about what

25:52

a second Trump term might be like and

25:54

I want us just to keep them in

25:57

mind as we look ahead. First is about

25:59

Trump himself. Now he knows more, right?

26:01

He didn't know how to govern

26:03

last time. Now he's better able

26:05

to pull and push the levers

26:07

of government. Second, there are no

26:09

more adults in the room, quote

26:12

unquote, who are going to challenge

26:14

him or even question him in

26:16

any meaningful way. His new team

26:18

has been selected for loyalty and

26:20

compliance. And third, it's about resistance.

26:22

Whether political or popular resistance, that's

26:24

going to be far more muted.

26:26

Instead of resistance, you're seeing resignation

26:28

or even fear. If these are

26:30

true, all these trends are pointing

26:32

in the same direction to a

26:34

more empowered, a more unencumbered Trump,

26:36

who will be able to accomplish

26:38

more, or depending on how you

26:40

look at it, get away with

26:42

more. Is that right? Or is

26:45

there something that could complicate that

26:47

story as we move from week

26:49

one and think about, say, year

26:51

one? Well, I think that, you

26:53

know, there are a couple of

26:55

obstacles in Trump's way. I mean,

26:57

he has a very, very, very

26:59

narrow majority in the House, so

27:01

there's not a lot of room

27:03

for error. You know, he has

27:05

surprisingly a bigger margin in the

27:07

Senate, but it's certainly not 60

27:09

votes. And, you know, Lake and

27:11

Riley act notwithstanding, his ability to

27:13

get 60 votes on some of

27:15

the very, very, you know, what

27:17

I would think of as extreme

27:20

things that he's seeking to do

27:22

in terms of tax cuts and

27:24

so on. To me, the big

27:26

question that's looming out there is

27:28

the relationship that the Trump administration

27:30

is going to have to the

27:32

Supreme Court, three of whose members

27:34

he appointed. If he gets rulings

27:36

that he doesn't like, is Trump

27:38

going to defy the court? Is

27:40

he going to respect those rulings?

27:42

You know, these are the bulwarks

27:44

of our system, of the checks

27:46

and balances, and I think so

27:48

much will depend on how they

27:50

perform. But there's, I think, actually,

27:53

surprisingly, a lot of roadblocks in

27:55

the way. is going to be

27:57

more, at least for a while,

27:59

more effectiveness in the things that

28:01

presidents do actually have direct power

28:03

over, or can claim some kind

28:05

of direct power over. Like, you

28:07

know, these executive orders, it's not

28:09

just that there were a lot

28:11

of them. They were obviously written

28:13

by competent lawyers or by, you

28:15

know, by people who actually know

28:17

something about any PA review processes

28:19

and so on, right? All of

28:21

those were not things that you

28:23

would take for granted or expect

28:26

in the first Trump administration. So

28:28

to the extent that the president

28:30

can affect how the culture war

28:32

is fought through the bureaucracy. Trump

28:34

will be more effective than he

28:36

was before. really big constraints. Like

28:38

we're going to get a big

28:40

tax fight, you know, where just

28:42

the different constituencies within the Republican

28:44

Party are just going to be

28:46

at each other's throats. There's, you

28:48

know, the people who want a

28:50

corporate tax cut, the people who

28:52

want a family tax cut, raise

28:54

his hand, you know, the people

28:56

who want these state and local

28:58

tax deduction restored. So, Congress... and

29:01

the courts I think both present

29:03

strong checks on how far Trump

29:05

can take his general empowerment and

29:07

then the other check even internally

29:09

right is going to be this

29:11

the reality that I started with

29:13

at the beginning which is that

29:15

the Trump coalition is now big

29:17

and contains multitudes in a way

29:19

that it did not before and

29:21

conflicts between the tech right and

29:23

the Stephen Miller right or between

29:25

pro-Israel hawks and would-be realists in

29:27

foreign policy, right? It's not going

29:29

to be the dynamic where you

29:31

have, you know, sort of some

29:34

grizzled veteran secretary of state or

29:36

defense trying to stop Trump from

29:38

doing something wild. It's much more

29:40

going to be too... very empowered

29:42

factions are going to be fighting

29:44

it out for getting Trump to

29:46

go along with one or the

29:48

other of their perspectives. So that's

29:50

going to be really important to

29:52

watch. And yeah in terms of

29:54

like Trump's own disregard for norms

29:56

and rules and limits I certainly

29:58

think that issues around the Supreme

30:00

Court are a key place like

30:02

if he goes off the rails

30:04

in some way it's most likely

30:06

to happen in response to an

30:09

adverse Supreme Court ruling. that we

30:11

may be at a sort of

30:13

high watermark, right? I mean, Trump

30:15

got what he wanted, right? He's

30:17

been vindicated. He won. He won

30:19

the popular vote. And there's a

30:21

part of this. What else is

30:23

there for him? You know, like,

30:25

he's in the history books. He's

30:27

got what he wanted. Does he

30:29

sort of leave everything to everyone

30:31

else? No, I mean, I think

30:33

that's the other question. It's like,

30:35

does Trump become a lame duck

30:37

in any kind of normal, in

30:39

any kind of normal, in any

30:42

kind of normal, your lame doc

30:44

people are all obsessed with the

30:46

succession, even if you're popular. It's

30:48

hard to see that exactly happening

30:50

with Trump. I think the thing

30:52

that prevents him from just taking

30:54

victory laps will be that sort

30:56

of will to, you know, holding

30:58

the attention of the world. But

31:00

it's certainly a good question. Trump's

31:02

worst behavior in his first term

31:04

was when he was defeated and

31:06

couldn't bear to be defeated. So

31:08

if you're hoping that he doesn't

31:10

drive us towards a pointless constitutional

31:12

crisis, you might place hope in

31:15

the fact that You know, he's

31:17

a winner and he doesn't need

31:19

to force a crisis to vindicate

31:21

himself in the face of defeat.

31:23

Got so much to react to

31:25

there. I do, in following up

31:27

on Lydia's point, I do think

31:29

Trump has always enjoyed campaigning, running,

31:31

winning, more than governing. I mean,

31:33

that's just, that's his happy place.

31:35

And so I think now, ostensibly,

31:37

there are no more campaigns to

31:39

run. So governing is all that

31:41

is left for burnishing that legacy.

31:43

One of the, and this follows

31:45

up on something Ross said, like

31:47

one of the. of Washington, right,

31:50

is that really you can only

31:52

push, a president can really push

31:54

one big thing through before the

31:56

midterms come and change everything, especially

31:58

for second term presidents, but not

32:00

solely second term presidents. Like Obama

32:02

did the Affordable Care Act, right?

32:04

Trump did tax cuts. Now Trump

32:06

is at least speaking as if

32:08

he has this sort of vast

32:10

far-reaching mandate to affect change across

32:12

a variety of areas, right? But

32:14

if that truism still holds, I

32:16

would imagine that immigration is the

32:18

one key area he feels he

32:20

has to deliver on. It's been

32:23

the overwhelming kind of standard-bearer issue

32:25

of MAGA from the very beginning.

32:27

What the wall was to the

32:29

first term, deportations will be to

32:31

the second. Now maybe the wall

32:33

didn't really happen last time around,

32:35

so who knows what's going to

32:37

happen here? But I think you'll

32:39

make a lot of noise about

32:41

this, and I think it's going

32:43

to be... his focus. I wonder

32:45

if there's a tension, unlike some

32:47

of the issues that Ross raised

32:49

about areas where he has a

32:51

lot more power, the tension between

32:53

the issue that is his signature

32:56

issue and his ability to sort

32:58

of do some of the things

33:00

that he wants to do with

33:02

it, as we talked about with

33:04

birthright citizenship. I would just say.

33:06

a lot depends on actual immigration

33:08

rates. Which are way way down.

33:10

Right, they're way way down right

33:12

now. As they were at the

33:14

start of his first term and

33:16

then they went back up, right?

33:18

But if he builds the wall

33:20

and can say immigration rates went

33:22

down, then I think he... He

33:24

declares victory. He has room to

33:26

declare a victory. Ross, you mentioned

33:28

that the Trump coalition contains multitudes,

33:30

and that those fights... will be

33:32

one of the defining tensions of

33:34

certainly the first year and issues

33:36

like visas and the others. I

33:38

wonder if that's also a sort

33:40

of unique outcome of Trump's presence

33:43

in American political life, because those

33:45

kinds of differences are the things

33:47

that normally get litigated during a

33:49

primary season, right? Especially when you're

33:51

not the incumbent president, right? You

33:53

try to figure out, you know,

33:55

what does the party stand for?

33:57

Since so much of the party

33:59

has become just sub- to Trump,

34:01

period, those issues that normally get

34:03

figured out during a primary season

34:05

are now going to be front

34:07

and center during the presidency. It's

34:09

really, much as the Supreme Court

34:11

is no longer about, you know,

34:13

liberals versus conservatives, but rather the

34:15

divisions among the conservative supermajority to

34:17

see how far they're going to

34:19

go. The biggest fights of this

34:21

period might be less about... left

34:23

versus right, Democrats, Republicans, but the

34:25

fights for the soul of magga.

34:27

It's no longer the soul of

34:29

America as Biden wanted to, to

34:31

depict it. It's really the battle

34:34

for the soul of magga. And

34:36

I think that's what may be

34:38

defining year one and really this

34:40

next Trump term. Yes, I think

34:42

that's right. I think there is

34:44

a kind of monarchical flavor where

34:46

you have a king and then

34:48

you have different people who could

34:50

be appointed as his first minister,

34:52

who have different agendas and they're

34:54

competing for favor. That is real.

34:56

And I think one reason that

34:58

different groups like people in Silicon

35:00

Valley have sort of moved partway

35:02

into the Trump coalition is that

35:04

they see it as a place

35:06

where there's room to compete for

35:08

influence and power. The question that

35:10

hangs over all of this is,

35:12

you know, how does the economy

35:14

do? Right? Because I think if

35:16

the economy booms, it's going to

35:18

be a while before the Democrats

35:20

get fully back on their feet.

35:23

Whatever particular policies, Trump champions. If

35:25

the economy stagnates, stock market goes

35:27

down, inflation returns, then all these

35:29

tensions within the Trump coalition, there's

35:31

plenty of room for Democrats to

35:33

exploit them. But the one thing

35:35

we haven't mentioned in this conversation

35:37

is the one thing that isn't

35:39

really in the executive order so

35:41

far, which are the big, big

35:43

tariffs that Trump promised. And that

35:45

question also will hang over. the

35:47

first year, right? Like what is,

35:49

what president, how is Trump using

35:51

his presidential powers on economic policy

35:53

and how does that interact with

35:55

how the economy is actually doing

35:57

and again what that means for

35:59

partisan policy? politics. Especially since

36:01

tariffs are something in which he

36:03

has very clear executive authority.

36:06

Very clear executive authority. I know

36:08

10% for China, 25% for our

36:10

neighbors, Mexico and Canada is what

36:12

seems to be on the cards

36:14

at the moment. You know, just

36:16

on that last thought about the

36:18

struggle for the soul of magga

36:20

and so on. that happens in

36:22

elections is that it's the people

36:24

who win often interpret the result

36:26

as being a kind of plebiscite

36:28

for their ideas when in fact

36:30

the voters may be intending

36:33

something quite different. Every winner

36:35

wants to once to grab

36:37

a big mandate even if it's

36:39

a very very narrow victory as

36:41

it was in this case, but

36:44

Ultimately, when you have things like,

36:46

you know, for example, you know,

36:48

the price of eggs is up 37%.

36:50

These core issues that people said

36:53

that they voted on are going

36:55

to reemerge and people are going

36:57

to say like, wait, I didn't,

37:00

I didn't vote on, you know,

37:02

anti-woke in this sense. I just

37:04

wanted the country to be

37:06

a little bit more fair.

37:09

I think there's going to be

37:11

push back on. that and people

37:13

are going to feel uncomfortable, that

37:15

absolutely shows up in the polling.

37:17

So I think a lot sort

37:20

of depends on how this all

37:22

rolls out, and that question of

37:24

is it a plebiscite or is it

37:26

just a regular election? We think

37:29

of this as epic making, but

37:31

the people who actually voted

37:33

for Trump, the majority of

37:35

them might actually think that this

37:38

was just a regular election, nothing

37:40

to see here. that happened to

37:42

usher in a golden age. We'll

37:44

see. We'll see. We'll see. Or

37:46

an age of iron. All right,

37:49

let's leave it there in the

37:51

Iron Age. And when we come

37:53

back, we will get hot and

37:56

cold. My

38:00

name is Hannah Dreyer. I'm

38:02

an investigative

38:05

reporter at the New

38:07

York Times. So much

38:09

of my process is

38:11

challenging my own assumptions

38:13

and trying to uncover new

38:15

information that often goes against

38:18

what I thought I would

38:20

find. All of my reporting

38:22

comes from going out, seeing

38:24

something, and realizing, oh, that's

38:26

actually the story. And that

38:28

reporting helps readers challenge their

38:31

own assumptions and come to

38:33

new conclusions for themselves. This

38:35

kind of journalism takes resources.

38:37

It takes a lot of

38:39

time. It takes a lot

38:41

of reporting trips. If you believe

38:43

that that kind of work is important,

38:46

you can support it by subscribing to

38:48

the New York Times. And

38:58

finally, it is time for hot,

39:00

cold. Who's got the temperature for

39:02

us this week? I do, and

39:04

this is a slightly unconventional hot cold

39:06

because I haven't been on the show

39:08

for a while. So I was a

39:10

little rusty. So the thing that I'm

39:13

quite hot on is something that I

39:15

hope to emulate that my wife does,

39:17

which is she has a lot of

39:19

hobbies. I am obsessed with my work

39:21

and don't have a lot of hobbies,

39:23

and so I think the benefit that

39:25

having hobbies has for her, as she's

39:27

expressed it to me, is that she's

39:29

really comfortable with not being good at

39:31

things, and that I really aspire to.

39:33

like a lot of people, I'm a

39:35

bit of a perfectionist, and if I

39:37

can't be absolutely excellent at something, then

39:39

I don't even bother trying. So my

39:41

aspiration, you know, one of my intentions

39:44

for 2025 is to cultivate more hobbies.

39:46

And one of the things that I

39:48

have embraced is choosing things that I

39:50

might not have any natural talent at

39:53

at all, as a way to kind

39:55

of school myself and accepting my mediocrity

39:57

in a bunch of different areas of

39:59

life. So far, I haven't yet

40:02

started any of these hobbies, but

40:04

I'm considering taking piano lessons. Your

40:06

hobby is to collect hobbies, right?

40:08

No, piano lessons is one possibility.

40:10

Oh, wow. Penmanship is another one. I

40:13

think I could really improve my handwriting.

40:15

So I'm very hot on hobbies,

40:17

but I wanted to make a call

40:19

out to the matter of opinion audience

40:22

to ask them for suggestions. What hobbies

40:24

do you think I should consider

40:26

in 2025 in order to improve

40:28

my tolerance for? Wow. So this means

40:30

you have to come back on the

40:33

show expeditiously, right? Do you guys

40:35

have suggestions? If I had the

40:37

time to cultivate such a thing,

40:39

I would go with guitar over

40:41

piano. Oh, interesting. One of

40:43

my daughters is taking guitar

40:45

lessons and I always sort of

40:47

wished that I could like play a

40:50

folk song instead of just singing it

40:52

off key. Yeah. Carlos, you have any

40:54

suggestions? Wow. I suck at so

40:57

many things that this should not be

40:59

hard. You know, I've also always wanted

41:01

to play guitar because I thought

41:03

just being able to play guitar

41:06

would have really enhanced my social

41:08

life in college. I gave my

41:10

love a cherry. But you know

41:13

what? Here's one thing. So I'm

41:15

basically equally fluent in Spanish

41:17

and English, but I never really had

41:20

to learn a language because I just

41:22

grew up with both. I don't remember

41:24

a time when I didn't know them.

41:26

both. And so I feel like I

41:29

should go through the struggle of learning

41:31

a new language. My

41:33

grandfather was a scholar of

41:35

Roman law and I learned a

41:37

little Latin in college, mainly through

41:39

music, and so I feel like

41:42

I should learn Latin or I

41:44

should learn Gichua, which is widely

41:46

spoken in my native country of

41:48

Peru. I think that's what I

41:50

would do. I would probably try

41:52

to pick up a language. I love

41:54

it. I think that's great. I'm terrible at

41:56

languages, but these are great suggestions, guys. I'm

41:58

sure I'll do not. of them. Now we're

42:01

all going to start and we're going to

42:03

start a band. I mean I think the

42:05

lesson here is there needs to be a

42:07

podcast band. And the lyrics will not be

42:09

in English. Yeah there'll be in something else.

42:11

With Lydia on keyboard, me playing guitar and

42:14

Carlos singing in Gichra. Gichra. I

42:16

think Michelle obviously will do percussion. Lydia

42:18

you know you just you say it's

42:20

been a while since you've been on

42:22

the show but it was you're just

42:24

such a natural it's like riding a

42:26

riding a bike. being on move so

42:29

please another good hobby join us again

42:31

soon would love to it was so

42:33

great to be here with you guys

42:35

see you Lydia see you

42:37

guys bye thank you so

42:39

much for joining our conversation

42:41

give matter opinion a follow

42:44

on your favorite podcast out and

42:46

leave us a nice review while

42:48

you're there as you let other

42:51

folks know why they should listen

42:53

Do you have a question for

42:55

us based on something we

42:57

discussed today? We want to hear

43:00

it. Share it with us in

43:02

a voicemail by calling 212, 556,

43:04

7440, and we just might respond

43:06

in an upcoming episode. Also, you

43:09

can email us at Matter of

43:11

Opinion at nytimes.com. Matter of

43:13

Opinion is produced by

43:16

Andrea Betanzos and Sophia

43:18

Alvarez Boyd. It's edited by

43:20

Giordana Hogman. Our Ace Fact

43:22

Check team is Kate Sinclair,

43:25

Mary Marge Lager, and Michelle

43:27

Harris. Original music by Isaac

43:29

Jones, Atheme Shapiro, Carol Saburo,

43:32

Sonia Herrera, and Pat McCusker.

43:34

Mixing by Pat McCusker and

43:37

Carol Saburo. Audience strategy

43:39

by Shannon Busta and

43:41

Christina Samueluski. Our executive

43:44

producer is Annie Rose Strasser.

44:07

You