In short
Michelle Cottle, David French, and Jamel Bowie discuss Trump’s proposed $1.8B “slush fund” to compensate people claiming “political persecution,” including potentially January 6 rioters.
Guests
Michelle Cottle is a political writer for Times Opinion; David French is a columnist; Jamel Bowie is a columnist.
Key claims
the fund is described as illegal and likely unconstitutional; it would pay non-parties to a case without judicial oversight; it stems from Trump suing the IRS he controlled, with DOJ also under his control, then dropping the case and entering a unilateral settlement. They argue it grants Trump and his family broad civil “release of liability,” effectively extending immunity beyond criminal pardons.
Notable examples
Enrique Terrio (former Proud Boys leader) seeking $2–$5M; “MAGA Mike” (Jan 6 assault) potentially claiming compensation; lawsuits by two Capitol police officers trying to stop the fund. They also connect the issue to Trump’s control of GOP primaries and “vengeance” politics.
Written by AI. May contain mistakes. Listen to the episode to check what was said.
Chapters
Tap a time to open that second in VOConcerns Over Trump's Slush Fund
1:10 to 3:00
The hosts discuss the implications and concerns surrounding Trump's political slush fund.
“fund that will essentially compensate people who say they were victims of political persecution.”
Monarchical Actions and Legal Implications
3:00 to 6:10
Discussion on Trump's actions as potentially monarchical and their legal ramifications.
“It's genuinely, it is genuinely one of the most insane things I have ever seen and this is, you know, we're 10 years into Trump, right?”
Funding and Oversight of the Slush Fund
6:10 to 8:40
Exploration of how the slush fund will be managed and potential abuses.
“all the parties to this lawsuit, this sort of in perpetuity or this kind of version of a civil pardon.”
Legal Challenges and Standing in Court
8:40 to 11:10
The hosts analyze potential legal paths to challenge the slush fund.
“By the way, as you guys are talking, I'm remembering another big legal thing I forgot in that whole litany.”
Political Ramifications and Public Reaction
11:10 to 14:01
Discussion on the political implications of the slush fund and public sentiment.
“I think as far as on the merits, there is absolutely a legal path.”
Presidential Corruption and Public Discontent
14:01 to 14:59
Discussion on the president's financial motivations and public perception of corruption.
“And also, I'm only going to lift a finger to give money to people who helped me do something that most Americans agree was at the very least a crime and was wrong.”
Legal Implications of Funding Insurrectionists
15:00 to 16:52
Analyzing the legality of funding insurrectionists based on constitutional grounds.
“So, but if I were, you know, if I were a lawmaker, I would say something like, listen, even if a court doesn't overturn this, this is clearly illegal.”
Republicans in a Political Box
16:53 to 18:44
Exploring the challenging position of Republicans in the face of Trump's dominance.
“If they don't defy Trump, they are tying themselves to, as Jamel just outlined, they're lashing themselves to the mast of a sinking ship.”
Trump's Revenge Campaign and GOP Dynamics
18:45 to 20:23
Examining Trump's revenge campaign against defiant Republicans and its implications.
“He's already teed up some more victims that he'd like to target.”
Impact of Gerrymandering and Electoral Outcomes
20:24 to 22:12
Discussion on how gerrymandering and Trump's actions affect electoral dynamics.
“It's just sort of a Republican party that showed 30 percent more fight and a willingness to defend its own prerogatives and to defend its ostensible ideals would render Trump inert as a political force.”
Show all 19 chapters
Hubris in Political Strategy
22:13 to 24:07
Analyzing the hubris in Republican strategies and the risk of political consequences.
“if the generic ballot is showing like 12, 13, 14, 15 points in October, there's like there's nothing you can do.”
Perception of Political Opponents
24:08 to 25:58
Exploring the mindset of viewing political opponents as non-playable characters.
“But he also made some pragmatic points, which are when you do these gerrymanders, and we've said this before, you lower your margin for error.”
Trump's Lack of Focus on Voter Issues
25:59 to 28:00
Discussion on Trump's apparent disinterest in addressing voter concerns.
“Like a really pervasive actual belief that the only people who are real, the only political world that is real is MAGA and everything else is fake or an op or something.”
Trump's Disconnection from Voter Concerns
28:00 to 30:06
The discussion explores Trump's apparent lack of motivation to address key voter issues.
“But as best I can see, Trump doesn't even really seem motivated to focus on things that could turn it around.”
Predicted Political Strategies for Trump
30:06 to 32:08
Analyzing expectations of Trump's political strategies as discontent grows among voters.
“And I said at the time, there's no evidence he's capable of doing that.”
Republican Campaign Tactics Explained
32:08 to 34:21
Discussion on how Republicans will likely campaign against Democrats using divisive tactics.
“But I think Tallarico has a far better chance against Paxton than he had against Cornyn.”
Anticipating Voter Turnout Dynamics
34:21 to 35:09
The hosts predict changes in voter turnout dynamics for upcoming elections.
“And also when you're dealing with a different electorate.”
Recommendations Segment: Movie Insights
35:09 to 36:22
Hosts share personal movie recommendations with a mix of humor and critique.
“I watched recently for the first time, uh, Warren Beatty's 1998 film, uh, Bullworth.”
Recommendations Segment: TV Shows to Watch
36:22 to 39:41
Discussion of various TV shows with unique premises that entertain and provoke thought.
“obviously extremely handsome and quite smart and savvy, but he often plays these characters who I could best describe as himbos who become self-aware and then lose their minds.”
Transcript
Automatic transcript. May contain errors.0:00Jamelle Bouie:This podcast is supported by WTTW. As Chicago's source for local independent reporting, WTTW News brings you essential coverage. Subscribe to the Daily Chicagoan e-newsletter for the news of the day directly to your inbox Monday through Saturday. And on Fridays, explore the natural wonders around us in Urban Nature, WTTW's newest e-newsletter. And watch WTTW's trusted nightly news program, Chicago Tonight at 5.30 and 10 p.m.
0:25Michelle Cottle:and stream at WTTW.com slash news. WTTW News. Cutting through the noise so you can see Chicago clearly.
0:33Jamelle Bouie:I mean, we should all just, we should all apply. We say that we were at Jan 6th. We were there. We were in the crowd. And we feel victimized. We feel victimized by sleepy Joe Biden.
0:49David French:I'm Michelle Cottle. I'm a political writer for Times Opinion. And I am here this week with my fabulous colleagues, columnists David French and Jamel Bowie. Guys, it's been a minute since the three of us were together. How goes it?
1:02Michelle Cottle:It's great to get the gang back together again. I'm glad to see Jamel. Yeah, looking forward to the conversation and glad to be back.
1:08David French:Gotten the band back together. And today we're going to talk about Trump's$1.8 billion slush fund that will essentially compensate people who say they were victims of political persecution. This could, for example, result in some pretty big payouts to the January 6th rioters funded by U.S. taxpayers. Then we're going to unpack some of the recent primaries. So, as always, lots to cover. Let's get to it. Jamel and David, I know we have talked many, many, many times about Trump's corruption and his chipping away at democratic institutions and norms. Before we get into the specifics, what are you most concerned about with this political slush fund?
2:00David French:With the usual caveat that we are taping this on a Thursday morning. And I realize there's lots to choose from.
2:06Jamelle Bouie:I mean, yeah, it's like what isn't there to be concerned about? It's an illegal, probably also unconstitutional, slush fund meant to pay off the rioters that the president pardoned at the beginning of his term. You got guys like Enrique Terrio, former head of the Proud Boys, saying that he's going to ask for two to five million dollars for this fund. And this is ostensibly for victims of the weaponization of government. And what does weaponization of government mean in this context? It means people being arrested, charged, prosecuted, and convicted by a jury of their peers in fair trials. Like this isn't this.
2:52Jamelle Bouie:What weaponization? It's nonsense. And so it's paying off. It's paying off people who were fairly convicted of trying to overturn a presidential election from money stolen from the American taxpayers for all intents and purposes. and it's crazy. It's genuinely, it is genuinely one of the most insane things I have ever seen and this is, you know, we're 10 years into Trump, right? So I see it a lot and this really takes the cake.
3:31David French:David?
3:34Michelle Cottle:If anything, Jamel just undersold this. Like, if he's erred in any way, he has undersold this. And here's what I mean about it. I think it might be the most purely monarchical thing that he's done yet in an already monarchical presidency. And the reason why I say that— Now, I fully recognize that this is also a man who unilaterally launched a war on a foreign country. he's been able to look back at sort of past presidential misbehavior in that arena to kind of justify this. And he tries to do that here by looking back at prior presidents who, when friendly groups had filed litigation, had entered into favorable settlements with friendly groups.
4:27Michelle Cottle:Now, this is something, a practice called sue and settle. And a lot of those settlements I didn't like. They were too favorable, for example. But that is not this. Let's break down what this is. So what this is, is Donald Trump suing his own IRS, the IRS that he controls, for alleged misconduct that was committed when dot, dot, dot, he controlled the IRS in his first term. So he's suing an agency he controls for alleged misconduct that occurred under his watch. Then the defending agency is supposed to be the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice is also under his control. So here you have, he's filing a lawsuit against an entity he controls.
5:12Michelle Cottle:This is absurd. And so when a federal government, when a federal judge looks at this and goes, wait a minute, is this even an adversarial process? Is this a real case and controversy. I mean, this is one side suing itself. And so then what happens is the Trump administration, seeing the looming legal disaster, drops the case, or Trump drops the case. Then his own administration enters into a unilateral agreement with him that doesn't just create a slush fund for non-parties to the case. In other words, people who weren't even parties to this at all. There's no judicial oversight. The slush fund is going to be conducted entirely according to his own, at his own discretion, according to his own procedures with the people that he selects.
6:03Michelle Cottle:And then to top it all off, this same agreement grants him, his family, all the parties to this lawsuit, this sort of in perpetuity or this kind of version of a civil pardon. In other words, it has a release of liability against Trump and his family that is extraordinarily broad. And why is this so important? Because Trump has the power to pardon, but the power to pardon only applies to crimes. It doesn't apply to civil lawsuits. So if he violated the law as president, he would be subject to civil litigation, even if he pardoned himself. Now he and parts of his family are immune from civil lawsuit brought on matters arguably unrelated to this very case.
6:59Michelle Cottle:And I know it's a lot less consequential than a war in Iran. But as far as a matter of assuming power, just grabbing power and using it just entirely to settle scores, to pay off friends and allies. I mean, this one absolutely takes the cake. And this is an administration so corrupt that as I was talking in an interview this week, I said the Gilded Age guys are angry right now that they were born in the wrong century. Because if they really wanted some grift and graft, now is the time in this administration. And this stands out even in that milieu.
7:39David French:you okay so just other than that it's fine other than that totally fine oh yeah other than that mrs lincoln how did you like that so there's a slush fund for his allies overseen this is going to be overseen by his friends they're already jockeying uh over who's going to be on the panel that oversees this and blanket immunity for his family and it's all going to be funded by us right Right.
8:09Jamelle Bouie:One of the things to mention, though, if you if you are part of the group overseeing the slush fund, you can use the slush fund to reimburse yourself for all your expenses. So if you want to, for example, take like a nice per diem, get like a fancy hotel while you're doing the business of the slush fund under the terms of the agreement, you can use the money to pay yourself a nice little fee.
8:31David French:So what if I apply? Are they going to let me? Am I going to let me distribute the stuff. It's my money. I feel I should be involved here.
8:38Jamelle Bouie:I mean, we should all just, we should all apply. We say that we were at Jan 6th. We were there. We were in the crowd. And we feel victimized. We feel victimized by sleepy Joe Biden.
8:50Michelle Cottle:By the way, as you guys are talking, I'm remembering another big legal thing I forgot in that whole litany.
8:56David French:Oh, throw it in. I don't want to leave anything out here.
8:59Michelle Cottle:Just real quick, I can't believe I didn't have it in the initial screed. David. I'm so sorry. Incomplete screeds are a podcasting sin. Thank you. Without question. But if I'm a normal human being, let's suppose there is Magamike and Blue Bob. Okay. So if I'm MAGA Mike now, I could have taken my flagpole and used it to beat a police officer, have spent time in prison for assault. Now I'm pardoned. And now even though I physically attacked a police officer, I could file some sort of weaponization claim, maybe claiming I was poorly treated in prison or something happened in the trial that deprived me of due process.
9:45Michelle Cottle:You know, just use whatever hook. And MAGA Mike, who beat a police officer with a flagpole, could get half a million dollars, million dollars, who knows? Then you have Blue Bob. Blue Bob is protesting ICE in Minneapolis. And let's say an ICE officer smacks him in the face or tasers him or pepper sprays him for no reason.
10:06David French:Or shoots him in the face. Sorry.
10:07Michelle Cottle:Or shoots him. Well, is Bob going to be able to apply to that slush fund? Well, I mean, he can apply, but good luck. But then let's say Bob then tries to get compensation through a normal legal channel for getting compensation from a federal officer who's violated your civil rights. Well, good freaking luck, because there is this just massive web of immunities that really wall off federal officials from accountability far more than state and local officials. But if you're MAGA Mike and you beat somebody with a flagpole on January 6th, there's a chance that money could be flowing into you. So every direction you turn on this, it's terrible.
10:50Michelle Cottle:And that's without justifying one iota of the sue and settle practice I talked about earlier.
10:55David French:So I know that there are two police officers who were at the Capitol on Jan 6 who've already sued to try and stop the fund. Is there a legal path, do you think, forward to stop it?
11:09Michelle Cottle:That's a very good question. I think as far as on the merits, there is absolutely a legal path. Just grabbing$1.776 billion from general sort of funds that were appropriated for legal settlements and use them in cases that aren't real cases. There's a lot going on here legally, but everybody who files a lawsuit has to have standing. They have to show that they themselves have been hurt by this action. And as a general taxpayer, I can't say, well, that's$1.776 billion I'm never getting back or whatever, that my portion of that one point. Yeah, that doesn't count as standing. That doesn't count as standing.
11:48Michelle Cottle:And so the question really is going to be who has standing and when is a case ripe? In other words, when is there actually something to sue? When are there actually procedures to attack? And so that is a much more complicated question, especially since the Supreme Court has been, if anything, kind of rolling back, paring back, standing a little bit. So it's going to be very interesting to see who ultimately has standing to challenge that. But it's hard for me to see how this fits within any legal structure contemplated by federal law.
12:25David French:Jamal, do you see a so shifting to the political? Do you see a political path forward? Could this be an issue that folds into the Democrats railing against corruption? Could it be effective as a campaign issue? What where do you see this going with politics?
12:44Jamelle Bouie:As we were speaking, I saw a poll from the American Research Group, middle of the road pollster, you know, not not we're not looking anything crazy. Trump approval disapprove 65 percent, approve 31 percent. I mentioned that because it seems to me that this weaponization fund, this the slush fund, these reparations for Jan Sixters, quick parenthetical. you know for a long time people have been like reparations for slavery reparations for jim crow that's crazy that's insane who would who how could you ever do that and meanwhile with the stroke of a pen we now have reparations for rioters it's very exciting um a protected group a protected group uh subject to systematic discrimination uh so we got this reparations fund and i have to imagine that this is wildly unpopular with the public for a couple reasons The first is that just by proximity to Trump, Trump is so unpopular that this becomes kind of unpopular by extension.
13:46Jamelle Bouie:But the other thing is it's such a striking example of the president's fundamental indifference to the economic prospects of ordinary Americans. It's Trump saying, I don't care about that.
13:58David French:When you're negotiating with Iran, Mr. President, to what extent are American financial situations motivating you to make a deal?
14:06Jamelle Bouie:Not even a little bit. And also, I'm only going to lift a finger to give money to people who helped me do something that most Americans agree was at the very least a crime and was wrong. This is such a potent symbol of the president's corruption and disregard for the economic well-being of ordinary people. And just sort of too clever by half trolling. Ha, ha, ha. It's$1.776 billion. That's not clever. That's just rubbing it in people's faces. And I just have to imagine that this isn't going to cause like the president's approval to collapse, but it's going to add once again in a very potent way to the just distaste that the broad public has for the president.
14:54Jamelle Bouie:And, you know, Democrats are already kind of like, you know, really, really running with this. And I think they should. I think it's the right thing to do. So, but if I were, you know, if I were a lawmaker, I would say something like, listen, even if a court doesn't overturn this, this is clearly illegal. This is, we didn't appropriate this money for this purpose. And if you, if you notice, you know, section three of the 14th amendment suggests, or is it section four? One of those, suggests that we can't be paying out money to insurrectionists. And these are people who were convicted of insurrection.
15:32Jamelle Bouie:And so as far as I'm concerned, anyone who takes a penny from this fund is liable for congressional investigation. And we will refer, we'll find some way to do a criminal referral. But we're going to treat this as if you are engaged in a crime if you take a penny from this fund. Just put that out there. Just say sort of like, it's tainted money. You touch it. We're going to go after you.
15:55David French:David? Anything?
15:57Jamelle Bouie:You know, I'm just going to tell me.
15:59Michelle Cottle:That would be against the law. Yeah, it's probably not criminal to take that money.
16:05David French:The law is all flexible. It's all flexible these days. What is the law, really?
Read the full transcript
16:10Michelle Cottle:Probably not criminal to take the money. But I will say, you know, it's interesting. We're seeing this combination of factors happening right now. Trump is doing this at the same time that he has flexed an enormous amount of control over the GOP at the grassroots level. with defeating five Indiana senators who defied him on redistricting, getting rid of, you know, Congressman Massey, getting rid of Senator Cassidy. And there are two things that are happening as he does this. One of them is that he is showing everybody that, and he's putting these Republicans even more in a box than they were. They're in a terrible position for which I have no sympathy.
16:52Michelle Cottle:And the terrible position is, if they defy Trump, they are in all likelihood going to lose their job in a primary, if not now, maybe the next cycle. If they don't defy Trump, they are tying themselves to, as Jamel just outlined, they're lashing themselves to the mast of a sinking ship. So it's either you go down with the ship or you go down at the hands of primary voters. Those are your sort of two options. And why I said I have no sympathy is they could have put a stop to all this, as we know, after January 6th, which any healthy, functioning political party would have put a stop to this after January 6th.
17:30Michelle Cottle:But they chose not to. They made their bed. But you know what? They also made our bed as well. And we're all in it. We're all in this together now. but one of the things that's happening as he's targeted Cassidy, he has made a lot of Republican senators angry. Now, what are they going to do about it? Are they going to see then the green room and then continue to do everything that he asks in voting? Or is it some point, are we going to see one or two more people peel away? I can tell you it was already peeled away as Cassidy voted for the War Powers Resolution. I mean, Cassidy is unchained at this point.
18:07But this is
18:08Michelle Cottle:this is the box that Republicans are in, and the larger American public, independents and, of course, Democrats, are running away from them as fast as they can. And MAGA never had enough all on its own to make Trump president. And they are now alienating everyone who isn't MAGA, slowly but steadily. You can see the line moving. But it has been uninterrupted downward line since he was sworn in. And this is not going to change that trajectory.
18:37David French:And it's not done. I mean, we've seen a lot of news in the last couple of days how Trump, you know, cleared the boards with his revenge campaign. And it's not done. He's already teed up some more victims that he'd like to target. He's mad at, I think it's Brian Fitzpatrick in Pennsylvania, who has not been all that keen on some of his projects like the ballroom or whatever. And then basically the same day that Massey went down, I think Trump was endorsing Ken Paxton in the Texas Senate. And this is one of our favorite races, David. And that has absolutely gobsmacked Republican senators who have always viewed Ken Paxton, who has such a long list of scandals attached to his name and is a very flawed candidate.
19:29David French:They've always viewed him as the weaker opponent for James Tallarico, the Democrat who is trying for this seat. And now they're just like, what is the president doing? But I have to say, I'm right with you on this. It's just like, this is too little, too late, Guys, this is what happens when you allow your party to be hijacked by a guy who wants to be king. Jamel, have you thought what have you what are your thoughts on the primaries that we've been watching?
19:59Jamelle Bouie:No, I mean, I think I think the Trump's main concern in all of these things is not so much the viability of the Republican Party in November, but just sort of can he punish people he dislikes? And should they hold on, can he have people there who will be even more sycophantic and willing to defend him and shield him and make Congress as, you know, bootlicking and supine as possible? That's his only real interest because, frankly, Trump's autocratic aspirations are not possible without a totally acquiescent Republican Party. It's just sort of a Republican party that showed 30 percent more fight and a willingness to defend its own prerogatives and to defend its ostensible ideals would render Trump inert as a political force.
20:47Jamelle Bouie:Massey has just been outright defying the president in numerous places. And Trump can't let that stand because if Massey were to if he had won his primary, it would just send a signal to other maybe wavering Republicans. You can do this and hold on. The president's grip on the Republican base isn't that strong. But as far as winning elections, you know, I think a lot is already baked in. And if you were a Republican concerned about holding on to the House and Senate, the time to act was back in January. It was back in February. Now, it's too late, and we're likely in for a hot, expensive summer that people are going to leave very irate into a fall where the price of goods will continue to be high, where we might be entering an actual economic slowdown.
21:46Jamelle Bouie:And under those conditions, there's really not that much you can do to save a House majority. Even the recent gerrymandering, the Supreme Court decisions, all those things I think are quite bad. But they help you hold the House in a neutral national environment where all things are equal. They do not help you hold the House when the president's approval rating is reaching the bottom for a post-World War II president. And when the generic ballot is showing, our recent near-time Siena poll had Democrats up 11. This is in May. if the generic ballot is showing like 12, 13, 14, 15 points in October, there's like there's nothing you can do.
22:24David French:And it has been so notable. You know, Trump has been out there bragging literally like we've won all our races this month. He's talking about races against his own party, against his own incumbents in which his vengeance monkeys have spent literally tens of millions of dollars in races that were going to be red. And we're going to be with conservative candidates. These are not rhino squishes he was launching this against. So he's doing this victory dance, rubbing everybody's face in this. It cannot be good for the party just strategically.
23:02Michelle Cottle:Oh, Michelle, can I coin the term vengeance monkeys with proper attribution? Oh, you may have my term.
23:09David French:Yes, you may have my term. Okay, okay.
23:10Michelle Cottle:Go for it. That's tremendous. Very vivid. But yeah, Jamel has called these gerrymanders potentially dummymanders, which is a phrase that I really like. And what Trump has done is he sort of cemented the momentum of these dummymanders, which when Shane Massey, the senator from South Carolina, I wrote about him over the weekend, got up and refused to go along with the gerrymander that would have eliminated Jim Clyburn's seat in South Carolina. And the hope was to turn South Carolina to have, which is about a 65, 35, 60, 40 red state, turn it into seven Republican members of Congress and zero Democrats.
23:54Michelle Cottle:And he stood up to oppose that. You know, he made two arguments. One was very principled, which is the one I focused on, which is we don't jump. We don't say how high when a president of the United States tells us to jump. There's a separation of powers here. But he also made some pragmatic points, which are when you do these gerrymanders, and we've said this before, you lower your margin for error. And in my home state of Tennessee, they gerrymandered Memphis, just lickety split after the Calais decision. And now there is, Memphis has been divided up. But if you look at the margins, these margins, they really decreased.
24:31Michelle Cottle:So it is not beyond the realm of possibility that you could have instead of the eight one, you could have three, six, or two, seven because of this. And so again and again, what you're seeing, the common theme here is just a monumental amount of hubris that we can do whatever we want to whomever we want, for whomever we want, and we will not pay a price. And they can be forgiven for thinking that because the January 6th president won an election, which has led them to believe that they can do anything. And now, you know, it's like mask totally off. He's not even pretending to be in the sanitation business anymore.
25:13Michelle Cottle:He's just like, yep, I'm a mob boss. That's what I do.
25:16Jamelle Bouie:I want to go to that point about just that they can't imagine political consequences. I really think this is downstream of something that really has taken off, took off on the online right and kind of like part of online reactionary conversation, which is referring to people as NPCs, non-playable characters. Like, I think there's this pervasive sense that your political, and I've written about this before, that your political opponents aren't real. That, you know, that the protests in 2020 were the product of Soros or whatever, or that whatever, the elections you lose are because of fraud and mass illegal voting, or your political opponents are, they don't really believe anything.
25:58Jamelle Bouie:They're just being funded by nefarious forces. Like a really pervasive actual belief that the only people who are real, the only political world that is real is MAGA and everything else is fake or an op or something. And I do think that there's a basic, you know, lack of psychological understanding of the existence of other people. Some Olympic-grade solipsism is what you're telling us. Right, right. Olympic-grade solipsism is exactly right. And just from a purely kind of strategic perspective, that's how you lose wars, right? Notably, that's why we're losing this war. But that refusal to see the people on the other side as people making decisions and people who have an agency and can take actions leaves you profoundly ill-equipped for when they exercise that agency.
26:51Jamelle Bouie:And you see this again and again with this administration. You saw it with Minnesota. You saw it with the reaction to the National Guard deployment. Like I said, you're seeing, you saw it with the Iran war, which they did not imagine that the Iranian regime were like actual actors who could make choices. And I think that the, you know, there's a pretty good chance they're going to see it in November when after insulating themselves for two years from any kind of public response, they're going to be shocked when there is quite a strong public response against the behavior of the administration.
27:30Jamelle Bouie:And it's going to lead, I mean, we all know it's going to lead to accusations of fraud, to claim to the election for rape, that they should be disregarded, all this stuff. They're going to claim again and again that this is all fake and should be should be ignored.
27:45David French:OK, so what we've been seeing in the primaries is actually a highly energized, mobilized Democratic primary electorate, including in states like Texas. It has the Republican Party freaked out and a lot of questions about, well, what can Trump do to turn it around? But as best I can see, Trump doesn't even really seem motivated to focus on things that could turn it around. I mean, he's doing his ballroom and his arch and the reflecting pool and his war, and maybe he's going to invade Cuba. and he's making statements about how he doesn't care about Americans' affordability crisis. What am I missing?
28:31David French:What do you guys see that he is aggressively investing in that suggests he gives two figs about turning this around? Besides rigging the game, of course, but that's different. Rigging the game is how he likes to play. But in terms of actually accomplishing or telegraphing that he's focusing on something that voters actually care deeply about.
28:56Jamelle Bouie:I don't think there's any evidence that that even crosses his mind. I mean, I do think that it's two things. First, it's sort of he himself lives in a world defined by the power of positive thinking. Right. So as long as he is like everything's going to work out, he genuinely believes everything's going to work out for him. The other thing is that he has organized his White House in a way that he does not receive contradictory information. He does not receive anything but the rosiest possible picture. He is like, well, I'm 100 percent with MAGA, right? He has no sense. First, like he does not.
29:31Jamelle Bouie:It's like my parents.
29:32David French:I'm 100 percent with my parents. They love me, right?
29:35Jamelle Bouie:He doesn't understand himself first as like president of the entire country. So like broad approval ratings just don't matter to him. And second, you couldn't, if you're in the White House, you can't, if you're Susie Wiles, you can't tell him that anyway because he doesn't want to hear it. It's bad. It's bad information. It doesn't sound good. So he hand waves it away. This is his thing. Whenever anything is negative, he's like, well, it doesn't really exist. And so that just means that there's nothing that's going to turn this around. Back last November after the elections in Virginia and New Jersey, I made the point somewhere that for things to turn around for Trump, you have to imagine him being capable of taking actions that can respond to public discontent.
30:26And I said at the time, there's no evidence he's capable of doing that.
30:30Jamelle Bouie:And it's still true. There is no evidence whatsoever that he is capable of taking actions that respond to discontent. So I think that what we should expect over the course of the summer is he's going to continue to, you know, dither and dather and double down on his mistakes in Iran. He is going to maybe try to look for some shortcut to deal with rising fuel prices. I won't be surprised if they try to repeal the gas tax, which incidentally would be great for the president's fossil fuel donors. They can make some more money. But there's not going to be any meaningful effort out of Congress or the White House to deal with what I think will be quite rapidly rising prices over the summer.
31:16Jamelle Bouie:And we're going to enter the fall. And I really think it's going to be, you know, a speed run of George W. Bush's second term. You know, we're going to we're going to be in the in the fall of 2008. with this president pretty soon.
31:29Michelle Cottle:The playbook here is not, I do not believe the playbook here is provide voters with things they like. The playbook is going to be to try to rerun all of the previous playbooks in recent history against the Democrats, trying to freeze the party in amber around 2019, 2020, run again against wokeism, et cetera. You're seeing this with Tallarico, for example. Tallarico now is a real contender. I'm still of the belief that Texas is sort of the final boss of the Democratic Party's quest, that it's very hard to get over the hump in Texas for Democrats, even with this matchup. But I think Tallarico has a far better chance against Paxton than he had against Cornyn.
32:18Michelle Cottle:But the playbook is going to be—
32:19David French:Wait, wait, wait. No, this is your opening. You have to do your standard Paxton synopsis. Why does he have— The best chance. I just, every time, David, I need it. I need to hear it.
32:30Michelle Cottle:Michelle, the multiple times adulterer, corrupt, impeached by his own party, attorney general of the state of Texas, who is an election denier and who is actually one of the most loathed political figures in America by his peers. It is very difficult to find anyone who would say, yeah, Ken Paxton, great guy, just awesome guy. But, you know, the instant and the impeachment when he was about, he was headed for impeachment and conviction in Texas. And then his rescue became a cause of MAGA. And ever since then, he has become a MAGA darling. And I don't think in spite of all the scandal, I think because of all the scandal in part.
33:13Michelle Cottle:I think the more transgressive he is, the more parts of MAGA really like him. And so the playbook is not going to be Ken Paxton, great guy. The playbook is going to be James Tallarico, woke, woke, woke, vegan, woke, vegan, woke, woke, woke. And that's going to be the playbook across the length and breadth of the country. And what's interesting is when you talk to some Republicans, MAGA Republicans, they feel, you can feel that they seem, they still seem very confident that when they unleash sort of the woke barrage on the American people, that they're going to win. and that there's this conviction that they have that as much as the American people may hate Donald Trump or may be discontent with Donald Trump, they dislike the Democratic Party more.
34:00Michelle Cottle:And so look for this campaign to be not, look what we did for you to make your life better, but look at it to be, do you want those awful woke, woke, woke Democrats, have I mentioned woke before woke Democrats in office? And that's gonna be the way the campaign is gonna be run.
34:20David French:OK, and I like to think that that doesn't work as well when people are actually dealing with the economic incompetence of this administration. But that's just me. And also when you're dealing with a different electorate.
34:33Jamelle Bouie:I mean, I think it's like when Trump is in the ballot, a lot of low propensity voters come out, come out in hopes that voting for Trump is going to make them more prosperous. But if two years later that hasn't happened and in fact the opposite has happened. and then you have a bunch of very angry college-educated voters who are leaning Democratic coming out, I think it's sort of, yeah, you can run a woke, woke, woke campaign. I think what's likely to happen is it's going to be a general collapse in Republican turnout and a surge in Democratic turnout. And that doesn't get you anyplace good if you're a Republican.
35:09David French:Okay, we're going to land that there. And it's time. Recommendations. Jamel, we've missed yours. Hit us.
35:17Jamelle Bouie:Uh, sure. I watched recently for the first time, uh, Warren Beatty's 1998 film, uh, Bullworth. And how do I say this? It's insane that it got made. Um, it's a Hollywood production and Warren Beatty, obviously a huge star. And it is simultaneously extremely cringeworthy and also sort of daring and brave in ways. And did I say insane already? Kind of an insane movie. And I don't know quite what I think of it, but I do think it's worth watching both as an artifact of American politics in the late 90s, but there's something actually quite prescient about the sorts of concerns that are going to animate politics 20 years later.
36:12Jamelle Bouie:And as I think a showcase of Beatty in particular, who I think is one of the most fascinating stars of his generation. He is obviously extremely handsome and quite smart and savvy, but he often plays these characters who I could best describe as himbos who become self-aware and then lose their minds. And I just, it's, it's, that's, that's the character in Bullworth, a kind of vacant guy.
36:44David French:That should go into his obituary whenever that, you know, I'm just saying.
36:48Jamelle Bouie:Who, a kind of vacant guy becomes self-aware of his own vacancy and then loses his mind. And And yeah, so watch Bullworth. Very strange movie. Glad I saw it. Don't know what I think about it.
37:04Michelle Cottle:Okay, David? Man, it's always hard to follow Jamel's because mine are just so basic. But here is your basic, enjoyable streaming recommendation of the week. Do you remember the show Jury Duty? That was, you know, you had a guy who was a normal guy. But I do remember. Oh, oh my gosh. Okay, well, I have a double recommendation, Jury Duty from a couple of years ago. And then the next one, which is Jury Duty Presents Company Retreat. And here's the premise of both of them. Is you take one person who's a normal person. They think they're part of a documentary. This is a documentary about a small business making a transition from father to son.
37:48Michelle Cottle:And you bring in a normal guy and everyone around him is an actor who's literally insane. in just crazy, funny ways. I'm sensing an insanity theme this week. They're always riding this line between absurdity that's realistic enough to be funny, but absurdity that's so unrealistic that the guy kind of wakes up to it and realizes he's in something. They've both times selected just like good guys, like just good, solid people who are sort of like the island and the storm around them. And so it's both laugh out loud hilarious, but then sort of oddly heartwarming that there are folks out there who just are good folks trying to do their jobs with integrity as kind of the world crumbles around them.
38:35Michelle Cottle:So it sort of feels like a metaphor for like, I don't know, America, but it's fun. It's fun.
38:41David French:Okay. I am going to go with Netflix's How to Get to Heaven from Belfast. I know you think that I have some kind of some Irish obsession, David. You may be right, but...
38:54Michelle Cottle:I'm listening. You've never led me wrong.
38:56David French:This one is a comedy slash mystery about three millennial women who were childhood friends who get this message to return back to their tiny hometown because their fourth girlfriend has mysteriously died. So you start from there and it is a... It spirals. there's conspiracies there's twists there's turns it is simultaneously exciting and kind of creepy but also just drop dead hilarious um it's i don't know if any of you watch dairy girls but this is the same folks and it is it is absolutely brilliant i highly recommend so go forth and with that i think we're going to end it let's land that plane as always guys thank you we've solved the world's problems.
39:47David French:I will now be going to prepare my application from the slush fund, and I'll let you know how that goes.
39:55Michelle Cottle:Good luck, Michelle.
39:58David French:Jamel, say goodbye.
40:00Jamelle Bouie:Oh, yeah, I should say goodbye.
40:05Jamelle Bouie:Good luck collecting your reparations, Michelle.
40:09David French:I choose to reject your patronizing tone.
40:17Thank you.
From the publisher
President Trump’s proposed political slush fund is getting pushback — including from his own party. This week on “The Opinions,” the national politics writer Michelle Cottle and the columnists Jamelle Bouie and David French discuss how the president’s “reparations for rioters” settlement fund may be his biggest miscalculation yet ahead of the November midterms.
Thoughts? Email us at theopinions@nytimes.com.
This episode of “The Opinions” was produced by Derek Arthur. It was edited by Kaari Pitkin. Mixing by Pat McCusker. Video editing by Julian Hackney. The postproduction manager is Mike Puretz. Original music by Pat McCusker. Fact-checking by Julie Beer and Kate Sinclair. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. The director of Opinion Video is Jonah M. Kessel. The deputy director of Opinion Shows is Alison Bruzek. The director of Opinion Shows is Annie-Rose Strasser.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
