Tuesday Morning Politics: How Democrats Should Respond to Trump's Orders

[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. You've been hearing in the news coverage here and in your other feeds about the many things President Trump has been doing during his first 24 hours or so in office. We're not going to start with a long intro that repeats the list or the most inflammatory clips, but obviously, we now have pardons or get-out-of-jail-free cards known as commutations for even the most violent January 6th convicts. We have border and energy emergency declarations with all kinds of implications and more.

We'll dive into some specifics as we go, but we will lead with a day two question. Now that Trump is often running as aggressively as promised, what's the right thing for Democrats to do or anyone else who's upset by these things? What to support, because after all, Trump ran on many of these things and he won the election. What to oppose, even if they're popular because people just think they're bad for others, when to call him a fascist or not, what to propose of their own, and how to oppose what they do oppose.

Many news articles have noted there is no Resistance 2.0 in the mode of, say, the Women's March that greeted Trump immediately upon the start of his first term. With us for this are two former Barack Obama aides who launched the popular podcast Pod Save America after Trump was elected the first time. They are Jon Lovett and Jon Favreau. Jon Favreau was director of speechwriting for President Obama and also hosted the podcast The Wilderness. Jon Lovett was a speechwriter for Obama, Hillary Clinton as a senator and Clinton as a 2008 presidential candidate. He also hosts the podcast Love It or Leave It. He is also a comedian and producer who co-created the TV sitcom 1600 Penn, among other credits.

For the record, and for anyone who doesn't know their work and might be wondering, this is not Jon Favreau the actor and Jon Lovett, not Jon Lovitz. Jon and Jon, thanks for joining us, and welcome to WNYC.

Jon Lovett: Thanks for having us. Thank you for the shout-out to 2013's hit one-season sitcom 1600 Penn.

Jon Favreau: Can you still get a copy of that somewhere? The residuals are pouring in.

Brian Lehrer: That's right, streaming for free wherever you can find it. It's hard to know where to start after President Trump did so many things already in the last 24 hours. Jon Favreau, I'll ask you first. What kinds of conversations do you think Democratic Party Politicians in or out of Congress, in or out of governor's mansions, are having among themselves today about how they respond and what to put at the center of that coming out of the gate?

Jon Favreau: I'll just speak for myself reading the news this morning, what I can't get out of my head is the pardons, the January 6th pardons. As recently as, I think, last weekend, J.D. Vance was on a show saying, obviously, if you violently assaulted a police officer, you shouldn't get a pardon. Now Trump has pardoned many, many people who are convicted of doing just that, physically assaulting a police officer.

Brian Lehrer: I actually have that clip and I was going to play it a little later, but since you brought it right up, let me do it now. This is J.D. Vance, for people who haven't heard this, just nine days ago on FOX News Sunday, asked if Trump would pardon violent January 6th offenders and if he would support such a move.

J.D. Vance: I think it's very simple. Look, if you protested peacefully on January 6th and you've had Merrick Garland's Department of Justice treat you like a gang member, you should be pardoned. If you committed violence on that day, obviously, you shouldn't be pardoned.

Brian Lehrer: Obviously shouldn't be pardoned from J.D. Vance. Jon Favreau, I guess he wasn't in the loop on what Trump was planning for yesterday, at very least that, huh?

Jon Favreau: Yes. Either he wasn't in the loop or he was just lying at the time. Just to understand this, though, one of the longest sentences was handed down to a young man from Connecticut, who got seven and a half years in prison, was just sentenced recently for pinning an officer up against the wall for hours in January 6th with some other rioters and other rioters ripped the officer's mask off, hurt him with a pole, used his baton to beat him. This defendant referred to his own behavior as, he's like, "I was acting like an animal." This person was just sentenced and Donald Trump pardoned him.

I do think that every single Republican elected official should be asked why do you think that person deserved a pardon? Who violently assaulted a police officer and called his own behavior like an animal.

Brian Lehrer: Go ahead.

Jon Favreau: It's wild to me, and I think every Democrat should be making that point today.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, I see calls are already coming in, texts already coming in. I want to make sure everybody has the phone number. Your reactions to day one, welcome here at 212-433-WNYC. Call or text 212-433-9692. If you voted for Trump, do you support the pardons of violent January 6th convicts or commutations? In some cases, commutation means you're not really pardoned, but you can get out of jail if you're in jail, or any other reactions, enthusiastic or less so if you voted for Trump. 212-433-9692.

Those of you who voted against Trump, your reactions and per our conversation with our guests, what resistance or opposition are you planning or just would like to see now that it's all actually beginning and the limbo period of transition and just anticipating the second Trump term is over? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692 for Jon Lovett and Jon Favreau, former Obama aides and co-hosts, two of the four co-hosts of Pod Save America.

Here's one more relevant clip since we're starting on the pardons and commutations. This is from Attorney General nominee Pam Bondi's confirmation hearing last week. Folks, listen very carefully to her language where she comes out against attacking police officers, but to my ear, doesn't quite say she would oppose pardoning people who did that. This starts with the question from Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who gives some examples of people we now know have been pardoned or at least freed through commutation.

Senator Dick Durbin: One, Kenneth Bonawitz, a member of the so-called Proud Boys, another alt-right group, assaulted at least six officers, placed one in a chokehold and lifted him up in the neck. Bonawitz injured one officer so severely he had to retire. Kyle Fitzsimons, convicted for five separate assaults against law enforcement, including one that caused a career-ending and life-altering injury to US Capitol Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonnell. Can you understand why when Donald Trump says, the day I am inaugurated as president, I will issue a blanket pardon to these "political prisoners," we view this with an outrage on our side.

These men and women risk their lives for us every day and they almost died. Some of them did die in the course of this attack. Why aren't we treating them as such, and why do you have to reserve judgment? Vice President Vance didn't when he was asked this week, he said pardon should not be extended to those who were guilty of violence against policemen.

Pam Bondi: Senator, I do not agree with violence against anyone, but especially police officers. Every time I've been walking through these halls, meeting with all of you, the men and women of the Capitol Police Department are incredible. They do a great job. They deserve to be safe. I do not agree with violence against any police officer.

Senator Dick Durbin: I would hope--

Pam Bondi: I never have, senator.

Senator Dick Durbin: You weren't able to answer my question affirmatively earlier, but I would hope that if this moves forward in a positive way on your nomination, you will speak up at some point on behalf of these police officers who are keeping you safe today and your family safe.

Brian Lehrer: Democratic Senator Dick Durbin and Attorney General nominee Pam Bondi. Jon Lovett, I'm curious how you hear Pam Bondi there. As an experienced lawyer, did she manage to oppose attacks on police officers without saying she would oppose pardons for January 6th rioters who did exactly that?

Jon Lovett: That clip is one among many moments in that hearing where Pam Bondi refuses to take a stand on a number of ways in which Donald Trump has condoned violence, supported violence, encouraged violence. That clip that you played, I think, is a signal example of what we have been seeing in these hearings. Senator Durbin presses Pam Bondi. She states her values, but obviously avoids the central question, which is no one who actually upholds those values and lives by those values could support Donald Trump. Just not possible. You have to ignore them. You have to deny them, because what Donald Trump just did is tell a bunch of people that if you do violence on behalf of me, I will have your back.

If you attack the police, if you attack the Capitol, if you do my bidding, you do not have to worry about the repercussions, because as long as I am here, you know that I will wield this unlimited pardon power to do despicable and venal things on behalf of my own political movement. As long as you're with me, you're safe. If you really do believe in opposing violence against police, then you have to say that these pardons are despicable. She can't do that. To say, I hope if you become the chief law enforcement officer of our country, then at that point you might finally say something of note that I appreciate. The whole thing was a bit of a farce.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take a phone call from Danny in Massapequa. Calls us from time to time. Trump supporter who was an NYPD-- Danny, remind me, Lieutenant? Captain?

Danny: Yes, sir. Your memory is well.

Brian Lehrer: What do you think?

Danny: I saw pardons, commutations, and other things. I have to see exactly who was pardoned and for what crimes. My first blush is that when you look at the sheer number of people that were arrested that day and the intensity of the investigation, the resources spent, and the longevity of jail sentences for people who clearly-- a lot of people, I think we can all agree on, were just walking through and never laid a hand on anybody.

When, as a law enforcement professional with two children on the job, one of my sons who was pelted with rocks and bottles in New York City for months on end, and the FBI never stepped in, the level of the investigation was clearly a witch hunt. I have no problem with the vast majority of those people being given pardons or commutations. A lot of them never went to jail anyway, the pardons for a crime that they didn't go to jail. When I see some people going to jail for six months, people are in solitary confinement.

I know the media is now awake after four years of slumbering, but what Biden did yesterday was 100 times worse than what Trump did. We're going to gloss over that. We gave a preventive pardon to anyone. We don't even know what the potential crimes were. That, to me, is a thousand times worse. Speaking on behalf of all the police officers in this country, we know which political side has our back. We watched cities burn to the ground in 2022, and no one gave a damn that my son was hit over the head with a bottle, full stop.

Brian Lehrer: I hear you on all those points, and I'm going to let our guests respond in a minute. Danny, as a law enforcement person, and you say you have kids on the job, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation now if Trump had just pardoned the nonviolent offenders, probably everybody would be shrugging and moving on. For you, as a law enforcement professional and with family on the job currently, does the fact that he pardoned these particular people who did the kinds of things that we heard in the Dick Durbin clip, that our guests brought out, the head of the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, who may not have committed violence themselves.

Maybe they're in a different category, but those who actually committed those assaults on police officers, do you have any pause? Oh, what happened to Danny? Nope. I think Danny said his piece and left. All right, so which Jon was trying to get in there?

Jon Lovett: Look, the Joe Biden family pardons, I don't like them. I don't have to defend those to have a problem with what Donald Trump did. The caller talked about people that didn't necessarily commit violence that day. They did participate in the effort to stop the counting of electoral votes and to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. I imagine if the people that that person was talking about that had pelted his son with rocks and bottles, if they had attacked his son and then been arrested and then been convicted for the crime of attacking a police officer and then the President of the United States decided to declare that the person who attacked his son was a hero and patriot and political prisoner and then released, sending the message to the world that the attack on his son was a good thing, he'd be pretty upset about it.

You can talk about the nonviolent people, you can play whataboutism and talk about Joe Biden's dumb pardons of his family on the last day, whatever. The core thing is the core thing and it is morally reprehensible.

Jon Favreau: There's a lot of hand waving there, and I just don't know why we all can't agree on the same standard. Like the people who pelted that man's son with rocks, yes, they should be held accountable for what they did, and they should go to jail. If they weren't, then that's a mistake. The people who were looting and rioting in 2022 or '20 or whatever he was saying, if you commit violence, you should be held accountable. Doesn't matter what side you're on, doesn't matter what you look like, doesn't matter what your political beliefs are. We should have one standard under the law. That's what the law is, where if you commit violence, you're held accountable for the violence. We can't have a system where the only people held accountable for violence and for committing crimes are people who are on the other political side. I think that's preposterous.

Brian Lehrer: Danny brought up and other listeners want to bring up, and I was going to bring up, anyway, Biden's 11th-hour pardons of his family members. I could see those as non-equivalent very easily. Even though you've already said you're not in love with them. If Biden doesn't trust that the Trump Justice Department isn't going to go on an actual revenge tour and go after Biden family members with no good grounds but just to harass them. I could see him wanting to protect his family members like that.

There was also Biden's commutation of the sentence of the 80-year-old native American activist Leonard Peltier, who has served decades in prison convicted of killing two FBI agents. Now his defenders have always said he got an unfair trial and he didn't do it, but he was convicted of those killings. Maybe that makes it harder for the Democrats to raise the public's hackles over what Trump just did. Any thoughts on that?

Jon Favreau: He was also home confinement, I think, was the commutation. It's not even like he was let free. He's also spent a lot of time in prison. I think if you're going to tell me that all the violent January 6th offenders were going to be moved from federal prison to home confinement. The whole idea, and J.D. Vance had said that this is what they were going to do. I think Donald Trump even has said this before. They were going to go through them one by one, and they were going to take them.

That clearly didn't happen. There was no care taken to go through and decide who had paid their debt to society, who hadn't, who was a danger to society still, who wasn't. They didn't do any of that work. They just pardoned them all. It's hard to imagine that there's equivalence there.

Jon Lovett: As for the family pardons, look, I'm sure it's going to make Joe Biden's Thanksgiving a lot more pleasant, but there's a lot of people that didn't get pardons who have also been potential targets of a vindictive and partisan Donald Trump DOJ. A lot of people involved in the first impeachment trial, a lot of people that stuck their neck outs to tell the truth about Donald Trump, they didn't get pardons.

Brian Lehrer: We got listeners yesterday chiming in and saying, why not Alexander Vindman? Why not Marie Ivanovich?

Jon Lovett: Cassidy Hutchinson? There's a bunch of people that were swept up in this. It all feels a little bit haphazard. It was strange that we got the Hunter Biden pardon weeks ago. We get this list of his family members as he's walking out the door. Look, my personal view on this is I'm glad Joe Biden pardoned Anthony Fauci. I'm glad he pardoned General Milley. Because when Donald Trump says these people committed crimes, and when you know that his Department of Justice may go after people who are on his enemies list, we should take that seriously, and we don't get another shot at this.

It's like an umbrella. It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. I'm just confused by the list, and it all feels a bit too personal. To hit all your family members, but leave all these people out.

Brian Lehrer: All of this addressing January 6th looks backwards in a certain sense. Looks back four years. Lisa in Northport wants to look forward to the implications of these Trump pardons. Lisa, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Lisa: Hi. Thanks for taking my call. I just feel very strongly that the fact that he released especially the violent criminals, I agree with you. We probably wouldn't have had such an uproar if he kept those in jail, but he's releasing those even though some of his spokespeople and people that are going to be in his Cabinet have said that they would never release the violent criminal. I feel like he wants to have his own private militia, people from his own private militia roaming around towns to scare people so that it's part of the move to autocracy.

He wants people to be afraid and to be less willing to speak out against all the crazy things he's going to do. Because who knows when one of these militia people is going to come knock on our door. If his supporters are okay with that, if 50% of the country or less than 50% that voted for him are okay with that, then we are really up the proverbial creek without a paddle. I don't know who we're living with, people around us. It's very scary.

Can I just mention one more thing about the pardons? The reason I think it's fine that he pardons anybody that he thinks Trump is going to go after with no cause, he will do it just to harass people. He will spend our tax dollars with litigations that are going to go nowhere except make the people that he's harassing poor, and to make their lives miserable. None of the people on the committees, and probably nobody in his family did anything worth being accused of a crime for. He has a right, because Trump will do that just to spite whoever he wants to take retribution against.

Brian Lehrer: Lisa, thank you for your call. Jon and Jon, whichever of you wants to take this. I mean, this is where suspicions of fascism start to come in. Mussolini had his brown shirts in the citizenry and that thing that, frankly, historians who don't like to apply the F word to Trump say is a significant difference between Trump's brand of wannabe authoritarianism and actual fascism. That and territorial expansion. We know that's come back into the public conversation, too. Is there an implication for the future of civilian violence here as Lisa brings up, in your opinion, or is that overreaching?

Jon Favreau: Yes, I think there is an implication for potential civilian violence. Look, we can have debates about what's fascist, what's not, what's Trump's intention, what's not, what's going on in his mind, what's the motivation. We've been doing this for eight years. I think that matters less than just the effects of what's actually happening and whether or not Trump intends for this to be a signal for his supporters to freely commit violence. They can certainly take it that way because one of the people he pardoned, who is known as QAnon Shaman, got his pardon and then immediately tweeted, it's time to buy some guns.

That's how he's taking it. Whether or not it was intended for him to go out and buy some guns, that's certainly the message he's receiving, and that's the message that other people will receive. It doesn't have to be an entire militia that comes together, an entire movement. All it takes is a couple of supporters who were a bit unhinged or looking to commit violence to see that Trump supporters and people who committed violence in his name were free, and then they can go do it themselves. That's bad enough. Before we even get to the idea of a militia or Trump's intentions, to turn this into a fascist government. It's just bad.

Jon Lovett: I also think it's important, too. I have seen these pardons. It's very easy to walk yourself to the next threat and the next threat and the one after that. I also do think it's worth reminding ourselves that Donald Trump presidency is too powerful. It's too powerful a job, but he's not all powerful. The president is particularly powerful in D.C. where all laws are federal laws, but this is a big country. It's a big country where Donald Trump is not in charge of who gets charged with crimes at the state level, at the local level, he's not in charge of every prosecutor, he's not in charge of every attorney general.

We are still protected by the broader system of law enforcement throughout this country. It is unfortunate. I don't like having to think this way, but I do think that's worth keeping in mind.

Brian Lehrer: For you two who have been Democratic Party speechwriters, commentators, strategists on your podcast, do you see any response likely or already taking place from Democrats who maybe have been numb and mum since the election or that you would suggest maybe with respect to the Bondi nomination as it moves forward, like press Republicans to say out loud that they don't care that she won't oppose as Attorney General pardoning violent criminals or, I don't know, whatever Democratic Party response. What are you thinking?

Jon Favreau: Look, I think one thing the Democrats have struggled with over the last eight years is Trump throws so many things out at once and he floods the zone and there's a million things to take offense to every day. The focus isn't always on one action. I do think Democrats should try, elected Democrats who are holding these hearings, should maybe try to focus on one issue or one action. I think this is as good as any. A, because it's horrific and it goes right to the rule of law in this country.

I also think just if you're just going to be political about it, these pardons are extremely unpopular. We know that because they've been polled for a couple years now about pardoning the January 6th protesters, especially violent rioters. 65% of the public doesn't like it. I think that it's going to take some discipline from Democrats, but I do think that focusing-- When I say Democrats, I mean elected Democrats that are holding hearings like that, but also Democratic commentators, people on social media. There's been now a 12-hour debate about whether Elon Musk did a salute that looked like a Nazi salute or not.

I'm like, you know what? I think that matters a lot less than making sure people who aren't paying close attention to the news know that Donald Trump just freed people who committed violence against police officers. I think that's a more important thing for people to know than a debate about Elon Musk's hand gesture.

Brian Lehrer: Have you heard anything from Republicans? I really haven't seen anything. This came pretty late last night after Trump's marathon day of giving several speeches and signing these executive orders in the Oval Office while holding a simultaneous news conference. I haven't seen Mitch McConnell respond yet, who obviously was a critic of the attacks on the police officers originally, or anybody else. Have you?

Jon Favreau: Our new Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, was asked about it this morning during an interview, and he said, "Oh, I'm not commenting on domestic political matters." Then he said he was disappointed in the focus of the interview.

Brian Lehrer: John in Rockville Center, a retired police officer living on Long Island who I think wants to respond to the other retired police officer living on Long Island who called in earlier. John, you're on WNYC. Hello.

John: Hi, Brian. Thanks for taking my call. As I told your screener, I was in police department for 34 years. I was the president of the NYPD Captains Union. My family has over 206 years of policing in NYPD. My whole point is that the act of pardoning these criminals that actually attacked police officers, serious assaults, four people eventually died with suicides. This was a horrendous act. The symbolism, they were trying to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power. Egged on by this president. Now he pardons them and then says he's pro law and order. He's the furthest thing from law and order that there ever was. He is for himself.

Brian Lehrer: John, what do you say to the previous caller who says, look, there have also been incidents where there's been violence against police officers in other kinds of riots and those people aren't prosecuted? More big picture than that, Danny in Massapequa said we know police officers around the country know which party generally has our backs.

John: There are some police officers who feel that way, but I don't think that's the majority at all. Police officers are well aware that the Republicans talk a good game, but 9/11, President Bush comes down, says, we're with you, we're going to support you. Then who are the ones that got the bill passed to support the police officers from the injuries in 9/11? It was the Democrats, it was not the Republicans, and it certainly wasn't Donald Trump.

When it comes to actually supporting the police and pro-law and order and pro benefits for the police, it is the Democrats and not the Republicans. They just talk a great game and then they run away when it comes to actually where the rubber meets the road. They do absolutely nothing for police officers.

Brian Lehrer: John, thank you for your call. We appreciate your call. We're going to take a break and continue with Jon Lovett and Jon Favreau from Pod Save America. We're going to move on to some other topics from the last 24 hours, including something that Elon Musk did in his speech yesterday that is not that awkward salute that they referred to before. Stay with us.

[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC as we continue to talk about what Democrats should do now as well as what President Trump has done in his first day back in office with you on the phones and texts and with our two guests co-hosts of the popular podcast Pod Save America, Jon Lovett and Jon Favreau, who were both aides to President Obama when he was in office. Jon and Jon, next topic, immigration. Here is a basic line from the inaugural address that repeats something Trump ran on and suggests what the top priority is said to be.

President Donald Trump: All illegal entry will immediately be halted, and we will begin the process of returning millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came.

Brian Lehrer: Again, for you two as Democratic Party promoters and commentators, is this likely first wave of deportations, at least, if it really does shake out this way, of people here illegally who have actually committed violent crimes, something the Democrats should simply agree is right and bipartisan?

Jon Favreau: Yes, I think so. I think if you're here legally and you've committed a crime, then, under any president, you would be deported. The reason that there are undocumented immigrants here who may have committed crimes who haven't been deported over the last four years under Biden is either the countries that they came from, we don't have an agreement with them to send them back, so Trump's going to have to get an agreement with some of those countries, or they just haven't been found.

There's no president who's like, "Okay, there's undocumented immigrants who've committed crimes. We're just going to let them hang out in the country." If Trump wants to start deporting people who've committed crimes, great. Deporting recent arrivals, people who've just come over the border, or repeat offenders or people who have a deportation order. These are all standard deportation procedures that have happened under Democratic and Republican presidents. That's fine.

I think what we also saw from Trump on the first day was he is now determined to end birthright citizenship, which means that according to the 14th Amendment if you're born here, you're a citizen here. Trump believes he can change that within executive order. By the way, it's not just for children of undocumented immigrants who have crossed the border illegally. He wants to end birthright citizenship for people who are born in this country whose parents were here legally on a visa, H1B visa, or on a student visa or with a green card.

That would have applied to J.D. Vance's wife, Usha Vance. Her parents immigrated here from India legally, and they were here waiting for their green card, and she was born. Now for kids who are born here, who have parents who immigrated here legally who are waiting, who have their green card, who are waiting for citizenship, they will have to leave the country at the age of 21 to go back to a country they've never known just because this is what Trump wants. It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court will uphold birthright citizenship, but it is indicative of what Trump really wants versus what he says, which is just trying to tamp down on illegal immigration.

Brian Lehrer: Actually our next segment after you is going to be explicitly on birthright citizenship. For you as Democrats and Democratic Party advisors through your podcast, is this one of the biggest black marks on Joe Biden's tenure? That should be a lesson for the future, that in reversing some mean-spirited border policies from Trump's first term, Biden opened the border too much, allowing people in many communities, including immigrant-rich New York, to feel overwhelmed and give Trump a political opening because people came to feel they can't trust the Democrats.

Jon Lovett: I think there's the policy question and there's the communications question. I think Democrats did a lot of damage to themselves with some of the immigration politics during the 2020 primary. There was a moment where people took some stands that were never popular, in part led by organizations that claimed to speak for whole swaths of Americans that they did not speak for. Democrats, honestly, in a vaguely way that has some bigotry in it, to be honest, decided that, "Oh, the way you appeal to Hispanic Americans, the way you appeal to Latinos is by taking these incredibly permissive positions on abortion based on what a subset of activists were calling for."

Now, that said, Joe Biden really engaged on the border in the last year or two. They put in stricter policies at the border and they pursued this bipartisan border bill, which Trump ultimately blocked. How much of this is actually a response to policy, how much of it is a response to communications and perceptions, I don't know. The reality is Donald Trump gets to declare an emergency on day one and take credit for policies at the border while pursuing a draconian immigration policy more broadly. That's not just against illegal immigrants, but legal immigrants, punishing people who came here legally who did nothing wrong, which is not only morally wrong, but deeply, deeply unpopular.

It's actually a testament, I think, to people's to the broader good values of Americans that after years of anti-immigrant propaganda, after years of Donald Trump beating the drum on this issue, if you ask the American people what they want, they obviously want order at the border. They are in favor of border security, but they are still broadly in favor of an immigration system that welcomes more people. That is ultimately generous. That, to me, is also something we can't lose sight of. When Democrats ceded some of these border issues, they also lost the credibility on the broader topic, which we have to claw our way back to.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take another call. Here's Jeff in East Islip. Boy, the south shore of Long Island is very in the house today.

Jon Lovett: I'm loving it.

Brian Lehrer: One came from Massapequa. You're from Woodbury, right?

Jon Lovett: I'm from Syosset and Woodbury. It is such a-- the accent is bringing me back. It's bringing me back. If I'm here a little bit too long, mine will come back. Mine will come back.

Brian Lehrer: we had Massapequa, we had Rockville Center. Now we have Jeff in East Islip. You're on WNYC with Jon Favreau and Jon Lovett from Pod Save America. Hi, Jeff.

Jeff: Hi. Good morning, Brian, and good morning to your guests. I have two things. I have a question and a very brief comment. My first question is I watched the inaugural address and it was just beyond the pale in terms of the lack of conciliatory tone. It was just a broad-based attack on what was-- I'm puzzled how some of the Democrats who were sitting there could sit through that. I kept saying, why doesn't somebody stand up in protest and walk out? I understand the protocol and the respect, but he shows none of that. Why do we continue to show it to him? That's my question.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you very much. It really raises, I think, part of the central question that I'm trying to ask you, Jon and Jon, which is what does the Democratic Party do now? Now, to his specific point about walking out of or attending at all the inauguration yesterday, some Democrats chose not to attend. I want to play a clip of Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock, interviewed on NPR's Morning Edition yesterday. Of course, he's also pastor at Martin Luther King's Ebenezer Baptist Church. Raphael Warnock explaining why he was going to the inauguration.

Senator Raphael Warnock: Donald Trump won the election, and one of the bedrock principles of our democratic system is the non-violent transfer of power. It is something to which I'm deeply committed. Trump himself did not embrace that, sadly. I recall that during my first election, I was elected on January 5, 2021. The very next day we saw the most violent attack that we've ever seen on the United States Capitol. Egged on, encouraged, facilitated, I think, in many ways by the former president who will now be the next president. He won the election. Sometimes you got to be present in order to engage in the fight. I see my presence as an endorsement of our democratic principles.

Brian Lehrer: Music started playing at the end of that segment. Jon and Jon put Raphael Warnock saying that with his connections to Ebenezer Church on Martin Luther King Day, which was also Inauguration Day, in larger context of the Democratic Party's struggle to cooperate with Trump or not on policies they may agree with, or when to oppose him, when to even show up. How do you see that?

Jon Favreau: I think from a political perspective, and by that I mean the attempt to build a majority coalition in this country, which requires convincing people to vote for Democrats who haven't voted for Democrats before. Either they stayed home or they voted for Donald Trump. The median voter to build that coalition is someone who doesn't pay too much attention to politics, doesn't necessarily have strong ideological or partisan views, doesn't mean they're moderate or centrist, but they just don't pay close attention to politics. They might have strong views on certain issues, and those might be contradictory, some of those views. That's the typical voter out there.

I asked myself, okay, what does each action or statement that we take or make, how does that land with those voters? If you think about the action of someone, an elected official, elected Democrat, standing up in the middle of inaugural and protesting or walking out, look, that may land pretty well with partisan Democrats, but we already have them. It may make the person feel pretty good, but that doesn't really matter that much either. I think the question is, how does that play with someone who isn't paying close attention? I think what Senator Warnock was just saying is Donald Trump won the election. I think for most people who are just witnessing that, they say, "Okay, well, the guy won the election, he's giving a speech. Why are these Democrats walking out?"

I think the question we have to ask ourselves as a party is how are we going to-- we know that Donald Trump is unfit to be president and that the Republican Party has an agenda that we believe is going to hurt this country? How do we convince people of that that aren't already convinced? I think sometimes Democrats feel like the job of doing that is trying to convince Trump fans, but that's really not what it is. Because if you're a Trump fan, you voted for him since 2016. You're going to be a Trump fan. That's it. That's who you are. You have already decided.

Brian Lehrer: That's not how he won.

Jon Favreau: That's not how he won.

Brian Lehrer: A lot of people who didn't love Trump or Harris thought Trump was going to be better for the economy. Right?

Jon Favreau: Exactly. Exactly. I think the question is, how do you convince those people to vote Democrat in 2026 and then again for president in 2028? Even to the point that Warnock was making, and you mentioned Ebenezer Baptist Church. That was the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement and King, they were incredibly disciplined and strategic in how they went about things. They believed in nonviolence and violence was brought against them. They were beaten, many of them within an inch of their lives. What they decided to do was not to respond with violence because they were trying to change public opinion. They did. They did change public opinion.

Brian Lehrer: Here's a response to the last caller who said Democrats should have walked out when Trump wasn't being conciliatory to them in the context of inaugural address. Trump voter responds in a text. "He got shot at twice and had the Democrats tar and feather him for eight years. Why should he be conciliatory?" Fair point?

Jon Lovett: No, it wasn't. Listen, Chuck Schumer and Amy Klobuchar weren't taking shots at Donald Trump.

Jon Favreau: Nor was a Democrat.

Jon Lovett: Nor was a Democrat.

Brian Lehrer: Republicans would say they were trying to get him out of office from the moment he was elected the first time.

Jon Lovett: Donald Trump is manifestly unfit to be president. A lot of Republicans either continue to know that and deny it or knew it once, but have convinced themselves otherwise. The truth remains the truth. He is a despicable and unfit man. The fact that he is president is a national disgrace. No electoral victory, no changing national mood, inflation, a rejection of feckless and decadent Democratic establishment elites. None of that changes Donald Trump's unfitness.

The reason Donald Trump faced an unprecedented number of investigations and scrutiny is because he did unprecedented, at times, illegal and certainly amoral. That is what drew the attention. The unprecedented response was deserved. That will always be the case.

Brian Lehrer: Before you go, I want to play one weird moment from Elon Musk's speech yesterday. Just as you were downplaying a different weird moment before, this is not the moment, the one you referred to where he thanked the crowd with a salute to them that some people are saying looked like a Heil of Hitler. I'll be honest and say I was watching that live and it did not look like that to me. Just an awkward version of a common thank you gesture to a crowd to touch your heart and then extend your arm outward to the audience you're thanking. His arm went a little more 45-degree angle than that-- [crosstalk]

Jon Lovett: Listen to yourself. Listen to what you've become.

Jon Favreau: I agree, Brian. I'm with you, Brian.

Jon Lovett: By the way, look, I'm sorry. Donald Trump is trying to amend the Constitution with an executive order to kick immigrants out of this country. The debate, is he a Nazi or autistic? Is stupid and a waste of our time.

Jon Favreau: Exactly. It's true.

Brian Lehrer: Here's the moment that I do want to focus on. You'll tell me what you think about this. It came just after that salute. In Musk's role of trying to cut wasteful spending to help people afford their lives.

Elon Musk: It is thanks to you that the future of civilization is assured. Thanks to you, we're going to have safe cities finally. Safe cities, secure borders, sensible spending, basic stuff. We're going to take DOGE to Mars.

[applause]

Elon Musk: Can you imagine how awesome it will be to have American astronauts plant the flag on another planet for the first time? Yes.

Brian Lehrer: W're going to take DOGE to Mars. Did that strike either of you as contradictory? The other gesture was his pumping his fist at himself, celebratory before anything happened. We may struggle to pay for Medicare and Social Security as Musk looks to cut trillions from the federal budget, but a trophy trip to Mars for what purpose exactly? Makes him look, as giddy as he was, like it's a big toy.

Jon Lovett: You know what? Disagree. The reason, we have enough money to go to Mars. The reason we're not paying for health care is because we passed giant tax cuts for people like Elon Musk and other billionaires. It really does frustrate me. I do not like the idea that all of a sudden space exploration has become some Republican priority. It's ridiculous. It should be a national and bipartisan affair. I am in favor of it.

The reason we are underfunding health care, Medicaid, food stamps is because Republicans are desperately trying to cut trillions from the budget to pay for estate tax cuts and corporate tax cut rates and capital gains tax cuts for their friends and benefactors. That is the scandal. The scandal isn't trying to go to Mars. The scandal is the efforts to basically steal from the treasury as a reward for putting Trump in office.

Jon Favreau: I'm still stuck on what it means to take DOGE to Mars. Are we cutting spending on Mars?

Brian Lehrer: Right, I know. That's what I was reacting to. We're cutting spending by-- I realized the other Jon, that you support it, but he's talking about taking a government cost-cutting program to a very expensive, what might be very elective trip.

Jon Lovett: I don't understand the DOGE to Mars piece of it. Sometimes DOGE refers to the meme, sometimes it refers to the coin, sometimes it refers to the new government efficiency program. Look, these are the linguistic challenges you run into when an unelected billionaire is put in charge of government budget cuts. I think that's the deeper problem.

Brian Lehrer: You're answering your own autistic versus Nazi question.

Jon Lovett: Sure.

Brian Lehrer: Autistic. Jon Lovett, Jon Favreau, our co-hosts of the podcast Pod Save America, thank you very much for giving us this much time on such an eventful day.

Jon Favreau: Thanks, Brian.

Jon Lovett: Thank you.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.