Preet Bharara:

From CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Welcome to Stay Tuned. I’m Preet Bharara.

Joanne Freeman:

I think that the address, in some ways, highlighted the fact that he really doesn’t have public opinion, that the State of the Union address is no longer what it once was, and that this address advertised that and the implications of that in a big way.

Preet Bharara:

This week, president Trump delivered the first State of the Union address of his second term.

Donald Trump:

Our country is winning again. In fact, we’re winning so much that we really don’t know what to do about it.

Preet Bharara:

To break it all down, I’m joined by Yale History, Professor Joanne Freeman, Vox host and Editorial Director Astead Herndon, and former National Security Advisor and host of the Long Game podcast, Jon Finer. That’s coming up. Stay tuned. Joanne Freeman, Astead Herndon and Jon Finer join me this week to talk about the state of our country. Astead, Joanne, Jon, thanks for being on the show. Welcome.

Jon Finer:

Good to be here.

Preet Bharara:

So the State of the Union is strong, we are told. We’re going to get to whether you all believe that to be true or the degree of strength that the union has so to speak, but it’s always a smart move I think when you have a panel of very distinguished guests to just begin with the historian and Joanne, you may not have thought I would see this, but you were not tweeting, you were blue-skying, I don’t know if that’s the word. And at 9:26 PM, I believe like about 11 minutes or 12 minutes into the President’s State of the Union address you posted in all caps why did I agree to speak about this tomorrow?

So I don’t know if that was a rhetorical question. I don’t know if you’re planning to cancel. I appreciate your commitment to your obligation to be here. Historian, explain yourself.

Joanne Freeman:

The moral of this story, kitties who are watching out there is everything is public on social media. No, I didn’t even think about that. But the reason for that is because immediately … and I know we’ll talk about this more. Immediately, everything was a lie or an exaggeration, just a string. And we all knew that that was going to happen, but the rate and the extent of it was beyond what I expected. And then, I thought to myself, I don’t know how long this is going to go on. And I had heard that this was going to be a historically long-

Preet Bharara:

You write about that.

Joanne Freeman:

Yeah, so I just thought, how am I going to listen to lies for over an hour?

Preet Bharara:

But you did, your commitment to this podcast meant that you did?

Joanne Freeman:

I am committed to this podcast. Yes.

Preet Bharara:

Let me ask you a more serious question, historical question. Probably you get asked a lot and we ask a lot every year, what is the point of the State of the Union? Could you explain to the listeners that for a very, very long time there was no such thing, because it was considered among other things, gauche or a waste of time or too partisan or political, why do we have it and should we not?

Joanne Freeman:

Well, we’ve always had something along the lines of a State of the Union because it’s in the Constitution, which says that from time to time the president needs to inform Congress of the State of the Union and the purpose-

Preet Bharara:

But it hasn’t always been a speech.

Joanne Freeman:

No. Well, it was a speech twice to Congress, then for a long time it was an address on a piece of paper and then, it became a speech again in the 20th century. The idea behind it is … And so much in the Constitution falls into this category, the President needs to be reigned in. The President not only needs to inform Congress about the state of the nation, he needs to be accountable for it. He needs to be reporting on what’s going on.

So this is one of many ways in which the Constitution is worried about executive power because it hadn’t been that long since they’d broken away from a king who they called tyrannical. So it’s a way of informing and it’s also a way of having some form of accountability.

Preet Bharara:

Astead, I’m going to ask you that question that’s very annoying that people get asked, which is, did anything surprise you and to prime your thinking on the subject, I’ll tell you the thing that surprised me and that is when the President of the United States in a fairly moving moment awarded the Purple Heart to a gentleman. I expected him to say, but if you want to give it to me, I’m happy to accept it, which he didn’t do.

Astead Herndon:

I don’t know if I was surprised more so, and I think Trump has used these speeches for kind of clippable media moments. I think that you point out one, in terms of one moving one with the Purple Heart one, I think the US hockey team was going to be a big kind of memorable moment of this one. But I don’t know if I was necessarily surprised. To me, it felt like a reflection of a president and an administration that is increasingly living in its own reality.

I think that they’re so outside of where public opinion is. They’re so outside of what his own campaign promises were on several issues and he made no attempt to justify the possibility of Iran strikes. Right? He makes no attempt, I think to really make the case for some of his most controversial or I think most consequential even, policy decisions. And so, I think that was my takeaway, is that it feels like Trump too is untethered from the grassroots MAGA-ism that actually made it. And I think this speech was a reflection of that.

Preet Bharara:

One more question to you, Astead. So there’s a lot of talk about this gambit, the New York Times as a whole separate standalone piece on the quote-unquote trap as they refer to it, where they write at the beginning of this article, almost an hour into his speech, President Trump set his trap and Trump says-

Donald Trump:

One of the great things about the State of the Union is how it gives Americans the chance to see clearly what their representatives really believe.

Preet Bharara:

The article says the Democrats stirred a little in their seats. What was he up to now? I don’t know if that’s what they were thinking. Then the President said this and it was a fairly dramatic moment. Tonight, I’m-

Donald Trump:

I’m inviting every legislator to join with my administration in reaffirming a fundamental principle. If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support. The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.

Preet Bharara:

And the Democrats sat and the President had a field day with that, do you have a view of how that played out and how it should have played out and whether it’s silly or it’s real or it’s going to be a big deal in ads or not.

Astead Herndon:

Sure, it will be a big deal in ads. They’ll try to make it a big deal in ads. I think if you’re a Republican, they’ve been hammering this message whether Democrats would’ve stood or not. The Democrats could have stood up and they would’ve said, well, we don’t believe them. So I don’t think that necessarily-

Preet Bharara:

It’s a better visual. Is it a better visual than sitting down?

Astead Herndon:

Yeah, yeah, for sure. For sure, for sure. And so, I don’t know if necessarily Democrats did the right thing, but I will say it’s like I don’t think the traps of the State of the Union are going to matter more for these midterms than the president’s own actions. And so, this year will be a referendum on him, and I don’t think his attempts to shift that to Democrats are really going to be what makes November. So that’s a wee kind of squirming because I know they will make the ads about it.

But I don’t think this is going to be about some State of the Union gimmick. I think things like we see in Minneapolis, things like tariffs, things like what he says every day, matters a lot more.

Preet Bharara:

But why not stand? Why not … The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens. It’s a bit of a got you. But just to play devil’s advocate for a moment, and anyone can answer this question, why not stand for that?

Joanne Freeman:

And basically seed the point that you’re not responsible in any way for the well-being of quote-unquote illegal aliens. I mean basically, seemingly it could be read as a step back at a moment when there remain attacks on supposed criminals, meaning anybody of color.

Preet Bharara:

That’s very complicated. And I’m not saying that … I’m not advocating for one side or another, but-

Astead Herndon:

My personal opinion is that in physically being there, there is no win for them. I think my thought was-

Preet Bharara:

Senator Herndon would’ve boycotted the thing.

Astead Herndon:

Absolutely. I mean, I would’ve said, it’s all I needed to say in a statement and been chilling at home because I think this reminds me, even as a journalist who goes to Trump rallies, like you can do whatever you want, but you’re a part of the show no matter what and your presence, your physical presence inherently puts you in the circus. They set up traps even for reporters to be part of the got you as you’re trying to do your job.

I don’t think you can necessarily sometimes logic your way through that stuff. And so my personal opinion is that the certainty of gimmick was such, I would’ve stayed home.

Preet Bharara:

Do you know who has it easiest? I think it’s the Supreme Court justices because they don’t smile, they don’t laugh, they just sort of sit there before who came. Jon, I thought I saw a metric that said this whole speech was an hour and 47 minutes and he spent 10 minutes, somebody, I think calculated when we have the greatest show of troop force and air power, I’m told in the vicinity of Iran since the Iraq war. I have a series of questions about this. What gives with such short shrift to foreign policy generally and to Iran specifically.

Jon Finer:

Well wastes a lot of the time of people that were staying up late to watch two hours of speaking to hope for some foreign policy messaging, but no, more seriously, you’re right, 10 minutes, about 10% of the overall time. And by the way, that’s if you separate out the pay-ons to US military veterans, which you’ve described … and by the way, he didn’t ask for the Purple Heart. He did though say he looked up the rules for the Congressional Medal of Honor and discovered that he couldn’t award it to himself.

Donald Trump:

I’ve always wanted the Congressional Medal of honor, but I was informed I’m not allowed to give it to myself and I wouldn’t know why I’d be taking it. But if they ever open up that law, I will be there with you someday.

Preet Bharara:

He did. He did. He did. Thank you. Thank you, Jon. He certainly did.

Jon Finer:

It was that proud moment. But more seriously on Iran think those of us who paid closest attention to foreign policy national security were most waiting to see what he would say about Iran For exactly the reason you mentioned, he has created himself this drumbeat for a potential war. He’s the one who threatened the Iranian government during the protests, which by the way have not been going on now for a month, when he said, “Seize your country’s institution’s, help is on the way. I will take military action if a number of you were killed.”

He then said last night, a number that he had not used before, 32,000 Iranians, he said, were killed by their government during the crackdown on that uprising, but on what the US might do, he was relatively muted. He did say two important things. First, he said something that could be read is possibly lowering the bar for Iran getting a deal, which is they have not yet said the magic word, secret words, I guess, is what he called them. “We will never pursue, we’ll never acquire, obtain a nuclear weapon.”

The interesting thing about that is Iran has said many, many times that it will not pursue a nuclear weapon.

Preet Bharara:

Whether it’s believable or not is separate, but they have said it.

Jon Finer:

But all he asked for is the words. And in the nuclear deal, many other times they have come out and said it, including the foreign minister just yesterday said, Iran has no desire for a nuclear weapon. That’s on the relatively more conciliatory side. On the other side, he put more information into the public domain than any president has previously about Iran’s missile program, including his words, developing a missile that could in the very near term, reach the United States, an intercontinental ballistic missile.

Iran has had this program for a long time. No president previously had ever said that could be a cause for war. Presidents have said the nuclear program could be a cause for war. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Donald Trump. So he introduced a new potential justification for the war by talking about that missile. But how you read that is anybody’s guess.

Preet Bharara:

Did he have to do that, because he already declared that the nuclear program was completely obliterated, so he needed another reason?

Jon Finer:

Yeah, so he’s put himself in this weird box, one by quote-unquote totally obliterating the nuclear program. And then-

Preet Bharara:

Totally.

Jon Finer:

Coming out more recently and saying actually maybe there … and Steve Witkoff said something kind of inexplicable the other day when he came out and said, they may be a week away from producing enough material for a nuclear weapon. We don’t believe that they’re even enriching uranium at all inside Iran right now. So what Witkoff meant by that is anybody’s guess and he hasn’t elaborated.

So a lot of people were wondering what is the goal of this? Is it to punish Iran for having crackdown on the protesters? It’s not to stop the crackdown that’s over basically at this point. Is it to obliterate the obliterated nuclear program or is it actually something bigger and grander and more dangerous actually, which is to try to change the regime in Iran from the air, from the outside, and he’s hinted at that too.

Preet Bharara:

Anyone else want to comment on this?

Joanne Freeman:

I wanted to comment not so much on what he specifically did or didn’t say about what he wants to do with Iran, but I want to talk about the visual and emotional impact of having military figure after military figure after military figure stand up and get recognized. Now of course, he was collecting the applause when he was giving out these awards, but he was also displaying the military and having everyone applaud it again and again and again and again and again.

So I don’t want to even say normalizing, making this a sort of applaud the military moment was a choice.

Preet Bharara:

And are you saying it’s a bad choice?

Joanne Freeman:

I’m saying if in this moment what we’re thinking about is are we actually going to attack another country, then yeah, I think certainly good or bad, you’re stating, you’re glorifying the military in a way that feeds into this particular moment.

Jon Finer:

Preet, can I say one more thing on this, which is I agree to some extent with Joanne. I think it’s also powerful politics for the president to kind of wrap himself in the military and the flag. And I think this would not even necessarily be questioned were it not for the fact that this is also a president who appears in front of troops with a very political message over and over and over again. You guys have to be with me. The Democrats aren’t for you. The military by the way, he says off, the military was in terrible shape, was terrible before I became president. Now it’s all fixed.

Now, we’re the most powerful country again, we were weak, now we’re strong. Presidents did not used to speak like this in front of troops. He does. And that’s what puts this in a different context when he does it at the State of the Union.

Astead Herndon:

I was also just going to add, he’s going to do even more. I feel like the America 250th this summer is going to be a big flag wrap and he has signaled that he intends to somewhat blend his role as commander-in-chief and the politics of strong military. So I do think it is obviously a level of politicized message, a kind of break in norms that we have seen from him from a while, but the State of the Union won’t be the end of that. And actually I think this year we’re going to see a lot more of that.

Preet Bharara:

I’ll be right back with my guests after this. I have another question about the spectacle and then, we’ll talk about some issues like prices and immigration and the like. So this used to be a fairly genteel affair, obviously, it’s quite genteel, Joanne, when it was in writing, right?

Joanne Freeman:

Yes.

Preet Bharara:

We see your strong letter and we raise you our strong letter? Not a lot of spectacle there. And people used to remain silent and respectful and there’s a little bit less of that. And what I always think about is the few times that I’ve seen this thing in the UK called Prime Minister’s questions, which is a lot less boring than what we witnessed last night and they’ve had a parliamentary democracy for a long time. And this overlay of the monarchy, put that aside for a moment.

Do you have a view, anyone but Joanne in particular, given your studies, that that’s not a bad thing to do or in the UK, do they deplore that also because it’s a big spectacle and they would prefer the more refined version that we have, which is the State of the Union?

Joanne Freeman:

Well interestingly, if you go back in time and there’s a long tradition of parliament stamping their fists and their feet and banging things and making noise to drown people out, that goes all the way back. What Americans, particularly members of Congress said at the time, I’m talking like the 1830s, 1840s, 1850s, was they’re so uncivilized over there. They interrupt people. How could they do that? And these are the same people who are armed with knives and guns and prepared to pull them on each other in the house and the Senate.

So that has a long tradition. Americans for most of the modern age have just been more confrontational. Now you’re right, it was relatively genteel and it hasn’t shed that in the recent past. It’s been the semi-recent past. But the more … and this is obvious but worth stating. The more that it becomes spectacle, televising it all by itself means it’s no longer a congressional message. It’s a national message.

And the more it becomes spectacle theater circus, the more that is going to play and the more people for their own benefit as well as for the party’s benefit or the president’s benefit are going to want to do that sort of thing because it becomes not a trap, but a spectacle that will get attention and I suppose ideally garner them some kind of recognition.

Astead Herndon:

I don’t hate it. I think it’s kind of spicy. I think this has been developing over time from the you lies to Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert to Congressman Al Green with last year and this year. I think that this has now become based in kind of what we can expect. But I can just say, me personally, I’m not mourning the days of yesteryear in that way. I think that there is some version of convention that Donald Trump has busted up, that I’m not mad at.

And so I think that it’s not to me that more people yell or interrupt. That’s the problem. To me, the problem is that the messages you have coming from that pulpit are neither true or based in public sentiment. And so I think that people want elected officials who feel like they are recognizing an urgency of a political moment. And if our politics match the tone of it did 20, 30 years ago, I don’t think that would feel true to what we’re facing right now.

And so, I think urgency is real and it doesn’t surprise me nor so do I think the electorate that you’re seeing elected officials reflect that. And I would actually say they’re late to it, honestly. They’ve been less math than more people were.

Jon Finer:

It would be fascinating if a president subjected him or herself to this sort of … by the way, prime minister’s questions takes place just about every week. So this is not an annual exercise.

Astead Herndon:

It would be awesome.

Jon Finer:

If on a regular basis they had to go up there and face off against members, it would sort of elevate Congress as an institution and bring the president maybe a little bit back down to earth, which is a big reason why it’ll probably never happen, also, separation of powers, et cetera, et cetera. But it would be very good theater. It’s largely unscripted, because how can you script … nobody is reading off a teleprompter. Now, is that a good way to judge whether somebody is a good president or not?

I think that’s a different question. Sort of like the debate we have about debates, whether that’s a good way to judge political candidates, but it’d be pretty interesting.

Preet Bharara:

But it requires a certain and different kind of deafness, rhetorical deafness, which I don’t think we have that much. We have a lot of considered soundbites.

Jon Finer:

Some would be better than others probably.

Preet Bharara:

So this whole issue of what is decorum is fascinating to me. So in my question a minute ago, I was talking about this back and forth and yelling, but if someone delivers a staid speech and a somewhat yawn-inducing speech, like I think the president did mostly last night. And in that speech he basically calls Democrats unpatriotic, stupid, crazy.

Donald Trump:

Look, nobody stands up. These people are crazy. I’m telling you. They’re crazy. We’re lucky we have a country with people like this. Democrats are destroying our country, but we’ve stopped it just in the nick of time, didn’t we?

Preet Bharara:

Basically, he used every word to describe the other party represents half the vote of the country. He gets indignant when Democrats say certain words. He use every word other than deplorable. I guess I don’t have a question there just to comment, how restrained and respectful in the chamber you’re supposed to be when he’s hurling baseless invective at your side?

Joanne Freeman:

Well, I mean we’ve already said this kind of a no-win situation for the Democrats. What do you do? But I think to me, one of the strongest statements about the State of the Union that happened last night was that, was the president calling out the Democrats in the chamber and saying they’re destroying the country, they’re enemies, they’re horrible, they’re evil, they’re insane, they’re whatever. That’s just the opposition, right? That’s part of what’s supposed to be there.

And that kind of language in that chamber where January 6th hovering over it, which was a result of similar language and sentiment, that to me was a pretty dramatic illustration of the State of the Union.

Preet Bharara:

So immigration was, we are told, the president’s strongest issue in the campaign and immediately following his election. It’s now one of his weakest issues because of a lot of things including people’s repulsion of the way ICE agents have been handling things in Minnesota and a lot of other reasons. He went hard. He went hard on immigration. We already talked about the standing up issue and the commentary he made about that.

Anybody want to comment on how he handled immigration and if it was wise or not wise or anything at all? I’m sort of undecided about how he handled it.

Jon Finer:

Can I just mention one thing that surprised me in this, which is I agree with how you’ve characterized it. He did say one thing that was a bit different in terms of message, which is he had this almost aside about how we are still for legal immigration in America.

Donald Trump:

But we will always allow people to come in legally, people that will love our country and will work hard to maintain our country.

Jon Finer:

Which is not something he actually always says and not something I think certain members of his administration even believe thinking about someone like Stephen Miller. So I wondered whether that was an attempt to maybe not soften, but at least expand in a more … slightly more inclusive way. His message on immigration, which as you say has been playing very badly in polls around the country, maybe, maybe not.

Preet Bharara:

Is it fair to be more cynical about that? I kind of think of … This is a terrible parallel perhaps, but that speech he gave at the Ellipse on January 6th, he says all these things that are inciting, but then he also can say in papers later he did in a little footnote in a lower voice, he did say, “Be peaceful. Be peaceful.”

Astead Herndon:

I mean I definitely think that his … well you kind of said at the beginning the economy was the biggest reason he won. I think immigration was second. I think that’s been … But it’s played out I think in important ways. He has been quite successful at what he would call closing southern border at least having less unauthorized crossings. And largely that effort has been applauded both sides. Like where he has gone to the left, I mean left is not the right term.

When he’s gone kind of, I think out of whack is with deportations. And to Jon’s point, that’s largely because he’s followed the Stephen Miller, we must round up one to 2000 unauthorized folks a day that he’s followed the Kristi Noem Customs and Border Protection Cowboy round them up playbook. They have sought out the kind of scenes we have seen in the Home Depots and places like that, right?

And so that’s not what Americans wanted. I think that Minnesota, even the way he talks about it yesterday, I think you can hear in there the recognition from them that what their actions there did not play well. Right? They’re going to play that fraud, Somali fraud button as hard as they can, but you’re not hearing them. Some big justification for the CBP and ICE officers, what they did there. You’ve stopped hearing that kind of JD Vance-esque justification that they were leading within the days after those killings.

That’s because the public has reacted in a way that’s been clear. And so, I think that when we think about even how we talked about immigration yesterday, those asides, I don’t think we should take them as policy of course, but I do think we should take them as a recognition that the political wind has changed. And one of the things I think is my big question for this White House going forward is do they consider themselves even at the mercy of public opinion. Will they … Coming into the midterms or something, coming into a next year, I don’t think we have a floor of where Trump can go.

And I don’t think we really understand whether they react to a public backlash by moderating or by lashing out by escalating. And I think that is a fork in the road that might come considering the way he’s in a downward spiral on a couple of these key issues.

Preet Bharara:

Well, the drawdown in Minneapolis, would you not say that that is a direct result of public opinion?

Astead Herndon:

Yeah, direct result, for sure. And I think not even just public opinion organizing.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Yeah.

Astead Herndon:

I think they went up against … They underestimated an organized community and honestly a community that wouldn’t even pass where their elected officials Democrats were. And that type of organic grassroots pushback is what forced his issue on the Epstein files, is what’s forced his hand on immigration. And that’s what goes back to what I’m just saying at the beginning. It just makes me feel like this president, his kind of people populist whatever he wants to frame that as is increasingly not believed.

And it reminds me of those first couple of years of Biden where you feel an administration that’s wrapped up in its own ideological project and has not measured whether the public ever signed up for that. And I don’t think it’s true for project 2025, they didn’t sign up for that, even if that was technically the point.

Joanne Freeman:

But that’s the government fundamentally is grounded on public opinion. That was what … Going all the way back, what the founding generation thought distinguished the American government from any other government, was that the public mattered to a greater degree and the founders who is the public and how do you figure out what the public is that those are their own questions. But the fact of the matter is, and I totally agree with what was just said, they have been ignoring … they’re not held accountable.

So in that way, public opinion gets shifted into the background are I think ignoring and have certainly underestimated the degree by which Americans are really willing to step forward. I think Minneapolis and Minnesota was a lesson, a big lesson partly for Americans to see that people can and will come together and make that kind of resistance and perhaps amazingly that that message actually got through to folks who need to believe and want to believe and desperately want everybody else to believe that public opinion is with them.

I mean they’re in an interesting situation now, because public opinion is not with them. So there they are. And I agree with what’s been said about little asides and things and with the withdrawal. I spoke with two friends yesterday who are in Minneapolis and they said, well, okay, so it looks less violent, it’s just sneakier, right? So the way in which these agents are getting people is … and I think many people saw the story about agents pretending that their car was in trouble and getting someone to come out of the house to help them and then grabbing that person or ,,, in a variety of different ways, it’s still there.

But the performance of it is different and that’s yet another way in which the actual power of public opinion has made itself felt. And I think that’s important for the American public to realize that they can have an impact, that it isn’t just something happening on high that … to sound patriotic about it, that we the people can actually make a difference.

Preet Bharara:

No, that’s very important. Jon, there was a moment, I don’t know if we counted this, or the person who did the metric counted this in the 10 minutes devoted to foreign policy, but it was not just military officials that Trump bequeathed praise on, Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, is he the National Security Advisor? Yes. Postmaster general. I think he’s got a lot of jobs.

Joanne Freeman:

Going to go down as the greatest Secretary of State of all time.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Can you just comment generally on the bromance between Trump and Rubio and how you think that’s playing out and where it will go and what it means?

Jon Finer:

So I’m the last person on this panel qualified to speak of the politics of this. But to me that’s where I went immediately because one of the subtexts of this entire Trump period is like what comes next? What comes next on the Republican side, assuming … despite the fact that he keeps kind of alluding to the possibility of a third term that he fully intends to leave, there’s JD Vance behind him, there’s Marco Rubio a couple of rows in front of him.

And he spent a lot more time talking about one of those guys than the other. What that means, whether that was just because he was looking at Marco Rubio and not looking at JD Vance, somebody else could-

Preet Bharara:

Then that guy behind me.

Jon Finer:

Somebody else would have to get inside his head better than I can. But yeah, he seems quite happy with the job that Rubio was doing. I will say though, he spoke about Marco Rubio the other day about Marco Rubio’s appearance at the Munich Security Conference where Rubio led the US delegation, gave the big speech and he said something much more biting and a little bit grudging. He said the whole world really seemed to like Marco’s comments, like “Marco, you better be careful.”

“They don’t like your comments too much, or I might have to get rid of you. Ha ha ha ha.” So that was much more the sort of the jealous Trump who goes after people who kind of get recognition and stick their heads up. This one was basically unflinchingly positive.

Astead Herndon:

I remember the State of the Union last year, he had a similar kind of ribbing of Rubio. He seems to have something of … I mean certainly a jealousy about the ways that Rubio gets some elite praise or particularly his love in the Senate or foreign policy kind of establishment and their preference of Rubio. I wanted to mention the Vance point though. I’m someone who thinks Vance has had a bad political year and a half.

I think in the same ways that we were talking about Harris as being saddled with bad issues and being tied to an unpopular president and not carving out another identity. I think you can have those same conversations about Vance. If you think about the moments that most stick out to you, at least in my opinion of his last year and a half, I think you have the moment with Zelensky in the office. I think you have his defense of the ICE shootings.

And I also think even yesterday, getting tasked with fraud and abuse like, I’m not sure I would … I just am someone who thinks that Donald Trump may not pay a cost for his lame duck spiral, but somebody will. And if I’m JD Vance, I think that there’s a way that Trump’s … his hypocrisy about the even MAGA agenda is affecting Vance too. And even when you look … I was looking at the Republican … I mean this is kind of an embarrassing stat to even say aloud.

But I was looking at CNN’s numbers about they do these approvals about state of the unions and the instant reaction, even when you just look at Republicans only, and they do it for every year, Trump has been in office, it’s gone from 90 something percent his first years in office to 70%. And those are matching like what country receding from it overall. And I think the Republican number is true, specifically. There has been a legitimate riff about tariffs, about Epstein, and I think if I’m JD Vance, that might affect me and my future more than it affects Donald Trump’s.

Preet Bharara:

Is it odd though, because on a very simplistic level, JD Vance … Which is more like Trump, JD Vance or Rubio, and it’s got to be JD Vance, right? So I’m just kind of perplexed.

Astead Herndon:

I think like, who JD Vance decides to be in his inevitable run is an open question. We have not seen a consistency of beliefs from him enough to know what his individual vision is. And so the question I have is I don’t think running as Trump term three works. I don’t think running as Trump follow up based on where he’s looking right now and where he looks like he’s headed to go is going to be a successful thing. And so then the question becomes who is JD Vance by himself? And we don’t know that answer.

Joanne Freeman:

And he can’t. He can’t run as Trump three. He is so unlikable and so unliked. Trump, what Trump has, going for him in part is that he has some kind of charisma that people are, sometimes some people attracted to. And Vance just doesn’t have any of that.

Preet Bharara:

It reminds me, I’ve been thinking a lot about the scene from the 2016 election as we talk about Marco Rubio and how Trump is so generous and just different and he can do things that other people can’t do. I mean a basic principle of life, I think and success … I don’t like the word authenticity, it’s overused, but just being yourself and if yourself is an ask but a likable … and I guess that can work for you. But if you’re not that, it doesn’t really work for you.

And the scene I keep thinking about … people remember this in 2016, Rubio was probably thinking of him, so the thought above Rubio’s head must have been, “I can’t believe I’m losing to this guy.” Famous Saturday Night Live sketch with Dukakis from some years earlier, echoes of that. And Marco Rubio got on the stage somewhere and started doing small penis jokes. Do you remember this? He started talking about Trump. He started to be crass like Trump has small hands, what are you doing?

And people were repelled by that. So you can’t pretend to be someone else. But he obviously did some kind of an about face, because I think his views of Trump were genuine, his negative views about his abilities, his foreign policy strategy, but he’s managed … it’s just interesting to me that he’s managed to insinuate himself to such a degree with perhaps … I don’t know if it’s equal or less or more sacrifice or self-respect and dignity. It seems like less than JD Vance, and maybe this is just an issue that I think about.

Does anybody have a view about that and how the politics will work out on the about face for Rubio versus the about face for JD Vance? I think maybe you’ve already answered part of that.

Astead Herndon:

Well, all I would say too is I talked about Vance’s problems, but I think Rubio is much more appreciated by Republican elite or I would say foreign policy establishment than MAGA base, right?

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Yeah.

Astead Herndon:

So I think they got up … I think they have dual problems if we’re thinking in the 2028 way. But I do think it’s kind of … to your point about how much of what we’ve seen the Republican part … Donald Trump is the Republican establishment now. And how much of what he has come to represent are actual ideological planks that live on versus how much of that was wrapped in an individual who was selling a package. We don’t really know. And so is the Republican base actually committed to no new wars? I don’t know because kind of letting them get away with a couple. So I think that’s the stuff that has to fall out in the wash.

Preet Bharara:

Joanne, and then I want to ask Jon a couple of questions, but just on this point, does history teach us anything about fatigue or the pendulum or as Schlesinger call them the cycles of history and is our savior less … This is my developing view and not as a historian. And that the savior is not going to be some shift in broad public opinion or dynamite democratic, but just the laws of physics, the pendulum swings and people get fatigued.

Joanne Freeman:

Well, on the one hand I would say yes, the pendulum swings in one way or another and there is fatigue and people want change and they don’t define it and sometimes the candidates don’t define it, and so that helps swing the pendulum. But I think this moment you can’t make that kind of generalization because although aspects of this moment, crisis-ridden negative aspects of this moment have certainly happened throughout all of American history.

The combination of those things right now, with a party that has power and fundamentally just doesn’t believe in democracy, this is a different kind of moment where I’m not willing to predict the pendulum. I’m not sure where that pendulum is going to go. So yes, that-

Preet Bharara:

Can it keep swinging?

Joanne Freeman:

Well, right now-

Preet Bharara:

It’s got to come back, right, Joanne?

Joanne Freeman:

Sooner or later. But that’s the question, when? As a historian, and I should say as a historian, you never want to say the first, the only, the most, the best, anytime that Trump says that it’s 99.9% of the time going to be wrong. If you’re a historian, you never say that unless you have the proof. This moment is a different kind of moment than the moments we’ve had before. Many similarities, but the combination of things adds up to complications concerning when and how that pendulum is going to swing back. It will, but I’m not going to bet on how and when.

Preet Bharara:

You’re not going to predict when. Yeah, you’re not a future person, you’re a past person.

Joanne Freeman:

I’m a historian.

Preet Bharara:

By definition. Jon, maybe you’re a future person. So two other significant matters beyond our shores. This past Tuesday was the fourth anniversary of the commencement of the war in Ukraine and there’s also the American action in Venezuela, which Trump did talk about a little bit. The way he talks about it is one of the best things that’s ever happened or the mightiest most impressive military achievement in the history of the galaxy, notwithstanding D-Day and some other things.

You think he would’ve talked about it more or explained it more … it’s an echo of a prior question, but do you have a view whether it’s related to the speech or not, about the future for Venezuela and the future for Ukraine?

Jon Finer:

I think he has put Venezuela in the win column and is not really all that focused on the future of Venezuela anymore. I think he’s realized that his grand plans for this to be some massive economic windfall for American companies is not really going to come to fruition because those companies don’t have the ability or the desire to go in and exploit Venezuela’s resources in the way that he thought they might. So that’s kind of been parked, and I don’t think he’s paying all that close attention to what Venezuela’s current government, which is by the way, just the decapitated version of its old government is doing at this point.

So he’s decided operation went well, Venezuela’s success. I’ll just keep talking about the operation. And I think there’s a lot of uncertainty about where the future of Venezuela is going. But one thing that seems pretty clear is there’s not going to be a democratic transition in Venezuela anytime soon, which is what many of the backers of his military action were hoping on the Republican side, by the way too. On Ukraine, it’s almost the opposite.

He sort of acknowledged that he’s not going to succeed at ending this war. Certainly on the timeline he initially laid out, which was like one day or whatever it was, but he talked about it at the end of his litany of wars that he has solved and ended, eight of them. He said, well, there’s also a ninth, Russia-Ukraine, we’re working on that. It’s harder than we thought. End of story. And that war is far from over, in fact quite bloody. And he acknowledged actually to his credit, the toll 25,000 soldiers being killed per month.

And that is one where I’m not optimistic about near term progress toward a deal in large part because as many people have been telling the president from the beginning, it is Russia that doesn’t want to end the war and therefore Russia that needs to be under more pressure, if you are going to get to the type of deal that can end the war. And he has, for his own reasons, decided to totally reverse that theory and put all of the pressure on Ukraine.

One other thing, Preet, if I might, is these speeches are often worth looking at for what is not focused on, he did barely mention China at all. I think most national security professionals would say that is the defining issue of the moment, the biggest issue challenge facing the United States. He kind of offhandedly referred to it in the context of Venezuela. They had Chinese technology, how did that go for them? But nothing about the big technological competition, potential military competition, nothing about Taiwan.

And I think that is a reflection of the fact that he knows he has four meetings with Xi Jinping coming up as many as for this year, including possibly a summit in Beijing in April. And he wants those so badly to go well and wants those so badly to be able to announce a bunch of deals that include often a lot of us concessions. He doesn’t want to do anything that rocks the boat. And the Chinese are super sensitive and anytime you mention their leader, Joe Biden, that’s what really piss them off by referring to Xi Jinping by name a few times.

In 2023, the Chinese came out and said he was smeared. He just decided rather than explain what I want to do or how I see this, I’m just going to not mention it at all. It was very strange and I think unhelpful.

Preet Bharara:

The interview continues after this. Can I ask the group about this thing that Trump said that he’s known for? He loves the idea of winning. We’re winning too much.

Donald Trump:

Our country is winning again. In fact, we’re winning so much that we really don’t know what to do about it. People are asking me, please, please, please, Mr. President, we’re winning too much. We can’t take it anymore. We’re not used to winning in our country until you came along. We’re just always losing, but now we’re winning too much.

Preet Bharara:

Does that resonate with anybody who’s paying attention on Earth one?

Astead Herndon:

No. It resonates in the way that like-

Preet Bharara:

Maybe I shouldn’t have limited the population in that way.

Joanne Freeman:

I know.

Astead Herndon:

I think you recognize it as what Donald Trump’s view of the world is. And I think that he’s going to say he’s winning even if he’s not. As we’ve seen in elections, we’ve seen it all around, but I don’t think … that’s why I keep going back to the sentiment kind of democracy base here. Donald Trump’s sauce has been to say things that people felt, quote-unquote. That they felt like traditional political establishment was not being honest to them about, right?

And he had legitimate credibility as a truth teller, even as someone who says non-truths all the time because he would diagnose legitimate problems for people who they felt were being ignored. Inflation, immigration, a couple other things too. I just think that that’s what’s changed really is diagnosis isn’t enough and that when you are in office, he has not presented solutions for those problems. And I think that’s where the disconnect has come from, is that it was much easier for him as a critic from the outside to call out liberal hypocrisy and just do that.

But that doesn’t play the same way anymore. And so, I just think that what Jon was saying about is kind of leaving China out of the speech. It just makes me think about how much of what we saw yesterday is disconnected from the tangible impacts people will feel and that’s what’s going to drive the political impacts. And so if he doesn’t fix inflation, nothing matters. If he doesn’t do, nothing else matters.

Preet Bharara:

It’s fixed. He said it’s fixed. The prices have come down mightily. Right, Joanne?

Joanne Freeman:

Well, right. And not only are people not going to believe that no matter what planet they’re on, but then his tendency not only are we winning, we’re winning so much that people are asking me, please stop winning. You have to win less. There’s too much winning. If there was anyone on any planet that was going to believe that message, that ensured that nobody could. And that was Trump being Trump. But no, I think he has been able to take for granted so much that the public is riding along with him.

And I agree totally with what’s been said here. The public is not riding along with him right now and he doesn’t have a way right now to deal with that.

Astead Herndon:

I’m just thinking, he’s so used to being able to shape that public opinion too. This is an administration that has often felt that they didn’t need to reflect things because they can drive it, particularly among parts of their base who they care the most about. That’s why I keep going back to tariffs Epstein too, because those are riffs with their own voters that have driven some of this reaction. I will put ICE in Minnesota in there. Some of their own voters have driven that reaction.

We did work talking to these MAGA voters who were like, “Hey, that was crazy. Even if I think that deport …like immigration is a problem.” And so I just think that the instinct to shape your own reality is one that he has lived in for a long time. And so I don’t even think they know the tools to necessarily … or I don’t even know if they have the bone about reacting to public because they think we stay here, they come to us.

Joanne Freeman:

And not only that, but they’ve been feeding him on reality, it’s people around him.

Astead Herndon:

Yeah. For sure, for sure.

Joanne Freeman:

Feed him on reality. So not only are they don’t know how to get reality to him, it’s in their interest to keep him from some degree of reality.

Astead Herndon:

That’s important.

Preet Bharara:

So just to end, I think I know the answer that you brilliant folks are going to provide, but the State of the Union with its length and its message and not withstanding the gambits, did it change anyone’s mind? Did it move the needle or did it intensify people’s feelings either for or against Donald Trump, you think?

Astead Herndon:

The political impact to me is negligible, but it does remind me of the course were kind of set on. And so to me, the big impact of the speech is a reflection of a White House that anyone told themselves a story that they were going to reflect, shift in public opinion yesterday, should get you out of that. And so to me, it’s like helps clarify the track, the kind of collision course we’re on, both through the summer and fall, and as his lame duckness takes shape.

I think if you’ve been paying attention or remotely paying attention, you have felt that coming. And so I don’t think it changed anything. But I do think it reminded me that there’s no calibration to the wind here. This is really the Stephen Miller versus the world.

Joanne Freeman:

I agree. I don’t think there’s going to be a big political change. I do think in two ways it signals that shift in public opinion and how people are perceiving it. People on the inside are perceiving it. On the one hand, and this is purely anecdotal, but the number of people who said to me in one way or another, I will not watch this. I will not be part of this. I will not watch this. Joined with the sort of alternate things that were happening before the State of the Union address that hadn’t quite happened in that organized away before.

I think that the address in some ways highlighted the fact that he really doesn’t have public opinion, that the State of the Union address is no longer what it once was, and that this address advertised that and the implications of that in a big way.

Preet Bharara:

And do you agree with me, that so long as the Democrats, when they take back power, do not impeach Donald Trump, that he’ll continue to be in free fall downward? And the one thing potentially that could resurrect him is to take such action. It’s not a popular view.

Astead Herndon:

You’re saying the one thing that will revive him politically is Democrats trying to impeach him.

Preet Bharara:

Correct.

Astead Herndon:

I mean, it depends on what he does.

Preet Bharara:

I guess.

Astead Herndon:

I mean Trump won. Trump won.

Preet Bharara:

He’s already committed multiple impeachable offenses in my book.

Joanne Freeman:

Right.

Astead Herndon:

I think the January 6th impeachment … This is just my public electoral voter opinion, like talking to folks, that’s the impeachment everyone thinks made a lot of sense and feels like why didn’t that happen in terms of a permanent banning him back from office? I think that really speaks to kind senate structure, all of it. Yeah, 100%. But the first one, the first … I will never forget when the first one was happening, how I was traveling stuff for midterms and nobody knew what anyone was talking about.

And so I just think it depends. But the act of impeaching him-

Preet Bharara:

But you’re not going to succeed-

Astead Herndon:

It’s not, to me, successful. Yes.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Like a doomed impeachment and trial given the track record. And as much as you want accountability, and it pains me deeply to say it … and again, it depends on what it is.

Astead Herndon:

But this is why they’re focusing on Pam Bondi and others. I interviewed a Congress member yesterday who said that they expect that to be the focus because they don’t want to wade into Trump. And so, I actually think that pivot has been learned even by some members of Congress.

Joanne Freeman:

I also think as far as the public is concerned, first of all, impeachment exists as a thing that people can think about, that they weren’t thinking about before. But the number of times during those early impeachments that I was asked publicly, is this constitutional?

Astead Herndon:

Can you do that?

Joanne Freeman:

And it’s in the Constitution. So yes, it’s constitutional. It has become-

Preet Bharara:

Insofar as it is in the Constitution, it is constitutional.

Joanne Freeman:

Exactly. It has become seen as a purely political move. It has been divorced from the ways in which it actually has and had a serious function. I mean, the ways in which the Constitution is set up to reign in executive power, all the ways that exist and all the ways that have been ignored or stomped on, this fits into that category too.

Preet Bharara:

I think we’re out of time. Astead, Joanne, Jon, thank you. Thank you, thank you. This has been really terrific. Really appreciate it.

Jon Finer:

Thanks again for having me.

Astead Herndon:

Thanks for having me.

Joanne Freeman:

Thanks for having us.

Preet Bharara:

The conversation continues for members of the Cafe Insider community.

Astead Herndon:

I hate to what about-ism, but I spent two years here in Joe Biden telling me that inflation was fake when it was real.

Preet Bharara:

To try out the membership head to cafe.com/insider. Again, that’s cafe.com/insider. Well, that’s it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guests, Joanne Freeman, Astead Herndon, and Jon Finer. If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics, and justice. You can reach me on Twitter or BlueSky @PreetBharara with the hashtag #AskPreet. You can also call and leave me a message at 833-997-7338.

That’s 833-99-PREET, or you can send an email to letters@cafe.com. Stay Tuned is now on Substack. Head to staytuned.substack.com to watch live streams, get updates about new podcast episodes and more. That’s staytuned.substack.com. Stay Tuned is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The deputy editor is Celine Rohr. The supervising producer is Jake Kaplan.

The lead editorial producer is Jennifer Indig. The associate producer is Claudia Hernández. The video producer is Nat Weiner. The senior audio producer is Matthew Billy, and the marketing manager is Liana Greenway. Our music is by Andrew Dost. Special thanks to Torrey Paquette and Adam Harris. I’m your host, Preet Bharara. As always, stay tuned.