The New York Times app has all this stuff that you may not have seen.
The way the tabs are at the top with all of the different sections.
“I can immediately navigate to something that matches what I'm feeling.”
I owe the games always. Don't want the money, don't want the word. I love how much content it exposed me to.
Things that I never would have thought to turn to a news app for.
This app is essential. The New York Times app. All of the times, all in one place. Download it now at nytimes.com/app. From New York Times, I'm Mechabobar.
This is the Daily. In ways big and small, the Republican-controlled Congress has begun rebelling against President Trump as never before. On everything from the war in Iran, to his plan to use taxpayer money to pay his allies. Today, Congressional editor Julie Davis, on whether the uprising is a preview of a new
dynamic in Washington, or a temporary show of independence that will vanish just as quickly as it arrived. It's Monday, June 8th. Julie, it's wonderful to see you. I agree to see you, Michael.
Thank you for coming on the show. I appreciate it. Thanks for having me.
I would say, Julie, I don't think you're going to contest this, that from the first moment
of Trump's second term, the question on kind of everyone's mind was whether the manner in which the president had consolidated his power had basically rendered this Congress. This Republican Congress irrelevant. Right, I mean, very much look like a co-equal branch of government was choosing subservience very willingly, and we started to ask the question is Congress over, and the answer over
the past 10 days or so seemed to change, and now it feels more like a no, it's not over.
“Yeah, I mean, I think in the first months of President Trump's second term, we were”
actually surprised on the hill to see the degree to which Republicans were just deferring to him on everything, not just refusing to challenge him on things, but actively kind of giving back their power on some pretty key things on spending, on trade and tariffs, on foreign policy, things that you typically see Congress jellously guarding as its own prerogatives, finding every possible way to give it over to the White House and really
even just avoiding voting on things altogether. Right, it was little like a kid in the playground saying, take this toy, take this toy, take this shovel, take this truck. Right, that was really all we were seeing from Republicans when it came to President Trump. And in the last few weeks, we have seen some pretty rare and unusual resistance coming from
Republicans. They're refusing to act on legislation that's a big priority for him, refusing to move on the timelines that he set out for them. They're stripping things from legislation and forcing the administration to drop proposals that they don't like, and in the case of the war in Iran, they're actually using their
power to push back on President Trump. They're basically rebelling. They're rebelling. To go back to your playground metaphor, Michael, it's a little bit like a group of kids who have obeyed their daddy for many, many months on pretty much everything.
And are finally just saying, no daddy, we're not going to do this for you. Mm-hmm. That's quite a vivid completion of the metaphor.
“So take us behind the scenes of this rebellion, if that's what we're going to be calling”
it. And we'll get to how durable it is and how far it may or may not go. But let's just understand it to the extent that it has been unfolding. On the surface, a lot of it seem to revolve around the weaponization fund.
The president's nearly $2 billion effort to compensate people, he claims our victims of
overzealous government prosecution. But my sense is that that's not quite the full story. Yeah, it actually started long before the Trump administration announced that they were creating that fund. This has been percolating for many weeks.
And it's really, I think, a matter of Republican sort of slowly and then very quickly waking up to the reality that a lot of what President Trump is doing is actually counter
To their own political interests.
Let's remember that we are just months away from the midterm elections. And Trump is intervening in Republican primaries against some pretty popular members of their caucus who are incumbents who are fighting for their political lives. He intervenes in Louisiana endorses a Republican congresswoman who's running against Bill Cassidy, the senator who's the head of the health committee, who has spent years
in trying to ingratiate himself with Trump after having voted to convict him and his impeachment trial after January 6th.
But Trump ultimately decided he wanted to take him out.
And did. And he did.
“But the second Senate primary where President Trump intervened, and I think the more”
stinging one that made Republicans a lot angrier, was in Texas, where Senator John Cornen had been facing a challenge from Ken Paxton, the Attorney General, their inner runoff. It was going to be a competitive one. President Trump had stayed neutral and days before the primary he weighs in and endorses
Ken Paxton, and that news that the president was going to do that just hit Republicans on the hill like a bomb. They were completely irate in part because Cornen was seen as the much stronger candidate who would be able to win that seat without having to spend a lot of money, without having to really worry about it because there are obviously a lot of other seats that they need
to be worrying about defending in the midterm year. So that just sourd the mood among Republicans who are sort of looking around seeing that
“President Trump's agenda is getting less and less popular with voters, seeing that he's”
doing things really they feel like are for himself and not for the good of the party. You know, Republicans are fighting to hold on to majorities in both chambers, and they have an uphill battle, and they're started to be a real feeling like he was making it harder for them. And I should say that both of these senators are very popular with their Republican colleagues,
they're seen as effective, they're seen as experienced, and they know how to do their jobs, and the very same day that Trump came out and endorsed Paxton against Cornen in
the weekly party lunch, Bill Cassidy, returning for the first time since being defeated
in his primary I got a standing ovation from Republicans. It was kind of like a moment where they sort of were saying, "You're our guy, even if you're not President Trump's." Clearly, what's starting to dawn on these Republicans is that Trump is making the midterms about him, making it about revenge, not at all what's best for a party trying to keep
control of Congress. And on top of all this, what Trump is clearly doing in the eyes of these Republicans is rewarding their subservience, I mean, Cornen votes with 90 something for some of the time same with Cassidy rewarding that with them being punished and forced out of office.
“So why should they keep being subservient starts to basically be the question?”
Right, that is the question, and this is the context in which the administration announces without any advanced word to any Republican on Capitol Hill, that they will be forming
this anti-weaponization fund of $1.776 billion to the administration says compensate people
who have been victimized by the federal government, clear implication that this is for people loyal to President Trump, including potentially the mob that storm the Capitol on January 6th, who he feels have been wronged by the government and unfairly targeted, and so he would like to use federal money to pay these people. And this just sort of in the context of all of this tension, the Republicans are feeling toward the president and how he's making his decisions just
hits them like a ton of bricks. My first reaction was this doesn't pass the smell test. This might be one area where you might find a lot of bipartisan questioning of whether or not this is a good idea. This is another instance of him going around Congress to use money in the way that he sees it. There are a lot of questions that the administration is going to have to answer.
These people don't deserve restitution. Many of them deserve to be in prison. I mean, this is just stupid on stilt. And let's not forget, Republicans worked to quit him at his impeachment trial. They have been loyal to him for years since January 6th, but they were all in the Capitol on January 6th when people assaulted the building and they were all running for their lives. So they're all
it's sort of dawning on them. Both personally and frankly politically, they're going to have to defend this in front of voters at a time when there are many of them are running for reelection. This is really not a good look. And this is not something that they want to have to stand behind. It does if somebody sued themselves, agreed upon a settlement with themselves,
That's going to be funded by the rest of us.
Or if they like it, maybe they're in on it.
“And this is not just an academic exercise for them because what they also realize is”
the president Trump has set them one of his famous deadlines, a June 1st deadline,
for them to deliver him the huge $70 billion immigration enforcement bill that he's been asking for
for months. And they are trying to move on to that bill and they start to realize because they have so many concerns about this fund. And there's so much sentiment among Republicans to try to do something to shut this idea down that they're probably not going to be able to get the votes to move forward with the immigration bill unless they do something to either get President Trump to reverse himself on the fund or actually affirmatively write some legislation to block him from
doing it. So at the same time that the president is putting forth this toxic idea of a weaponization fund that might give money to January 6 rioters, he's saying to these Senate Republicans,
“past this gargantuan spending bill I want, even though I'm putting you in a tough position all”
around. Right. And Republicans initially are trying to figure out if there's a way they can do this, Todd Blanch, the acting attorney general comes to the hill to try to assuage their concerns about the fund, he meets with them behind closed doors. What do you want to hear from Todd Blanch? About the payout, pot for punks, not a lot. And it is just a complete blow up. It's one of the roughest meetings I've seen in my entire time of the Senate. Fiery does not begin to cut it.
It very quickly becomes clear that this is a complete nonstarter for Republicans. They call off their vote on this bill. They leave for Memorial Day weekend and say the way things stand now. We just can't move forward. And calling off of vote sounds to the lay here like a subtle act of her Calsotrans, but in the moment it felt very much like a declaration of independence. We are canceling a vote to put $70 billion into immigration enforcement for the president,
“his signature agenda. Right. And remember that when the president sets them a deadline or asks”
them to do something in the past Republicans have always just snapped right to and done it. So the
fact that they're willing and really feel like they have to go home and not do this does feel like a real pivot point. We have not seen them push back on the president or his legislative agenda in this way before. So any questions? And a couple hours later in the Oval Office, President Trump is making an appearance and reporters actually ask him like, "Are you losing control of the Senate, Senator Republicans?" Are you losing your hold on the Senate? I don't know. I really don't
know. I can tell you. I only do what's right. And Trump says, "Well, I'm not really sure. I don't know." But all around him, there is mounting evidence that he is really not keeping Republicans online on a variety of his priorities. It's right around this time that Republicans decide to drop the billion dollars that they had put in their bill for his ballroom project. We all know how much he cherishes that project. He talks about it all the time while Republicans wish that he would
talk about the economy. He's always talking about the ballroom project. Right. They drop that.
It's not so subtle brush off to him. Right. They basically say despite your desire that we slip it quietly into a bill, we're actually going to take it out. Right. They don't want to have to defend it. They don't want to have to vote for it. And they really are not letting up on this payout fund. They make it very clear that this thing has to die if they're going to be able to move forward with the immigration bill. And it's sort of by coincidence around this moment as I recall that a
court rules that the White House can't do anything when it comes to this weaponization fund, which kind of assists these congressional Republicans in their opposition. Right. It gives them a bit of support for their position that the administration just has to abandon this. Although the court order is only temporary. So it can also strengthen their resolve to really be like something needs to be done about this to once and for all get it off the table. And in fact,
within a couple of days, the administration does back down on the fund. The Justice Department puts out word that they're not going to challenge this court ruling. And in this case, it was especially notable because even after the White House said they were going to abide by this court order, which they clearly did not agree with. Republicans went a step further and said, "We don't trust you. We don't trust the word of the White House. We don't trust the Justice
Department saying they're going to abide by this. We want an on-the-record disavowel of this thing
To be assured that it will never return.
Republicans do. They, you know, have been very deferential and given President Trump a lot of latitude
and a lot of benefit of the doubt. And that benefit of the doubt is just gone at this point. And then Todd Lynch goes back to Capitol Hill and testifies under oath that we are not moving
“forward with this fund period. Right. And I think it's fair to say if you're evaluating the strength”
of this Republican rebellion at its peak over the past couple of weeks, this is the high water mark of it when congressional Republicans using the leverage they have over something that the president wants, which is his money for the immigration crackdown, kill off this weaponization fund. Right. This is Republicans doing what Democrats have been saying for more than a year,
they needed to do, which has used their power, used their leverage to push back on the president
at a moment of, you know, pretty potent anger among Republicans about some of the things the president has done. And of course, that anger and this rebellion we're talking about doesn't end with the weaponization fund because another big target emerges around the same time. And that is the president's war in Iran. And we'll talk about that right after the break. We'll be back. I'm David Sanger. I cover the White House and National Security of the New York Times,
and I try to explain what decisions made in Washington mean for you, wherever you live. This is why the Times sends me to the Oval Office when the president is making a major decision
for has me ride along on Air Force One on critical trips. And I talked to foreign leaders
exploring why they're so often at odds with the United States. We live in a world of misinformation
“and disinformation. It's never been more important to have reliable sources of on-the-ground”
reporting. If you want first hand reporting on how U.S. policy affects the world, consider subscribing to the New York Times. So, Julie, explain how this Republican pushback in Congress that we most vividly saw against the weaponization fund starts to play out with the war in Iran. So, for months now, since President Trump started bombing Iran and late February,
Democrats have been forcing these war powers votes on the House and Senate floors, which are essentially resolutions that say the president has to come to Congress for authorization if he wants to continue the war. And they're important not so much because anyone really thinks that they're going to be
“enacted into law. Obviously, President Trump has said these are unconstitutional. He'd veto any”
resolution like this that ever reached his desk. But Democrats and some Republicans who are growing increasingly uneasy with how this is dragging on, see it as a way of really registering Congress's skepticism about this and really trying to reassert a congressional role in matters of war, which, again, is one of these things that Republicans have for months just seated to the president and not attempted to involve themselves in. And every time one of these comes up,
the Republican leadership argues, this is going to tie the president's hands. This is going to undermine his ability to negotiate. We can't be doing this right now. Congress just needs to step back. So, Republicans keep voting against it with a few infections, but not enough to actually let this pass until this sort of rebellion starts to bubble up within the party about a range of issues. And all of a sudden, a few days after Bill Cassidy loses his primary, there's yet another war
powers vote in the Senate. We are following some breaking news in Washington where the U.S. Senate just passed legislation and guess who switches his vote and votes with Democrats to insist that Trump come to Congress for authorization. Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Cassidy, I Bill Cassidy. I actually support the goals that the president initially laid out. Now it's going to be two weeks. Obviously, going along it in two weeks. So, just tell the American people, that's where I only.
And that is enough to put the resolution over the top and the Senate now has to take it up and has to eventually vote on it. So, it's just another indication that dissent is growing about this conflict, that a lot of Democrats and certainly many Republicans see as a political liability for them. And they don't feel like the White House or the president has leveled with them on
What the goals are, what the end game is.
which we've heard Republicans kind of allude to gently, for many months, are manifesting themselves
in a vote, which is a pretty remarkable moment. And then before too long, members were recording most of the electronic device members. This is a five minute boot. A war priors resolution comes up in the House, which is a much more conservative body, where the leaders have a much tighter rain on their people. But still, the eggs are 215 to the days are 288. The concurrent resolution is adopted. Enough Republicans defect and join Democrats
to pass the resolution. Congress alone declares war that's something that we have to be certainly protective of. And essentially say, Trump has to withdraw forces or come to Congress
for authorization. We have to follow the law. There's a law in the books, the war powers act
“of 73. So you can't violate the law. That's not an option. And the key crossover votes”
came from Republicans who are in competitive districts. There are a variety of considerations that we have to take into account. But I definitely feel what people are experiencing back home. You know, I go back home to my district every single week. You know, I fill up my gas tank too. I have four kids who take care. They're concerned about the war. It's gone on too long. It's costing too much. They want to see an endgame. Interesting. So swing district Republicans are
crossing over voting with Democrats to register their disapproval of the war because they worry
that the war, the resulting high gas prices are going to cost them reelection. This goes back
to what you were saying earlier that at the heart of this Republican rebellion, is this very strong sense that the president is not looking out for the best interests of the Republican Party? Right. This is a president who has said in recent weeks that he doesn't care about the financial impact on Americans when he's thinking about the war. He doesn't care about the
“midterms and Republicans are starting to look around and say, well, where does that leave us?”
And by this point, we're starting to see some interesting coalitions form here to really be the spine of this pushback against Trump. You have swing district Republicans, like Senator Susan Collins was among the senators who voted for the war powers resolution in the Senate, Brian Fitzpatrick, Tom Barrett of Michigan, or the ones in the House. Purple state lawmakers? Right. But you also have this other faction, you know, who are starting to get the nickname of the
yellow caucus that have been targeted by the president. They've been ousted on our lame ducts and they don't have a reason anymore to be unbendingly loyal to Donald Trump. Bill Cassidy already lost his reelection. John Corne and lost his reelection. Tom Massey was another Republican who voted for the War Powers Act in the House, lost his primary to a Trump back challenger just a few weeks ago. So they're sort of conspiring with these people who have everything to lose
politically. They have nothing to lose politically, but the result is the same that they are willing to push back on a president who is not used to being resistant. Right. And of course, the thing to note about the so-called yellow coalition is they might not have anything left to lose, but they're not going to be in their jobs much longer. They can fight the president until their term is up at the end of the year. And then inevitably, they're being replaced by
people who are very loyal to the president, potentially someone like Ken Paxon. If he wins the general election, and therefore the threat that they pose to the president is inherently temporary, we're saying. Absolutely. And it's not clear how far any of them are willing to go with this. Right. We saw Senator Cassidy vote for the War Powers Act. We didn't see John Corne in cross-party lines on that. He's a very loyal Republican. And we have yet to see him really manifest his,
you know, grievance if he feels any toward the president in a vote. But the fact remains that their political incentive to do whatever the president wants them to do has vastly diminished.
“Well, I think, Julie, that gets at the ultimate question that we have to ask here,”
which is how durable and potent is this resistance likely to be in the long term? Obviously, a unique set of circumstances played out here all at once, whether president ousted popular members of the Republican party from their jobs, that made folks really angry. Then he dropped this idea of the weaponization fund into everyone's laps. That made them angry. That doesn't happen every day. And how likely are these congressional Republicans over time
to snap back into this more subservient role that Trump has conditioned them to take?
Right.
happened Thursday and Friday where Republicans finally were able to pass their immigration bill.
“And what we see is that given the opportunity by Democrats to go a step further and actually put it”
in writing in law that there can never be President Trump's compensation fund for his political
allies, Republicans figure out a way to block that, not to vote for that. And that allows them to keep this immigration bill, this top priority of President Trump on track. But even as they're handing him this big victory, there were all these signs still of how Republicans were sort of parting ways with and finding ways to distance themselves from Trump. Before the immigration bill passed, there was this long series of votes overnight and into Friday morning. They call it a
voter Rama where there were a series of amendments offered to the bill. And there were some Republican votes for those proposals, including several votes on the fund and a proposal to say that
Trump could never use any federal money for his ballroom. The same was true on a Democratic proposal
to try to block him from naming Bill Polty, the housing director, as the director of national intelligence. Another thing that had really enraged a lot of Republicans, none of these things ultimately were able to succeed and be added to the bill. But the fact that Republicans were willing to vote the way they did showed that there is at least some mood in their ranks, which hasn't
“really existed before to resist what the president is demanding of them. Right. And I think that's”
kind of where we're seeing them land. They're not going to be willing to do rail their own parties agenda in the service of defying Trump, right? They still want to keep their immigration bill and their message to voters on track because in the end what this really is about is them trying to do what they think is best for themselves in the party. And their agenda is overlap with his in many ways, in most ways, but where there is some daylight and the president keeps on creating this daylight.
The closer and closer we get to November, they're going to push back and rebel. And that marks a new chapter in the story of this president and the Republican Congress.
Julie, thank you very much as always. Appreciate your time. Thank you, Michael. Same here.
In an interview on Sunday with NBC's Meet the Press, President Trump acknowledged the bipartisan opposition that killed his so-called "weaponization fund." It's been blocked by the quarks met with opposition from Republicans in Congress and Democrats. Mostly Democrats and some Republicans. Very theory public. But said he still supported the idea in theory. It was up to me, I'd pay them a kind of money that they deserve. People have been destroyed,
lives have been destroyed. During the interview, Trump also sought to downplay the war in Iran and the growing doubts that surround it. I call it a military exercise because people would rather have it called that. It's not a big war for us. It's not really the most powerful. The latest version of the war powers resolution against the war already passed in the house. Now heads to the Senate. Under congressional rules, the Senate must either pass or reject
the resolution in the next few weeks. We'll be right back.
“Here's what else you need to know today.”
On Sunday, Iran fired ballistic missiles toward Israel. The first time Iran has done so since a ceasefire began in early April. Sunday's attack was in response to it deadly Israeli air strike in Lebanon, that targeted Hezbollah, a militant group backed by Iran. Israel said it intercepted all the Iranian missiles and a few hours later. It fired back at Iran.
The back and forth threatens to escalate a conflict that has been largely contained and further complicates peace talks between the United States and Iran that have spotted for weeks. Today's episode was produced by Chris Benderf, Mary Wilson, Anna Foley, and Olivia Nath.
It was edited by Rachel Questor and Rob Zipko, and contains music by Pat McCu...
Alicia By YouTube, and Marion Lazzano. Our theme music is by Wonderland.
“This episode was engineered by Chris Wood.”
That's it for the Daily. I'm McCababar. See you tomorrow.
“I'm Gilbert Cruz, and this week on the Bookerview podcast,”
it's our summer books Roundup. I'm a little nervous to admit how much I like this book.
This book is Weird, Serial, Hildesanatory.
“He's just a great writer. He can do anything.”
Incredible. He's just a good storyteller.
Do you even need to say it, I guess? This is a wild book. This is so surprising. Yeah, onto the next book. Listen to the Bookerview wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm so into this. Sounds very summary. Yeah.
