Think about the 31st Newly!
Why? Last call for your steuer. Oh no, I don't know where I'm going to go.
“Because as a steuer, that's how steuer is just a stress.”
Is that easy? Of course, it's almost all automatic. Steuers are long? No, just a few times. Well, then...
I'm going back to work with my steuer. It's about the 31st Newly. Our experience for your podcast, freshness, and snackless meals from Aldi. Always good.
Always good. In a lot of time, Kutts says freshness for all. To the Aldi price. This week, Minnie Wassermillone, the kilo for only €1.29.
Or nectarines. The one kilo for only €1.80. In a deck there are many more languages in your Aldi Nord. And furthermore, easy to get and enjoy. Aldi.
Good for all. This is the Daily Blast from the New Republic,
“produced and presented by the DSR network.”
I'm your host, Greg Sargent. This week, the New York Times released a batch of polls, showing Democrats with an striking distance of winning enough Senate races to win control. One big finding was that Donald Trump's numbers in these states
are absolutely abysmal. Small wonder, then, that Trump is taking some corrupt new steps to give Republican candidates a big boost. Steve Benin of MSNow noticed a really intriguing pattern. In several states, Trump is directly linking
the approval of disaster aid right to his endorsements of GOP candidates in some of the most contested races. That's not how this is supposed to work, but it opens a window on something to watch for, which we're talking to Steve Benin about today.
Trump will surely scale up his use of the government to boost GOP fortunes and coming months, and God knows how he's going to do that. Steve, good to have you back on. Thanks, Greg.
It's great to be here. So let's just start off really simply. Steve, how is the president's supposed to make decisions about disaster aid to states and has he doled out
“disaster aid in an equivalent way to blue and red states?”
Right, the foundational question here is exactly right, is exactly that, which is, there's a system in place that has been in place for generations. When it comes to federal disaster aid,
presidents are just supposed to make, presidents in their administrations are just simply supposed to make it, the decisions on the merits. Does a state deserve and does it need federal disaster aid?
And if it does, great, if it doesn't, then no,
but that's how it's always worked
in a bipartisan and objective way. Even Donald Trump's first chart, we didn't necessarily see any major controversy or scandals surrounding a politicization of disaster. However, over the last year, year and a half,
it's been much different. So political reported in March, a report that I think really bears repeating. I'm just going to read the portion of the article. The Donald Trump approved just 23% of disaster funding
requests from states with democratic governors and democratic senators. All at the same time, over the roughly the same period, states with Republican governors and Republican senators had their approval 89%
in terms of the request for federal disaster aid. 23% less than a fourth for blue states, 89% nearly nine out of 10 for red states. Now, it's a dramatic, indefensible ratio and it's speaks to the fact that it's really been corrupted
and politicized in a way that has never existed before
in the federal government. - Well, you noticed this pattern in addition to this. In recent days, Trump announced huge amounts of disaster aid to at least six states. Most of them were read, two of them were swing states,
Michigan and Wisconsin, and I want to focus on those for now. Let's take Michigan first. Trump said this on truth social, quote, "I am pleased to announce that the great state of Michigan has been approved to be given $32 million
in its disaster declaration request." Trump added, quote, "The people of Michigan are in good hands with Trump endorsed Mike Rogers, who is running for U.S. Senate and John James for governor."
Close, quote, "Steve, it's true that Trump also cited the Democratic governor on the tweet, but she's not running for anything
and he did boost to critical geo-be Candidates.
Senate hopeful microchers and gubernatorial hopeful John James. Can you explain why you see that as corrupt?" - You know, there's a point last year we saw some hints along these lines. We're Trump would talk about the fact
that he'd approved disaster aid for say Missouri, for example. And it would emphasize the fact that he won a Missouri electoral votes in his previous elections. Suggesting there was a connection between his political support in the state and his eagerness to provide federal,
provide federal relief for that state. But now he's just dropped the pretense. There's no real sense that maybe he's just being coy
Or being subtle about any of this.
Here we have an instance in which he's talking about approving federal disaster aid and literally explicitly and overtly, including a endorsement for various candidates aligned with his wine house as if they're interconnected
in ways that as far as he's concerned, are inextricable. - Yes, and let's move to Wisconsin now and here Trump was even more blatant. He posted this quote,
"I just spoke with Congressman Tom Tiffany who has my complete and total endorsement for governor and informed him that the great state of Wisconsin has been approved to be given $22.6 million in its disaster declaration request, close quote.
Steve, here he makes its sound as if this Republican candidate for governor helped deliver this money to the state. And Trump also says the people of Wisconsin are in good hands with him and then also sites Congressman Derek Van Orden,
“who has locked in an absolutely key house race.”
Steve, he's just blurting it out right in public. I want to be clear that all these races were talking about here. Michigan Senate and Governor, Wisconsin Governor
and Congressman are really critical races
and their toss-ups. Your thoughts on all this? You know, the brazeness of it all is just breathtaking. I mean, here we have a situation in which we have a competitive state, arguably the most competitive state of the nation
Wisconsin is, we've seen it over and over again and recent election cycles. And so instead of acknowledging the Democratic governor's role and perhaps requesting federal disaster relief in the first place,
the Donald Trump just ignores that and says it makes a connection between this congressman who has nothing to do with the process and the money that's going to the state and the communities in the state that made the aid.
And so there's no real pretence here. There's no sense of propriety at all. It's making a direct connection between a congressman running for governor that who has enjoys the president's support
and the money that the federal government, the Trump administration is not providing to the state. So I hope that your listeners can appreciate the fact
that it has never worked this way.
We've never had a system in place in which a White House or Republican administration or enemy administration has necessarily made this connection, made this direct tie between endorsing a candidate and the federal disaster relief.
I mean, it's scandals to my mind, it's borderline impeachable that where we'd have this kind of indefensible connection between two things that should have nothing to do with my mother. - Yeah, and if you put this on the larger context,
it really, really gets thrown into stark relief. You know, he's badly stiff democratic states of disaster aid relative to Republican states over much of his second term. And here he's dulling this out to these swing states,
arguably precisely because they have very competitive and important races in them, right? I mean, it's not that much of a leap to say, that's why he approved the aid to them. He's trying to create the impression
that these candidates played a major role in delivering this federal money to these states. - Right, and you know, we've had a series of controversies over the last year and a half,
“and I think that you and I have talked about this before,”
in which we've seen the administration and the White House being accused of misusing federal resources for political purposes to achieve electoral goals, which in itself is scandalous.
And here we have more evidence to the indictment. Here we have more evidence to consider as part of these broader allegations. Is the White House making decisions as it relates to federal disaster funds
for the purposes of affecting the outcomes of elections? And if so, and if that's the sort of thing that maybe the next Congress might wanna investigate in more detail, maybe hold a congressional hearing or oversight hearing or two, as it relates to this,
this is a sort of thing that can resonate, I think with most people because there's an understanding we don't do that in the United States. We don't connect disaster communities that are affected by disasters
and the money that the people in those communities need and deserve and then electoral strategies and campaign strategies.
Those two things should never be mixed.
And yet we have reason to believe that that's exactly what's happening here. And I feel like it's incumbent upon lawmakers and policymakers to get answers to these questions because really if this is happening in our name,
it is a scandal that should help define Donald Trump's second term. - Now, you singled out a number of other states. It's not quite as clear that these are ones with competitive races, but they do have racism. And in these cases, you found there really is
an apparent connection between the decision to award the aid and the political fortunes of Republicans in these states.
“Can you talk about these other places that you looked at?”
- Sure, let's look at Candidates for example. Now, Candidates, as your listeners will know, is a pretty reliable red state, but yet it has a democratic governor and it has a requested federal disaster relief.
Now, fortunately the president approved that disaster relief for the tune of five and a half million dollars,
When he did so, he specifically acknowledged
Senator Roger Marshall, a close presidential ally
“who just happens to be running for a reelection in 2026”
and didn't mention the governor and then went to took the additional step of mentioning that he, time-asterson, the GOP candidate in the gubernatorial race for 2026. Now, there was no need to mention Marshall or Masterson,
but again, here we have a situation in which the president's preoccupation is not with the people who need the aid of the communities that have been affected by natural disasters, what he's factoring in, what he's prioritizing.
Now, there is the fact that there are the Republicans who are aligned with his White House, who are on the ballot in the fall. That's the focus, that's the priority, that's the message that he wants to get through,
that he's proving this aid, any ones people to make that connection between the assistance, the federal emergency assistance,
and the candidate's surgery would be on the ballot.
- Yeah, you did look at some other states and you really drew a convincing pattern. Let's just talk about the polls for now, though, the New York Times surveyed six Senate races. Democrats are ahead in North Carolina
and up by a hair and mane tied in Texas and just behind in Alaska, Iowa, and Ohio. That puts Dems and striking distance of winning the four of these contests that they need to win to take the upper chamber,
“though there, I think, still clearly the underdogs”
for Senate control. Steve, I think on balance, that polling's pretty good news. Nobody really expected Dems to be this competitive in these particular states, many of which are red. What did you think about these findings?
- Yeah, I think that last point that you mentioned a moment ago is exactly the key that, if we look at this in the context of, say, where we saw where we had the political landscape say two months ago, or really six months ago, maybe even a year ago,
the idea of a democratic Senate in the beginning, elected in the 2026 midterms was absurd. It was not something that people were thinking about, it wasn't people were talking about, the democratic hopes were focused on the house, which seem more plausible,
which seem more realistic given the fact that there's really a small, rich European majority right now, and given historical trends, it seemed likely that Dems were able to pick up enough seats to gain a majority and take the speakers gave away from Lake Johnson.
The Senate was a long shot. It was just something that was seem like that a left field and not really as part of the conversation. Then it's changed considerably. I mean, there are contests now that are very much in play
that people weren't even thinking about it all. It's like Alaska, Texas. These are states, even Iowa, the New York Times poll that you've just referenced showed Iowa being very competitive. And that's another state that is now generally seen as a red state
that is now very competitive at the Senate level. And so taking together, we start to see a path. Now it's not an easy path, especially given that there are 53 Senate Republicans, and it will take a lot.
But at the same time, given historical patterns, if there's a serious enough backslash to the status quo, we have a very unpopular president, we have a agenda that is generating all kinds of pushback and protests nationwide.
Those factors, you put them together, coupled with the fact that it won't satisfy with the city of the economy or the war in Iran. You start to wonder, maybe the Senate can be flipped, given the right circumstances.
It's no longer unrealistic.
- Yes, and here's what's critical about these numbers
from the New York Times. Trump himself is polling terribly in these states. On the war with Iran, across these six states, only 38% approve his handling of it, while 59% disapprove on gas prices,
it's 33% to 63%, and across these six battlegrounds, only 36% approve of his handling of the cost of living, and on that, his approval is 24% among independence. Steve, I want to stress this. Trump won by that of these six states.
We're talking about places like Ohio, Iowa, Alaska, Texas, these are red states, and he's in the 30s on the cost of living, and in the 20s on that among independence. That's why these races are competitive.
What do you think of that?
“- I think that if I were to Republican official right now,”
or if I were a GOP strategist looking ahead to the fall, I would be sweating. In fact, I would be losing sleep because these numbers are abysmal. These are, if you one thing,
if we were looking at the polling in Vermont and Hawaii, and we saw the Democrats with a big advantage, and we saw whites for it, I'll position it to the White House, and it's agenda, that would be expected and not necessarily alarming,
but for Republicans, what you just emphasize is exactly right, in red states, states were done. Donald Trump won by a large double-digit margins without even having to break a sweat. He is not only deeply unpopular, but there's a rejection,
not just of him, but his effect of his policies, and the way in which his presidency is unfolding, the way that people are just dealing with the crises that are unfolding in their daily lives, that Donald Trump is ignoring Mr. I love inflation,
or I love the inflation. This is not a winning strategy sign when he message, and really the party doesn't really have anything to run on, except maybe their opposition to DSA candidates, which is really not going to be enough to get them very far.
- Yes, and by the way, I want to stress this number as well
on the times polling.
In these six states, only 35% say the economy is good,
while 63% say the opposite. That's really terrible. Again, in states, the Trump largely won, right? - Exactly, you know, year in and year out, especially in the wake of the pandemic.
Economy is really the driving force that we see overwriting every other consideration. There is an affordability crisis. We've seen weak, or we've seen weak job numbers. We've seen weak as GDP growth.
You know, Donald Trump ran for office saying that voters can expect an immediate boom, an economic boom is the day on day one of his second term. I mean, obviously, they feel spectacularly to live around those promises.
And voters have noticed, there's only so many ways that you can lie to people about their own wallets, about their own paychecks, about the bills that are piling up on their desk. And so really, I'm not, I'm at a loss
as to explain what the White House can do about this, other than maybe hope that the Boleroom is a lot more popular than it is now. - I want to highlight still more findings here. Voters in each of these six states
said the most important issues to them
by far are jobs, the economy inflation, the cost of living. The time says this, by a 14 percentage point margin, voters in these states, in these battlegrounds, said that Trump's policies have hurt more than health.
And 52% of independent said Trump's policies had hurt. Only 22% said they had helped. Again, in states, Trump won mostly, almost all of them.
“- Right, and I think that the significance of that is”
that the White House strategy over the last year and a half has been to blame Biden every time these questions have come up. Every time they're confronted with another poll, another controversy, another pushback from Congress about the city of the economy, they say the same thing.
No, no, no, let's blame Joe Biden, let's blame Kamal Harris, let's blame the past. But this poll indicates that that talking point, that pushback simply does not work. People are looking at the effects of Trump's agenda
of Trump's policies, of what Trump has been able to deliver. And they're saying, you know what, I'm not better off. I was better off for four, things are worse. The value of my dollar is worse. Every time I go to the grocery store, it's worse.
Every time I fill up with the gas tank, it's worse. And so they can't blame Biden when Americans are looking at the status quo in realizing that over the last year and a half Trump has failed to deliver and things are not better than they were, even despite his promises,
despite everything he has said he wasn't going to be able to do. He hasn't been able to do it, and people have noticed. OK, let's tie this back to the broader theme of this episode. Again, we've been discussing how Trump in a very blatant way is kind of corruptly tying disaster aid to states
right to Republican candidates in these states. Again, the larger context here being that he had been stiffing Democratic states in the past and all of a sudden he's now granting aid to the ones where he wants to boost the Republican candidates.
“I think this is all a sign that we're going to see a real ramped”
up effort to use the government in every conceivable way possible to try to swing these midterms. The obvious stuff would be maybe using ice or even the military
to send in troops to basically to places to create a sense of crisis.
But that's like only the most kind of prominent and dramatic thing that he could do. What we're seeing with this pattern you identified is that there are subtle things he can do as well. Where do you think this is going to go?
I think that we should be expecting an all of government approach in the coming months and the coming weeks and months because really, RFK Jr has hit the campaign trail. And it's going to competitive districts and making connections between HHS and local elections, local officials running
for public statewide offices. And so if HHS is doing it, and now we see FEMA resources, and then we see ICE across the board, I think what we can expect in the coming weeks is a federal government that is focused exclusively on helping Republicans win elections.
Period full stuff. That is what is going, that is unfolding in real time right now.
“I think it's only going to get worse, especially as the polls show”
Democrats with an advantage, and essentially as polls show Democrats with a stronger lead, I think the anxiety and Republicans are going to intensify the panic will lead to more abuses, more corruption, more misuse of resources. And I think it's something that Americans need to be keeping
a close eye on because this is happening in their name. This is their resources. It's is their government that's being abused. And it's a scandal that's unfolding before our eyes, the likes of which we have not seen in modern history.
And just to wrap this up, what's really intriguing about the whole situation is that Trump has to blur it out the corrupt scheme right in plain sight, precisely because he wants voters to draw these connections. He wants voters to say to themselves, in these places, OK,
it's because of John James that Michigan is getting all this aid,
Or it's because of Derek Van Orden in Wisconsin,
or the Wisconsin-Goobinatorial candidate.
“This is why Wisconsin's getting this aid.”
It's sort of an intriguing situation in that sense, isn't it that he goes out of his way to blatantly blurred out the scheme right in plain sight in order to get voters to draw the link, right? He has no choice.
I mean, the corruption doesn't work. It happens in secret. He has to break a public.
“You were saying what you're saying is exactly right.”
He has to say the quiet part loud. He has to say, look, I'm corrupting the federal disaster relief process on purpose. And I'm doing this in person. And I'm saying this deliberately in order for people to vote
the right way. I mean, he can't keep it secret. He has to expose it in order for the scheme to work.
“My fear is that as far as he is concerned,”
he is above her approach. He is literally unimputable. He cannot be held accountable for his own actions, because as far as he's concerned,
he's never been held accountable for his own actions.
And according to the Supreme Court, he can't even be prosecuted even after I'm leaving office. So long as there's some figlet about this being official acts. And so as far as he's concerned, he can get away with it because he can't be held accountable.
My hope is that if there is, say, a democratic council next year, the corrupting a democratic congress, he will soon learn that he can be held accountable, that there is a Congress that will hold hearings that will consider impeachment, that will consider penalties that will actually matter
because up until now, he has gotten away with so much. - I've said this before on this show, and I'm gonna repeat it again. There is one body of people out there who can actually hold Trump accountable, and it's the voters.
We really need them to do that. We really need it Steve.
Steve Benin, always great to talk to you.
Thanks so much, good flag on this stuff, by the way. - Thank you very, appreciate it.
