The following is a lightly edited transcript of the March 11 episode of the Daily Blast podcast. Listen to it here.
Greg Sargent: This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.
President Donald Trump is on the defensive. The Dow fell nearly 1,000 points after Trump admitted that he couldn’t rule out a recession. This comes after a week of turmoil in the markets stemming from his erratic flip-flops on tariffs. Meanwhile, Trump’s agency heads are raging at Elon Musk over the cuts he’s inflicting on their agencies. All this seems to have prodded the Democratic opposition to wake up: We just learned that House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries is whipping opposition to the continuing resolution funding the government through next fall as the government shutdown looms. But this raises a question. Will Senate Democrats step up and oppose the C.R., or will a handful of them provide the votes needed for it to pass? The case is strong for letting Trump sink, and today we’re talking to former Congressman Tom Malinowski, who’s been arguing for Democrats to refrain from bailing out Trump. Tom, it’s good to have you on.
Tom Malinowski: Great to be here.
Sargent: So the Dow fell nearly 1,000 points as of this recording. Nasdaq fell, as well. Trump’s own people are sounding the alarm. A chyron on Fox News read, “Dow tumbles as recession fears loom.” That’s on Fox News. And listen to what Trump’s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said.
Scott Bessent (audio voiceover): Could we be seeing that this economy that we inherited starting to roll a bit? Sure. And look, there’s going to be a natural adjustment as we move away from public spending to private spending. The market and the economy have just become hooked. We’ve become addicted to this government spending, and there’s going to be a detox period.
Sargent: Tom, all of this is directly attributable to Trump’s policies. What’s your reading of what we’re seeing in the markets now?
Malinowski: Well, I thought Trump actually had a great response to all of the market turmoil in a tweet yesterday. He said, We should make Greenland rich again, which is another way of saying that he is trying to distract us with all kinds of crazy shit. But it’s not working—because the tariffs are exactly what every economist says they are. There are tax on American consumers. There are tax on American manufacturers. They are a declaration of war on the countries that account for most of the trade that leads to productivity in our economy. And the markets are responding accordingly. And this is even before tariffs have actually been imposed—or he imposed them for about 24 hours before he chickened out but then threatened to impose them again. And so the uncertainty is creating the turmoil.
Sargent: And you had an amazing exchange, I thought, between Maria Bartiromo on Fox News and Trump, where she essentially pleaded with Trump to provide some sense of stability and certainty, saying that CEOs can’t make their decisions and so forth. And Trump just didn’t take her up on her offer. She served him this big softball, saying, You got to reassure people about these tariffs. Where’s this all going? and he said, I don’t know, they could go up. So he’s giving the middle finger to anyone who’s demanding any stability and certainty right now.
Malinowski: Yeah. I think it’s partly because he has isolated himself in a cocoon populated by people even crazier than himself. I tend to connect foreign policy to domestic policy a lot, and it’s interesting looking at his interactions with Zelenskiy in the Oval Office. Remember what Zelenskiy’s great crime was: He had the temerity to contradict the president of the United States. And for that, Ukrainians are being punished. Their aid has been denied. They’re dying in larger numbers.
It’s the same with Republicans. Republicans also aren’t allowed to contradict the president of the United States. Everyone is supposed to go in the Oval Office and say, Oh, Mr. President, you’re so great. You’ve been right all along with everything you’re doing. Tariffs are wonderful. Maybe just create an exemption for my company, or maybe my congressional district should get a break from what you’re doing. But of course, we love it overall. So, that Fox interview aside, he’s getting positive reinforcement from people he selected to do things that are horrible for America and, I think, politically damaging to him.
Sargent: You even got some House Republicans saying DOGE is great, but just don’t do it in my district. On Tuesday, the House is expected to vote on a continuing resolution funding the government through the fall. It would cut some nondefense spending while increasing spending on defense and on deportations. Another key issue here is that the C.R. is far less specific about its directives to fund particular programs and priorities. Democrats are pointing out that this would actually increase Elon Musk’s flexibility to slash spending and shutter government programs. Can you talk about that element of it?
Malinowski: Yes. Like most Democrats, I’m trained to believe that you always vote for C.R.; that government shutdowns are a stupid idea. It’s the radical Republicans who want to shut down the government. But this is a bizarre situation in which the president of the United States and this billionaire are already shutting down the government. So if I’m a Democrat in Congress, why do I vote for a continuing resolution to fund programs that are not continuing? It really is just a blank check. It’s like giving Trump and Musk a trillion dollars and saying, Spend it as you like. I wouldn’t be comfortable with that as a member of Congress. I don’t think my fellow Democrats who are there should be. I think they should use the leverage that this moment gives them, particularly in the Senate, to say, No, if we’re going to give you money, we need airtight guarantees that you’re going to spend it as Congress directs. Every single penny. Even if we may not like the funding levels, even if we’re spending a little less on things Democrats care about, you have to spend the money as the Congress and the Constitution directs.
Sargent: Right. No more lawbreaking. Period. Basically, what’s happening is Trump and Musk are saying, Let’s just pass this thing that emasculates you, Congress. And Republicans are saying, Absolutely. Democrats should say no to that. I want to talk about the Senate in a second; meanwhile, Hakeem Jeffries is whipping Democrats in the House to vote against the C.R. That’s good to see. I think that suggests the Democratic opposition is waking up. I want to ask you about this. You talk to a lot of House Democrats. You know how they think. You were one once. Is there a perception, a growing sense among them now that Trump is in some political trouble, given what we’ve seen on so many fronts?
Malinowski: Yes, I think so. And I think they should project confidence and strength at every turn, especially because Trump is running into trouble but mostly because I think Americans will reward leaders who do that, who lead with actions, who don’t complain. They don’t just stand there and complain; they do something. And the Democrats have an opportunity this week to do that.
And I also want to back up a little bit here to emphasize just how existential this debate is. We’ve got a lot of cases in court challenging various things that the Trump administration has done, and Trump is losing more than he’s winning. Hopefully, he’ll respect the court decisions, especially if they come from the Supreme Court. Maybe he will, but maybe he won’t. There are a lot of people on the right who are daring Trump right now to defy the courts, so we have to ask ourselves this question: What happens if he does that? Well, there’s no constitutional police. The chief justice cannot send federal marshals to the White House to compel Trump to obey the Supreme Court. He is immune to impeachment because the Republicans will not impeach him even if he shoots a man on Fifth Avenue. He can’t be prosecuted while he’s president, and he probably thinks he can’t be prosecuted after he’s president too. So what’s left?
The only practical check that’s left in that worst-case scenario is the congressional power of the purse. It’s that Congress can deny the administration funding or compel it to spend money on what the Congress directs it to spend it on. And for Democrats to give that up—I’m not saying they will, but if they do—it’s giving up potentially the last check against a tyrannical government in the United States. So that’s what this is about, and why I think they have to be willing to take some risks this week to make sure that Congress’s prerogative under the Constitution is respected.
Sargent: So let’s talk about the Senate because I think there are some reasons for not being sure that they’ll do the right thing. I do assume that House Republicans will be able to pass the C.R. with very few or no Democrats helping them. But in the Senate, Republicans will need eight Democrats to get past the filibuster. Some good signs: Senator Patty Murray, a senior appropriator, just derided the C.R. as a slush fund for Elon Musk. That’s a key tell. It means Senate Democrats are really inclined against handing Musk this power. Senator Tim Kaine, who’s pretty moderate and very respected, says he’s a “hell, no.” Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, a swing-state Dem, seems inclined against it due to the flexibility it gives to Musk. All that again suggests Dems are waking up. But are you confident right now that there won’t be eight Senate Dems for the C.R.?
Malinowski: I don’t have a count. I’m nervous, mostly because the stakes are so high. If they just let this go, that reduces Congress as a whole, and Democrats specifically, to being just an advisory body to the president of the United States. And then we just spend the rest of the year complaining and messaging. That’s not good for holding onto Democratic voters who want to see more strength demonstrated by their leaders. I don’t think that’s a great way to persuade swing voters either because strength and confidence are the qualities most Americans most want to see in their leaders. I hope they’re willing to take the risk and to say that even if it does come—as unfortunate as that would be—to a shutdown for two or three days, the stakes here would justify using that tactic.
Sargent: I agree with you. It looks to me like the case is politically strong for Senate Democrats to deny Republicans the votes they need. Trump will try to blame Democrats for any shutdown. We’ll hear the usual voices insisting that Dems must be the “adults in the room.” But I don’t think Democrats need to worry that much about that. If this chaos continues, I don’t think voters will say, Why won’t Democrats be the adults in the room? What they’re seeing now is that the guys in charge are completely losing control. Markets sliding; Musk hacking away at the government in a wildly indiscriminate and destructive way; town hall meetings hitting Republicans—not Democrats—with blowback. Wouldn’t voters slot perceptions of the government shutdown into that frame? Why not let them keep sinking?
Malinowski: It’s a different context from any that we have experienced in the past. Democrats will be able to say, if it comes to it, that it’s Musk and Trump who are shutting down Social Security offices all over the country. It’s Musk and Trump who are shutting down VA centers. It’s Musk and Trump who are shutting down NOAA, which provides us with our weather reports and hurricane safety. It’s Musk and Trump who are shutting down all foreign aid around the world, ceding the ground to China and to Russia. We’re the ones who are trying to save and reopen the government of the United States by not giving these guys a blank check to do with it as they please. We want to pass a budget that actually requires them to keep Social Security going, to keep Medicaid and Medicare going, to keep veteran services going. So it’s a very different argument than I think we’ve ever had before in a situation like this, and one the Democrats can and should be able to win.
Sargent: That’s a really critical point you’re raising there, which is that we’re in a context where Trump and Musk are essentially knocking over government agencies like toddlers playing around with towers of blocks. We’re hearing day in and day out Elon Musk heaping vicious disdain, vacuous empty-headed bullshit, on government agencies, saying things like USAID needs to die. They’re spewing endless bullshit propaganda about government functions that people actually value. That seems to me to be the context that this is happening in. I would think voters will say to themselves, The reckless people here are the ones trying to destroy the place.
Malinowski: It’s increasingly clear that they are recklessly destroying the place. And I also think most Americans, even if they are not carrying around pocket versions of the Constitution with them everywhere they go, understand the basics of how our system works, that the Congress passes laws and the Congress passes a budget and the president is supposed to respect it. And if you want to get rid of the Department of Education, maybe that’s a great idea. Go to Congress—by the way, you control Congress, and pass a different budget. Don’t give the keys to the crown jewels of the American government to this weirdo James Bond billionaire who says that the greatest failing of Western civilization is empathy and allow him to eviscerate things that veterans and seniors and people who need health care every day depend on. That’s what most Americans don’t want to see. So weakness in the face of that is not great politics for Democrats. Strength and action are always risky, but at the end of the day, Democrats and the country will benefit by showing them.
Sargent: Are you talking to members of Congress and senators? And what are you hearing back when you say that to them?
Malinowski: I’m hearing, Yes, yes, we get it.
Sargent: OK. Do they?
Malinowski: We will see. I think it’s clear that most of them do. I think Hakeem Jeffries is doing exactly the right thing, whipping against this thing. I think Democrats in the House will be fine. It’s a good sign, as you mentioned, that Patty Murray, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, has taken a really tough stand against the C.R. Generally, members follow their committee leadership. It would be a very good sign if new senators like Elissa Slotkin, who had to run and win a very tough race in a Trump state, take that stand. So I’m cautiously optimistic, but we’ll have to see.
Sargent: You served in the State Department in previous administrations. I want to pick your brain a little bit about that. Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, had something to say on Twitter early Monday morning. He said, “After a six-week review, we are officially canceling 83 percent of the programs at the U.S. Agency for International Development. The 5,200 contracts that are now canceled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve the core national interests of the United States.” It’s all so ridiculous. First of all, these programs do serve the core interests of the United States—I’d like you to talk a little bit about that. Also, this is like a tiny fraction of the budget. Why would any Democrat read that tweet and then vote for the C.R.? The secretary of state has said explicitly, Whatever you pass in your budget, we are canceling it. That’s what he just said, right?
Malinowski: Yes. The C.R. will include all of that money for USAID. So if you vote for it, you’re voting for a lie because the administration is dismantling USAID and a bunch of other parts of the government as well. I read that tweet, and that small part of my heart dedicated to Marco Rubio sunk even further. He was one of the greatest champions of American global leadership when he was in the Senate. When I was in the State Department, he would scold me for not doing more of the work that he is now responsible for destroying.
He has been a big champion, in particular, of the United States standing with and assisting folks in dictatorships from Venezuela to Iran to Russia to China, helping them stand up to their dictatorial governments, helping journalists publish in those closed societies, helping people expose corruption in those societies. And part of his legacy will be the dismantlement of everything he stood for when he was in the U.S. Senate. It’s absolutely not in the U.S. national interest. It is very explicitly in the Russian and Chinese national interest. And the Russian government has been gleefully praising and expressing gratitude to the Trump administration, particularly for taking down USAID—because they see it as a threat.
I’m not one for conspiracy theories or for exaggerated arguments, but I cannot think of a reason for doing this other than that there are people in this administration who are either drunk on Russian propaganda or consciously trying to serve the interests of our greatest adversaries.
Sargent: It certainly seems like they’re directly attacking the foundations of American power in really critical ways that Russia has to be really happy about. Just to come back to the stocks again: The more these stocks continue to be in turmoil, I think the harder it is for Trump and Republicans to get through this shutdown fight intact, don’t you? Where do you see this going? If the tumult remains, will Senate Democrats see that and say, This guy’s in real trouble, we’re not letting up now, we’re not going to bail him out?
Malinowski: They should, and I hope they will. Again, it makes me more optimistic that Democrats will show some strength in the coming days. I find it almost comical that Trump and his people are making arguments that remind me of arguments that Communist leaders in Eastern Europe used to make, that Yes, we know everyone’s getting poorer, but sometimes you have to sacrifice in order to prove the historical wisdom and justice of your cause. This is a guy who’s won this election not on crazy ideology but on a promise to make things less expensive and to make the economy better. And now he’s resorting to these arguments that we have to suffer so that at some period some point in the distant future, we will achieve pure America first, whatever that is—in Russia, they would have said, We can achieve pure communism. But you have to suffer now. That’s their message, and that’s not what Americans voted for.
Sargent: No, clearly not. And I think Senate Democrats know that. I still worry that on some level they feel like Trump has got his finger on the pulse of the country in a way that they don’t, and they’re going to be reluctant. I hope I’m wrong. What do you think, Tom?
Malinowski: I think there’s a natural caution to a lot of Democrats that I served with. Democrats have a tendency to overthink things. We meet in committees; we look at polls very, very carefully; we think through all the potential negative consequences that may accrue from any of our actions. And I guess that makes us responsible people. But that approach to leadership is not in keeping with the nature of the challenge that we face right now as a country. And it may be that I was born in a Communist country and I spent my life working to support movements, fight really nasty people who were ruthless and who would kill you if they won—and that’s not the background of most of the people I served with in Congress. Why would it be? They’re Americans. They’ve spent their whole lives in a democracy that works by consent. So my fear going into this that some of them just wouldn’t have the stomach for the fighting that we’re going to need to do.
I am more optimistic about this, though, than I was a couple of weeks ago because more people are seeing just how devastating Trump’s policies are—not just on a day-to-day economic level, but in terms of the threat to the Constitution, to our place in the world, to our identity as Americans—and, hopefully, because Trump’s stumbles are giving them greater confidence.
Sargent: I really hope Senate Democrats pay close attention to what you’re saying. Tom Malinowski, thanks so much for coming on with us.
Malinowski: Of course. Thank you, Greg. Anytime.
Sargent: You’ve been listening to The Daily Blast with me, your host, Greg Sargent. The Daily Blast is a New Republic podcast and is produced by Riley Fessler and the DSR Network.