WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.540 Welcome back to the deep dive. OK, so our mission 00:00:03.540 --> 00:00:07.559 today is really to look past just the immediate 00:00:07.559 --> 00:00:09.880 election results. You know, we want to analyze 00:00:09.880 --> 00:00:11.960 the bigger shifts happening underneath. Exactly. 00:00:12.000 --> 00:00:13.560 We're not just doing the horse race who won, 00:00:13.580 --> 00:00:16.719 who lost. We're looking at the the strategies, 00:00:16.940 --> 00:00:19.140 what's actually working with voters and some 00:00:19.140 --> 00:00:21.679 really big legal battles brewing. Right. We've 00:00:21.679 --> 00:00:24.539 got sources covering the media reactions, a huge 00:00:24.539 --> 00:00:26.960 Supreme Court case about presidential power and 00:00:26.960 --> 00:00:30.559 trade and also how the parties are Well, rigging 00:00:30.559 --> 00:00:33.280 the game for the future with maps and election 00:00:33.280 --> 00:00:35.820 security stuff. Yeah, a lot to unpack. We've 00:00:35.820 --> 00:00:37.340 pulled from places like the Washington Post, 00:00:37.500 --> 00:00:41.340 New York Times, Politico, NBC, NPR, ABC News, 00:00:41.700 --> 00:00:43.780 the usual suspects. So this dive should give 00:00:43.780 --> 00:00:46.020 you the key things you need to know, like what 00:00:46.020 --> 00:00:48.299 arguments are sticking? What's the next big fight 00:00:48.299 --> 00:00:50.020 in Congress or the court's going to be about? 00:00:50.479 --> 00:00:53.679 Let's let's jump in. OK, so first segment, the 00:00:53.679 --> 00:00:55.969 media takeaways. After the recent elections, 00:00:56.369 --> 00:00:58.030 what were the sort of recurring themes popping 00:00:58.030 --> 00:00:59.530 up everywhere? Well, you know, reading through 00:00:59.530 --> 00:01:01.609 all the analyses, two things really jumped out 00:01:01.609 --> 00:01:05.170 consistently. First, the Trump factor still. 00:01:06.030 --> 00:01:10.189 The New York Times, Politico, ABC, NBC, NPR. 00:01:11.170 --> 00:01:14.329 They all basically agreed he remains, let's call 00:01:14.329 --> 00:01:17.170 it, electoral poison for the Republicans overall. 00:01:17.390 --> 00:01:19.709 Even with some minority groups that had shifted 00:01:19.709 --> 00:01:22.359 towards him before. Even there, yeah. Yeah. The 00:01:22.359 --> 00:01:25.260 drag seems pretty widespread. AP just flat out 00:01:25.260 --> 00:01:27.920 called the results a referendum on Trump. OK, 00:01:27.980 --> 00:01:29.540 so that's one big theme. What was the second? 00:01:30.019 --> 00:01:31.879 It always seems to come back to this. It does. 00:01:31.879 --> 00:01:35.879 It's the economy. Stupid. Still. AP and NPR really 00:01:35.879 --> 00:01:38.280 hammered this home. Voters are just incredibly 00:01:38.280 --> 00:01:40.640 sensitive to prices, the cost of living. That's 00:01:40.640 --> 00:01:42.719 top of mind. And did we see that play out with 00:01:42.719 --> 00:01:45.659 specific candidates? Absolutely. Candidates who 00:01:45.659 --> 00:01:47.519 really lunged into that, who hammered on prices, 00:01:47.680 --> 00:01:49.920 think so are Namdani, Abil Spanberger, Mikey 00:01:49.920 --> 00:01:51.819 Sherrill. They seem to do really well. They were 00:01:51.819 --> 00:01:53.459 talking about what people are feeling at the 00:01:53.459 --> 00:01:55.560 grocery store. OK, but here's where it gets interesting, 00:01:55.719 --> 00:01:58.579 based on some polling. The blame for those prices. 00:01:58.989 --> 00:02:01.430 It seems to be shifting. We saw an Ipsos poll. 00:02:01.750 --> 00:02:05.230 Yeah, that poll was striking. It suggests Americans 00:02:05.230 --> 00:02:07.150 are actually blaming Donald Trump for the current 00:02:07.150 --> 00:02:10.270 inflation rate. He's what, 19 points underwater 00:02:10.270 --> 00:02:13.629 on that specific question? Nineteen points. And 00:02:13.629 --> 00:02:17.310 why did the poll suggest a reason? It did. The 00:02:17.310 --> 00:02:20.050 sources pinpointed it pretty clearly. Fifty eight 00:02:20.050 --> 00:02:21.889 percent of Americans think his tariffs are the 00:02:21.889 --> 00:02:24.310 main reason for price increases. They're seeing 00:02:24.310 --> 00:02:26.520 them as the scapegoat. So that connects directly 00:02:26.520 --> 00:02:29.259 to the cost of living concerns. Directly. You've 00:02:29.259 --> 00:02:31.340 got like seven in 10 Americans saying they're 00:02:31.340 --> 00:02:34.000 spending more on groceries. Food and energy prices 00:02:34.000 --> 00:02:36.939 are up what 12 percent over the last year. And 00:02:36.939 --> 00:02:38.800 that hits working class families the hardest. 00:02:39.199 --> 00:02:41.560 Which ironically is supposed to be a key part 00:02:41.560 --> 00:02:44.460 of his base. Exactly. And you even had figures 00:02:44.460 --> 00:02:47.340 like Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene warning 00:02:47.340 --> 00:02:49.479 Republicans could lose the House if people are 00:02:49.479 --> 00:02:51.699 still continuing to go paycheck to paycheck. 00:02:51.939 --> 00:02:54.740 So they recognize the danger. But they can't 00:02:54.740 --> 00:02:56.560 seem to shake the connection people are making 00:02:56.560 --> 00:02:59.000 between the tariffs and their wallets. It looks 00:02:59.000 --> 00:03:01.439 that way. It's an affordability issue that people 00:03:01.439 --> 00:03:04.340 are tying back to a specific policy. And, you 00:03:04.340 --> 00:03:07.159 know, this has real strategic implications. Look 00:03:07.159 --> 00:03:09.659 at Virginia's gubernatorial results. What happened 00:03:09.659 --> 00:03:11.800 there? Well, yeah, most counties stayed red on 00:03:11.800 --> 00:03:14.979 the map. But compared to the 2024 presidential 00:03:14.979 --> 00:03:18.780 election, every single county in Virginia shifted 00:03:18.780 --> 00:03:21.199 at least a little bit towards the Democrats. 00:03:21.460 --> 00:03:24.599 Every county. Even the deep red ones. Every single 00:03:24.599 --> 00:03:26.599 one. Which tells you something important about 00:03:26.599 --> 00:03:29.060 campaign strategy. Which is? That campaigning 00:03:29.060 --> 00:03:31.719 hard everywhere matters. Even in those red areas 00:03:31.719 --> 00:03:34.259 you know you won't win. It's about, like, closing 00:03:34.259 --> 00:03:36.699 the gap. So losing by less is actually a win? 00:03:37.020 --> 00:03:40.159 In a way, yes. Losing a red county by 10 ,000 00:03:40.159 --> 00:03:42.719 fewer votes is just as valuable statewide as 00:03:42.719 --> 00:03:44.800 winning 10 ,000 more votes in a blue county you 00:03:44.800 --> 00:03:46.479 already hold. It's about margin compression. 00:03:46.699 --> 00:03:51.020 So the takeaway is, show up. campaign on affordability, 00:03:51.699 --> 00:03:54.020 hammer the tariff connection, even in hostile 00:03:54.020 --> 00:03:55.800 territory. That seems to be the lesson from Virginia, 00:03:56.120 --> 00:03:58.479 yeah. Just showing up and making the case can 00:03:58.479 --> 00:04:00.860 shave off crucial votes, even if you don't flip 00:04:00.860 --> 00:04:03.780 the county. That's a powerful insight. Okay, 00:04:04.039 --> 00:04:07.199 speaking of tariffs and policy, let's pivot to 00:04:07.199 --> 00:04:10.280 the courts. Because it sounds like the Supreme 00:04:10.280 --> 00:04:13.060 Court... might be about to take away a major 00:04:13.060 --> 00:04:15.400 tool related to those tariffs. Yeah, this is 00:04:15.400 --> 00:04:16.899 a really big one. We're talking about learning 00:04:16.899 --> 00:04:19.540 resources, Inc. v. Trump. Tell us about that. 00:04:19.560 --> 00:04:22.480 What's the core issue? So the background is, 00:04:22.480 --> 00:04:24.360 you know, the Trump administration imposed all 00:04:24.360 --> 00:04:26.819 these huge tariffs using executive orders. They 00:04:26.819 --> 00:04:28.959 claimed it was an emergency situation. Right, 00:04:28.980 --> 00:04:30.819 I remember that. They were pretty sweeping. Oh, 00:04:30.839 --> 00:04:33.019 completely. The sources even pointed out kind 00:04:33.019 --> 00:04:36.279 of absurdly that they slapped tariffs on imports 00:04:36.279 --> 00:04:38.899 from Hurt Island, which is like uninhabited. 00:04:39.040 --> 00:04:42.120 a UNESCO site, just to show the power was supposedly 00:04:42.120 --> 00:04:45.500 unlimited. OK, but isn't levying tariffs basically 00:04:45.500 --> 00:04:48.319 taxes Congress's job according to the Constitution, 00:04:48.740 --> 00:04:50.639 Article 1? That's the whole point. Article I 00:04:50.639 --> 00:04:52.740 gives Congress the power of the purse, including 00:04:52.740 --> 00:04:54.839 tariffs. So the administration had to find a 00:04:54.839 --> 00:04:57.019 way around that. How'd they try? They argued 00:04:57.019 --> 00:05:00.339 Congress actually gave them that power indirectly 00:05:00.339 --> 00:05:03.779 through a law from 1977. It's called the International 00:05:03.779 --> 00:05:09.000 Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA. IEPA. OK. 00:05:09.500 --> 00:05:12.939 And what does that law say? It lets the president 00:05:12.939 --> 00:05:17.439 regulate the importation or exploitation of goods 00:05:17.439 --> 00:05:20.300 during a declared national emergency. So the 00:05:20.300 --> 00:05:22.420 whole case kind of hangs on that word, regulate. 00:05:22.579 --> 00:05:25.439 Does regulate mean you can just impose massive 00:05:25.439 --> 00:05:27.680 taxes? That seems like a stretch. Well, that's 00:05:27.680 --> 00:05:29.560 exactly what the justices seem to think. They 00:05:29.560 --> 00:05:32.139 sounded pretty skeptical during the arguments. 00:05:32.439 --> 00:05:34.779 Especially now, right? They just overturned that 00:05:34.779 --> 00:05:37.420 Chevron standard about Deferring to agencies. 00:05:38.019 --> 00:05:40.459 Precisely. They're pushing back on agencies reading 00:05:40.459 --> 00:05:44.040 broad powers into vague laws. The justices basically 00:05:44.040 --> 00:05:46.699 asked, how could Congress just hand over its 00:05:46.699 --> 00:05:49.759 core taxing power without saying so very, very 00:05:49.759 --> 00:05:51.620 clearly? Did the administration have a counter 00:05:51.620 --> 00:05:54.379 to that? They tried. The Solicitor General argued 00:05:54.379 --> 00:05:56.620 these weren't taxes, they were regulatory tariffs. 00:05:56.720 --> 00:05:59.699 The goal wasn't revenue, supposedly. It was negotiation 00:05:59.699 --> 00:06:03.399 leverage. Did that fly? Especially when Trump 00:06:03.399 --> 00:06:05.259 himself said the tariffs were helping the deficit. 00:06:05.420 --> 00:06:07.980 Yeah, Chief Justice Roberts jumped right on that. 00:06:08.399 --> 00:06:10.199 If they're reducing the deficit, that sounds 00:06:10.199 --> 00:06:12.920 a lot like revenue, which sounds a lot like a 00:06:12.920 --> 00:06:17.100 tax. The regulatory tariff argument seemed pretty 00:06:17.100 --> 00:06:20.899 thin. So the court was dubious. What about the 00:06:20.899 --> 00:06:23.500 precedent? Were they worried about future presidents 00:06:23.500 --> 00:06:26.360 using this? Oh, absolutely. That was a huge part 00:06:26.360 --> 00:06:30.339 of the discussion. They posed this really pointed 00:06:31.069 --> 00:06:33.829 Hypothetical. What was it? They asked, OK, if 00:06:33.829 --> 00:06:36.149 we say the president can do this under IEPA for 00:06:36.149 --> 00:06:39.009 a trade emergency, what stops a future Democratic 00:06:39.009 --> 00:06:41.550 president from declaring climate change a national 00:06:41.550 --> 00:06:44.569 emergency? Uh -oh. And then slapping massive 00:06:44.569 --> 00:06:47.610 regulatory tariffs on all imported gas -powered 00:06:47.610 --> 00:06:50.029 cars. Wow. And what did the administration's 00:06:50.029 --> 00:06:52.410 lawyers say? He basically had to concede that 00:06:52.410 --> 00:06:54.069 yes, under their reading of the law, that would 00:06:54.069 --> 00:06:55.769 be possible. That probably didn't help their 00:06:55.769 --> 00:06:58.370 case much. Probably not. It runs right into this 00:06:58.370 --> 00:07:00.629 thing called the major questions doctrine. Remind 00:07:00.629 --> 00:07:02.449 us what that is again. It's relatively new, right? 00:07:02.600 --> 00:07:06.620 Yeah, from 2022, it basically says that for really 00:07:06.620 --> 00:07:10.060 big politically or economically significant regulations, 00:07:10.600 --> 00:07:12.819 the administration needs clear authorization 00:07:12.819 --> 00:07:15.199 from Congress, not just some vague word like 00:07:15.199 --> 00:07:18.740 regulate in an old law. And EPA doesn't have 00:07:18.740 --> 00:07:21.560 that clear authorization for tariffs. Not according 00:07:21.560 --> 00:07:24.319 to the sources analyzing the arguments. No, it 00:07:24.319 --> 00:07:27.319 just says regulate. It doesn't say impose unlimited 00:07:27.319 --> 00:07:30.379 taxes via tariffs. So what's the likely outcome 00:07:30.379 --> 00:07:33.459 here and when? Most observers think the administration 00:07:33.459 --> 00:07:35.920 is likely to lose this one, based on the justices' 00:07:36.160 --> 00:07:38.839 skepticism, maybe apart from Thomas Nolito. And 00:07:38.839 --> 00:07:40.680 because the case was fast -tracked, we should 00:07:40.680 --> 00:07:43.060 get a decision pretty soon, maybe before the 00:07:43.060 --> 00:07:45.439 end of the term. And if Trump loses, what's the 00:07:45.439 --> 00:07:47.959 impact? It'd be a huge blow, frankly. It takes 00:07:47.959 --> 00:07:50.459 away his main tool for trying to shape international 00:07:50.459 --> 00:07:53.160 trade deals through unilateral action. It forces 00:07:53.160 --> 00:07:55.360 any future tariff policy back through Congress. 00:07:55.800 --> 00:07:58.500 OK, so a potential major check on executive power 00:07:58.500 --> 00:08:00.139 coming from the courts. That takes us nicely 00:08:00.139 --> 00:08:02.459 into our last segment, the mechanics of the next 00:08:02.459 --> 00:08:04.560 fight, how the parties are setting up the battlefield 00:08:04.560 --> 00:08:07.899 for 2026. Right. While the court might limit 00:08:07.899 --> 00:08:10.259 current power, the parties are already deep in 00:08:10.259 --> 00:08:13.160 the trenches fighting over maps, candidates and 00:08:13.160 --> 00:08:15.519 even the basic infrastructure of elections. Let's 00:08:15.519 --> 00:08:17.180 start with the maps, the redistricting race. 00:08:17.519 --> 00:08:19.350 Where's the action happening? Well, California 00:08:19.350 --> 00:08:21.509 and Virginia are both redrawing congressional 00:08:21.509 --> 00:08:24.089 maps right now. The estimates we saw suggest 00:08:24.089 --> 00:08:27.589 that could potentially net Democrats maybe eight 00:08:27.589 --> 00:08:30.209 seats combined if things break their way. Eight 00:08:30.209 --> 00:08:33.090 seats is significant. Any specific examples of 00:08:33.090 --> 00:08:35.710 these mapfights? Yeah, look at Maryland. You've 00:08:35.710 --> 00:08:38.129 got the Democratic governor, Wes Moore, pushing 00:08:38.129 --> 00:08:40.690 for a new map specifically designed to target 00:08:40.690 --> 00:08:43.389 the state's lone Republican congressman, Andy 00:08:43.389 --> 00:08:46.139 Harris. His district is what? R plus eight? Pretty 00:08:46.139 --> 00:08:49.440 Republican. R -plus -8, yeah. It's MD -01. But 00:08:49.440 --> 00:08:51.940 Maryland already has some incredibly gerrymandered 00:08:51.940 --> 00:08:54.740 districts, like MD -03, which snakes all over 00:08:54.740 --> 00:08:57.299 the place. The problem for Moore is that the 00:08:57.299 --> 00:08:59.960 Republican voters in Harris' district are really 00:08:59.960 --> 00:09:02.480 concentrated geographically deep on the Delmarva 00:09:02.480 --> 00:09:04.779 Peninsula. So it's hard to draw them out. Exactly. 00:09:04.820 --> 00:09:07.279 You can try to make it maybe R -plus -3 or R 00:09:07.279 --> 00:09:10.240 -plus -4, which is competitive, but it's tough 00:09:10.240 --> 00:09:12.240 to guarantee a flip when the voters are packed 00:09:12.240 --> 00:09:15.240 together like that. It shows how hard it is to 00:09:15.240 --> 00:09:18.159 undo geographic sorting through map drawing alone. 00:09:18.419 --> 00:09:20.600 Okay, so that's a tough one for Democrats. What 00:09:20.600 --> 00:09:25.340 about elsewhere? Any wins for less gerrymandered 00:09:25.340 --> 00:09:29.639 maps? Actually, yes. Out in Utah. A state judge 00:09:29.639 --> 00:09:31.679 there just threw out the state's congressional 00:09:31.679 --> 00:09:35.039 map. Why? What was wrong with it? It was a classic 00:09:35.039 --> 00:09:37.379 crack. It took Salt Lake County, which is heavily 00:09:37.379 --> 00:09:40.259 Democratic, like 1 .2 million people, and split 00:09:40.259 --> 00:09:42.340 it up between all four of Utah's congressional 00:09:42.340 --> 00:09:45.399 districts. Ah, so diluting the Democratic vote 00:09:45.399 --> 00:09:47.340 to make sure none of the districts were competitive. 00:09:47.720 --> 00:09:50.120 Precisely. The judge tossed it out, and the new 00:09:50.120 --> 00:09:52.679 court -ordered map creates an R plus 6 district 00:09:52.679 --> 00:09:55.340 centered more logically on Salt Lake City. R 00:09:55.340 --> 00:09:59.220 plus 6. Yes. Still leans Republican, but winnable 00:09:59.220 --> 00:10:02.159 for a Democrat. At least conceivable, as one 00:10:02.159 --> 00:10:05.169 source put it. easy, but possible. They have 00:10:05.169 --> 00:10:07.730 potential candidates, like Ben McAdams, who held 00:10:07.730 --> 00:10:09.850 a seat before, or even Caroline Gleick. She's 00:10:09.850 --> 00:10:11.970 a professional skier who climbed Everest. An 00:10:11.970 --> 00:10:14.429 uphill climb then, apt. You could say that, but 00:10:14.429 --> 00:10:16.710 just as Dems get a shot in Utah, they've taken 00:10:16.710 --> 00:10:19.909 a hit somewhere else. Maine. Right. Representative 00:10:19.909 --> 00:10:22.830 Jared Golden is retiring. Yeah, he is a moderate 00:10:22.830 --> 00:10:26.090 Blue Dog Democrat in a rural district, ME01, 00:10:26.269 --> 00:10:29.549 that leans Republican R plus four. He managed 00:10:29.549 --> 00:10:31.169 to hold it, but now that he's leaving, it's going 00:10:31.169 --> 00:10:33.090 to be really tough for Democrats to keep that 00:10:33.090 --> 00:10:36.129 seat. Which probably reinforces the idea within 00:10:36.129 --> 00:10:39.389 the party that they need moderates in these swing 00:10:39.389 --> 00:10:41.370 districts. It leads right into the next point. 00:10:42.089 --> 00:10:44.950 Primary interference. The head of the Democratic 00:10:44.950 --> 00:10:48.590 Congressional Campaign Committee, the DCCC, Representative 00:10:48.590 --> 00:10:51.289 Susan Delban. From Washington State, yeah. She's 00:10:51.289 --> 00:10:54.269 explicitly saying she plans to meddle in Democratic 00:10:54.269 --> 00:10:56.990 primaries in these crucial swing districts. Meddle. 00:10:57.009 --> 00:10:59.190 That sounds controversial within the party. Why 00:10:59.190 --> 00:11:02.909 do it? Her stated goal is pretty blunt. Make 00:11:02.909 --> 00:11:04.990 sure the strongest possible general election 00:11:04.990 --> 00:11:07.399 candidate wins the primary. And in her view, 00:11:07.779 --> 00:11:09.700 that almost always means a moderate, somebody 00:11:09.700 --> 00:11:12.519 like Abigail Spanberger. Not a progressive, like 00:11:12.519 --> 00:11:15.820 Zoran Mamdani. Exactly. She calls them Spanberger 00:11:15.820 --> 00:11:18.860 clones versus Mamdani clones. The strategy is 00:11:18.860 --> 00:11:21.840 clear. In districts, Democrats absolutely need 00:11:21.840 --> 00:11:23.980 to win for a majority. They want the candidate 00:11:23.980 --> 00:11:26.559 perceived as having the broadest appeal. Will 00:11:26.559 --> 00:11:29.080 she interfere everywhere? No, she drew a line. 00:11:29.320 --> 00:11:31.399 She said she won't get involved in safe blue 00:11:31.399 --> 00:11:35.120 districts, like D plus 10 or more. But in the 00:11:35.120 --> 00:11:37.480 toss -ups, the swing seats, progressives are 00:11:37.480 --> 00:11:39.779 basically being told, maybe sit this one out 00:11:39.779 --> 00:11:42.360 if you think you can't win the general. The priority 00:11:42.360 --> 00:11:45.759 is majority, full stop. OK, maps, candidates. 00:11:46.700 --> 00:11:48.840 What about the actual plumbing of the elections, 00:11:49.279 --> 00:11:51.279 the infrastructure? There was some concerning 00:11:51.279 --> 00:11:53.679 news there. Yeah, this is really worrying. Federal 00:11:53.679 --> 00:11:56.360 agencies, specifically CISA, the Cybersecurity 00:11:56.360 --> 00:11:58.639 and Infrastructure Security Agency, are apparently 00:11:58.639 --> 00:12:00.720 pulling back from helping state and local governments 00:12:00.720 --> 00:12:02.860 with election security. Why is that a problem? 00:12:02.960 --> 00:12:05.120 Don't states run their own elections? They do, 00:12:05.159 --> 00:12:07.480 but many local election offices have tiny budgets, 00:12:07.740 --> 00:12:10.360 like almost no money and certainly no cybersecurity 00:12:10.360 --> 00:12:13.259 experts on staff. They relied on federal help 00:12:13.259 --> 00:12:16.039 for threat assessment, monitoring physical security 00:12:16.039 --> 00:12:19.730 advice. And that help is going away. What specific 00:12:19.730 --> 00:12:22.710 cuts are happening? The cuts sound pretty drastic. 00:12:23.129 --> 00:12:25.210 The CISA election monitoring room, which was 00:12:25.210 --> 00:12:27.309 like a central hub that's being closed, there 00:12:27.309 --> 00:12:29.429 was something called the Election Infrastructure 00:12:29.429 --> 00:12:32.429 Information Sharing and Analysis Center, EI -ISAC, 00:12:32.830 --> 00:12:35.450 which gave real -time threat info to local officials. 00:12:36.210 --> 00:12:41.820 Funding zeroed out. Gone. And get this. The CISA 00:12:41.820 --> 00:12:44.480 staff, who actually monitored election equipment 00:12:44.480 --> 00:12:48.519 for vulnerabilities, laid off. So who is doing 00:12:48.519 --> 00:12:50.620 the monitoring? Well, instead of monitoring the 00:12:50.620 --> 00:12:53.779 machines, CISA apparently sent monitors to California 00:12:53.779 --> 00:12:56.940 and New Jersey to... Observe voters. Observe 00:12:56.940 --> 00:12:59.080 voters, not the voting machines or the networks. 00:12:59.360 --> 00:13:02.059 That's a huge shift in focus. It's a massive 00:13:02.059 --> 00:13:04.700 shift away from infrastructure defense towards 00:13:04.700 --> 00:13:07.080 something else entirely, and it leaves a huge 00:13:07.080 --> 00:13:09.259 gap. Who fills that gap? If the feds aren't helping 00:13:09.259 --> 00:13:11.480 and local offices can't afford it. That's the 00:13:11.480 --> 00:13:13.679 million dollar question. Effectively... Maybe 00:13:13.679 --> 00:13:15.580 no one is watching the perimeter as closely. 00:13:15.799 --> 00:13:17.779 And this is where the foreign interference risk 00:13:17.779 --> 00:13:20.480 comes back in, connecting weirdly to the tariff 00:13:20.480 --> 00:13:23.120 stuff we discussed. The sources pointed out that 00:13:23.120 --> 00:13:26.480 foreign adversaries, Russia, China, Iran, whoever, 00:13:26.580 --> 00:13:28.460 they don't necessarily root for Republican or 00:13:28.460 --> 00:13:30.860 Democrat. They root for their interests. Right. 00:13:31.159 --> 00:13:34.220 Predictability, maybe? Or getting rid of someone 00:13:34.220 --> 00:13:37.840 seen as erratic. Exactly. If a foreign power 00:13:37.840 --> 00:13:41.460 sees the current U .S. leadership as, say, unpredictable 00:13:41.460 --> 00:13:44.220 on trade. or maybe careless with nuclear policy. 00:13:44.700 --> 00:13:47.000 They might want regime change, regardless of 00:13:47.000 --> 00:13:50.519 party, and a suddenly weakened, unmonitored election 00:13:50.519 --> 00:13:52.960 infrastructure. That looks like a pretty tempting 00:13:52.960 --> 00:13:55.100 target if you want to sow chaos or influence 00:13:55.100 --> 00:13:57.620 the outcome. Wow. OK, so that's a lot we've covered. 00:13:57.700 --> 00:13:59.759 Let's try to pull it together. We hit three main 00:13:59.759 --> 00:14:02.399 areas right. First, the economy is still king 00:14:02.399 --> 00:14:05.000 in messaging, and the blame for high prices seems 00:14:05.000 --> 00:14:08.379 to be landing on Trump's tariffs. Second, the 00:14:08.379 --> 00:14:10.980 Supreme Court seems poised to significantly limit 00:14:10.980 --> 00:14:13.179 the president's power to impose those tariffs 00:14:13.179 --> 00:14:16.120 unilaterally, potentially reasserting Congress's 00:14:16.120 --> 00:14:18.940 authority. And third, The parties are already 00:14:18.940 --> 00:14:21.240 fighting tooth and nail over the future battlefield 00:14:21.240 --> 00:14:24.320 redrawing maps, trying to control who gets nominated 00:14:24.320 --> 00:14:28.000 in key districts. And worryingly, the federal 00:14:28.000 --> 00:14:29.960 government seems to be stepping back from securing 00:14:29.960 --> 00:14:32.399 the actual election infrastructure itself. Which 00:14:32.399 --> 00:14:34.399 brings us to that final provocative thought. 00:14:34.980 --> 00:14:36.980 We heard the Supreme Court justices questioning 00:14:36.980 --> 00:14:39.820 the emergency tariff power by asking, could a 00:14:39.820 --> 00:14:41.820 president use this for climate change? Yeah, 00:14:42.039 --> 00:14:45.460 that hypothetical about taxing gas guzzling cars. 00:14:46.059 --> 00:14:48.820 So if the court does rule against the administration 00:14:48.820 --> 00:14:51.759 here, using the major questions doctrine to say 00:14:51.759 --> 00:14:54.399 no, you need clear congressional approval for 00:14:54.399 --> 00:14:57.370 big economic actions under an emergency. Does 00:14:57.370 --> 00:14:59.830 that signal a broader shift? Could the court 00:14:59.830 --> 00:15:02.750 become equally skeptical of any claimed national 00:15:02.750 --> 00:15:04.929 emergency, maybe related to election security, 00:15:05.149 --> 00:15:06.990 or something else entirely if a president tries 00:15:06.990 --> 00:15:09.309 to use it to bypass Congress for major policy 00:15:09.309 --> 00:15:11.509 changes? That's a really interesting question. 00:15:11.649 --> 00:15:15.250 If they're saying major questions require clear 00:15:15.250 --> 00:15:18.070 statutes for economic emergencies, why wouldn't 00:15:18.070 --> 00:15:20.769 that apply to other types of declared emergencies 00:15:20.769 --> 00:15:23.549 where a president tries to act alone on something 00:15:23.549 --> 00:15:26.129 huge? It could mean the court is really trying 00:15:26.129 --> 00:15:28.350 to force power back to the legislative branch 00:15:28.350 --> 00:15:31.629 across the board, pulling back on decades of 00:15:31.629 --> 00:15:34.269 growing executive authority. It might fundamentally 00:15:34.269 --> 00:15:36.830 change the playbook for how presidents respond 00:15:36.830 --> 00:15:39.590 to crises, forcing them to work with Congress 00:15:39.590 --> 00:15:41.990 rather than around it. Definitely something to 00:15:41.990 --> 00:15:43.990 watch. Something for you to mull over. Thanks 00:15:43.990 --> 00:15:45.870 for joining us for this deep dive into the source 00:15:45.870 --> 00:15:47.009 material. See you next time.