FCC commissioner sounds alarms about free speech 'chilling effect' under Trump
Gomez's appearance Wednesday at Cal State L.A. was designed to take feedback from community members about the changed media atmosphere since Trump returned to office. The president initially expelled Associated Press journalists from the White House, for example. He signed an executive order demanding government funding be cut to PBS and NPR stations.
Should that order take effect, Pasadena-based radio station LAist would lose nearly $1.7 million — or about 4% of its annual budget, according to Alejandra Santamaria, chief executive of parent organization Southern California Public Radio.
'The point of all these actions is to chill speech,' Gomez told the small crowd. "We all need to understand what is happening and we need people to speak up and push back."
Congress in the 1930s designed the FCC as an independent body, she said, rather than one beholden to the president.
But those lines have blurred. In the closing days of last fall's presidential campaign, Trump sued CBS and "60 Minutes" over edits to an interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, alleging producers doctored the broadcast to enhance her election chances. CBS has denied the allegations and the raw footage showed Harris was accurately quoted.
Trump-appointed FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, upon taking office in January, revived three complaints of bias against ABC, NBC and CBS, including one alleging the "60 Minutes" edits had violated rules against news distortion. He demanded that CBS release the unedited footage.
The FCC's review of Skydance Media's pending takeover of CBS-parent Paramount Global has been clouded by the president's $20-billion lawsuit against CBS. The president rejected Paramount's offer to settle for $15 million, according to the Wall Street Journal, which said Trump has demanded more.
Two high-level CBS News executives involved in "60 Minutes" were forced out this spring.
Gomez, in an interview, declined to discuss the FCC's review of the Skydance-Paramount deal beyond saying: "It would be entirely inappropriate to consider the complaint against the '60 Minutes' segment as part of a transaction review." Scrutinizing edits to a national newscast "are not part of the public interest analysis that the commission does when it considers mergers and acquisitions," she said.
Read more: Trump, '60 Minutes' and corruption allegations put Paramount on edge with sale less certain
For months, Gomez has been the lone voice of dissent at the FCC. Next month, she will become the sole Democrat on the panel.
The longtime communications attorney, who was appointed to the commission in 2023 by former President Biden, has openly challenged her colleague Carr and his policies that align with Trump's directives. She maintains that some of Carr's proposals, including opening investigations into diversity and inclusion policies at Walt Disney Co. and Comcast, go beyond the scope of the FCC, which is designed to regulate radio and TV stations and others that use the public airwaves.
The pressure campaign is working, Gomez said.
'When you see corporate parents of news providers ... telling their broadcasters to tone down their criticisms of this administration, or to push out the executive producer of '60 Minutes' or the head of [CBS] News because of concerns about retribution from this administration because of corporate transactions — that is a chilling effect,' Gomez said.
Wednesday's forum, organized by the nonprofit advocacy group Free Press, was punctuated with pleas from professors, journalists and community advocates for help in fending off Trump's attacks. One journalist said she lost her job this spring at Voice of America after Trump took aim at the organization, which was founded more than 80 years ago to counter Nazi propaganda during World War II.
The Voice of America's remaining staffers could receive reduction-in-force notices later this week, according to Politico.
Latino journalists spoke about the difficulty of covering some stories because people have been frightened into silence due to the administration's immigration crackdown.
Read more: How Trump's FCC chairman is stoking the culture war
For now, journalists are able to carry out their missions "for the most part," said Gabriel Lerner, editor emeritus of the Spanish-language La Opinión.
But he added a warning.
"Many think that America is so exceptional that you don't have to do anything because fascism will never happen here," Lerner said. "I compare that with those who dance on the Titanic thinking it will never sink.'
The White House pushed back on such narratives:
'President Trump is leading the most transparent administration in history. He regularly takes questions from the media, communicates directly to the public, and signed an Executive Order to protect free speech on his first day back in office," spokesperson Anna Kelly said. "He will continue to fight against censorship while evaluating all federal spending to identify waste, fraud, and abuse.'
Traditionally, the five-member FCC has maintained an ideological balance with three commissioners from the party in power and two from the minority. But the senior Democrat — Geoffrey Starks — plans to step down next month, which will leave just three commissioners: Gomez, Carr and another Republican, Nathan Simington.
Trump has nominated a third Republican, Olivia Trusty, but the Senate has not confirmed her appointment.
Trump has not named a Democrat to replace Starks.
Some on Wednesday expressed concern that Gomez's five-year tenure on the commission could be cut short. Trump has fired Democrats from other independent bodies, including the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Gomez said if she is pushed out, it would only be because she was doing her job, which she said was defending the Constitution.
Read more: The network evening news is in flux: Why an American TV institution is under pressure
Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Indio) applauded Gomez's efforts and noted that he's long appreciated coordinating with her on more routine FCC matters, such as ensuring wider broadband internet access.
"But now the fight is the survival of the free press," Ruiz said.
He noted that millions of people now get news from non-journalist sources, leading to a rise of misinformation and confusion.
"What is the truth?" Ruiz said. "How can we begin to have a debate? How can we begin to create policy on problems when we can't even agree on what reality is?"
Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Boston Scientific (NYSE:BSX) Is Experiencing Growth In Returns On Capital
If you're not sure where to start when looking for the next multi-bagger, there are a few key trends you should keep an eye out for. In a perfect world, we'd like to see a company investing more capital into its business and ideally the returns earned from that capital are also increasing. Ultimately, this demonstrates that it's a business that is reinvesting profits at increasing rates of return. So on that note, Boston Scientific (NYSE:BSX) looks quite promising in regards to its trends of return on capital. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. What Is Return On Capital Employed (ROCE)? Just to clarify if you're unsure, ROCE is a metric for evaluating how much pre-tax income (in percentage terms) a company earns on the capital invested in its business. To calculate this metric for Boston Scientific, this is the formula: Return on Capital Employed = Earnings Before Interest and Tax (EBIT) ÷ (Total Assets - Current Liabilities) 0.093 = US$3.4b ÷ (US$42b - US$5.2b) (Based on the trailing twelve months to June 2025). Thus, Boston Scientific has an ROCE of 9.3%. On its own, that's a low figure but it's around the 10% average generated by the Medical Equipment industry. See our latest analysis for Boston Scientific In the above chart we have measured Boston Scientific's prior ROCE against its prior performance, but the future is arguably more important. If you'd like to see what analysts are forecasting going forward, you should check out our free analyst report for Boston Scientific . How Are Returns Trending? While in absolute terms it isn't a high ROCE, it's promising to see that it has been moving in the right direction. Over the last five years, returns on capital employed have risen substantially to 9.3%. The amount of capital employed has increased too, by 31%. The increasing returns on a growing amount of capital is common amongst multi-baggers and that's why we're impressed. The Bottom Line All in all, it's terrific to see that Boston Scientific is reaping the rewards from prior investments and is growing its capital base. And a remarkable 163% total return over the last five years tells us that investors are expecting more good things to come in the future. So given the stock has proven it has promising trends, it's worth researching the company further to see if these trends are likely to persist. Like most companies, Boston Scientific does come with some risks, and we've found 2 warning signs that you should be aware of. If you want to search for solid companies with great earnings, check out this free list of companies with good balance sheets and impressive returns on equity. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Politico
14 minutes ago
- Politico
Foreign governments bet big to lobby Trump on tariffs. Most came up empty.
Yet despite Mexico playing a more direct role in the flow of fentanyl — a top concern of Trump — it was the neighbor to the north that ultimately faced steeper tariffs. Canada now has a 35 percent tariff on its goods, while Mexico has stayed at 25 percent, even though most products are exempt under an existing free trade agreement. Mexico appeared to benefit from what one Mexican official described as personal ties between Trump and Sheinbaum. A Republican lobbyist working on Trump's tariffs suggested that making headway with the president requires a shift in thinking. 'I think what's happened with some of these countries is they felt entitled to the status quo,' the lobbyist argued. 'And they were offended that anyone, even the U.S. president, would suggest changing it at all.' The lobbyist pointed to the success that Sheinbaum has had in wooing Trump. Instead of taking a combative stand, 'the better approach is to look at it from the perspective of: The president wants to redefine the trade relationship between the two countries, and that's his goal, and you have to deal with him on those terms,' the person said. Leader-to-leader calls were particularly valuable in helping countries make their case directly to Trump. 'From my perspective, the best way to lobby President Trump is for the leader to face-to-face lobby him,' Tami Overby, a partner at DGA Group Government who focuses on trade in South Korea. 'It seems President Trump, he always talks about his relationships with other leaders. You know, whether we're in a good spot with that country or not [depending] if he feels like he's got a good relationship. And he sees himself as a deal maker.' Many of the firms enlisted to represent foreign governments before the Trump administration are mainstays of the D.C. lobbying scene, and plenty of countries already had veteran trade lobbyists or lobbyists with ties to Trump on their payrolls before the election.
New York Times
14 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Is a ‘Totem for Wealth.' What Happens if the Economy Crashes?
transcript Trump Is a 'Totem for Wealth.' What Happens if the Economy Crashes? All right, Jamelle, I need to ask about the hat. So it says 'Leguminati' and it's from the company Rancho Gordo. And it's sortof like you're part of the bean Illuminati. Wait, you're part of the secret bean power structure. Yeah yeah. OK, well, the White House wrecking ball just keeps on swinging this summer as President Trump pursues his passion for undermining key American institutions. Just the past couple of weeks, we've seen the White House Fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the agency responsible for providing unbiased info on the labor market, because the president was displeased with the jobs report. Meanwhile — and this is my personal obsession — Republican State lawmakers in Texas at Trump's command redrew the state's congressional map to give the G.O.P. five more house seats. Now, practically speaking, these moves don't seem to have much to do with each other, but they both spotlight just how far this president will go to destroy public trust in vital institutions. And that is what I want to talk about today. So once again, I feel the need to say that we are recording this on Thursday morning. So by the time you hear us God knows where the chaos will have taken us. So let's go ahead and get into it. Guys, are these episodes part of a larger strategy to challenge the norms of power and political dynamics in the U.S.? Jamelle, why don't you just kick us off with this. Sure I think it's always important not to attribute too much intentionality to the specific person of Donald Trump. Do I think Donald Trump is most interested in maintaining maximum autonomy? He wants to be able to do whatever he wants whenever he feels the need to do it. Yes. A byproduct of that is this assault on institutions. But I think it's worth remembering — or this is, I guess, my view — that him going after district redistricting in the country, him being obsessed with tariffs, those I think in his mind, aren't related to each other. There's no logical connection between them. He's obsessed with tariffs as he's been basically for 40 years. And he doesn't want to lose control of the House next year, knowing that losing control of the House not only puts an end to his legislative agenda such that it exists, but exposes him to political vulnerability. So he wants to do both of these things. And in the process of doing both of these things, he has no real interest in regular procedures or Democratic give and take or anything. So he's demolishing institutions. And so they're related in that way. But that relation is like our interpretation. I don't think it's something that he himself, envisions. Steve, do you think it's all just capriciousness? Well, I think there's an element of capriciousness, but I think there's also an element of intentionality. And I think I'd I certainly agree with everything Jamelle said. But I'd put it also in this context, which is the difference between Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0. Trump 1.0 operated vaguely within some set of norms that we're used to. He didn't try to fire the head of the BLS or this or that. And Trump 2.0. He has this idea that he was elected with this extraordinary mandate, and he thinks it's empowered him to put anybody he wants in any job that he wants. And so far, of course, the Senate has gone along with him in virtually every respect, and he feels there are no guardrails and he can just do what he wants. And that's the way he's been operating. So the way I look at it is obviously this is all about him getting to do whatever he wants without anybody saying no. But I also think that one of the things that he's worked on since he got into office, even before, is undermining all other sources of authority, not just in terms of what kind of power they have, but also how people view them. He wants everybody to distrust the Department of Justice or the courts or certainly the media, because he wants them to be viewed as illegitimate, which just makes him the only source that his people look to. And I do think that this kind of falls into the category of if you can make everything look super partisan and super sketchy, that's just in service of his greater power grab. So that's how I think of in terms more of a broad picture on this. But getting back to the economic, you know, the Bureau of Labor statistics stuff, Steve, you're an economics guru here. What is your view on him booting the head of that agency in. What's sure smells like the politicization of a department that's previously operated above the partisan fray. I mean, our colleague Tom Friedman wrote that of all the terrible things Trump has said and done as president, the most dangerous one just happened on Friday. So what say you to what's going on here. We can debate whether it's the most dangerous thing that happened. It may well be. But it's certainly right up there. It's quite extraordinary that the Labor Department comes out with a set of statistics, that it compiles the same way it compiles them every month. It's important without getting into too far into the weeds on this, to explain to your viewers and listeners how this works. It is not the head of the BLS waking up in the morning and deciding, well, this is how many jobs we created last month. This is a process that has gone on this for 100 years, in which two different sets of surveys are done, compiled by career members of the BLS and then released to the public. The same process every month, forever and ever. And so it is. It is beyond. It is beyond imagination that these statistics could have possibly been manipulated. There have been attacks on the BLS before. In 2012, Jack Welch, well lauded CEO of General Electric, claimed that in the run up to Obama's re-election, the BLS had manipulated the unemployment number to show it going below 8 percent and he didn't believe it had gone below 8 percent So the BLS has had these kinds of attacks before, but this is certainly one of the most remarkable things I've ever seen, where the president literally just woke up and fired the head of the BLS and claimed all the numbers were made up, which, as I just said, not a single economist. Not a single expert. Not anybody who's ever known anything about the BLS would have ever suggested that was possible. Can I just real quick jump on one of my hobby horses here. Oh please do. Please O.K. Steve mentioned earlier that the president seems to have this belief that he can of fire anyone in the executive branch and the entire federal bureaucracy and replace him with whomever he deems appropriate, kind of irrespective of what Congress has said. And this is like a view that, very conservative legal scholars have. It's part of the Unitary Executive argument that the executive branch basically is contained within the person of the president. The president exercises the whole of the executive power, and that this gives the president broad powers of removal. And Trump is claiming basically unlimited powers of removal. And part of the argument for this is that it enhances political accountability, the president being democratically accountable to the American people, giving him this kind of broader, almost unlimited removal power, and thus enhances the accountability of executive branch officials for the American people. But you'll note, with the removal of the head of the BLS, that the issue here isn't that person's performance as it relates to the American public. That person is doing their job as spelled out in the legislative directions given to the BLS, as spelled out in the accumulated tradition of how one does things at the BLS. The issue for the former head of the agency is that they were not doing what Trump wanted them to do. So she is removed because a lack of accountability. You could say to Trump in Trump's personal political interests, not those of the American people. And I think that's an important nuance to capture that this removal power is not being used to enhance accountability to the American public. This removal power is being used to discipline officials who are not obeying or following or enhancing Trump's personal political standing. And that is my hobby horse. Well, I love that hobby horse. Steve, you're in touch with CEOs and business leaders. What are you hearing from them. What has them worried about all this. Well, with respect to the BLS specifically, they are appalled, taken aback, shocked as everyone is. I was just at a conference with a lot of CEOs, economists, journalists, people like that, and everybody is scratching their head in amazement that this could go on, but it's part of a broader picture that is worrying CEOs, which is simply the unpredictability, the lack of guardrails. The government by tweet, the tariffs are on. The tariffs are off. We're going to put a percent tariff on Brazil because we don't like the way the former president's been treated. And it is really it is really created a climate of uncertainty and unhappiness in the business community. That's quite substantial. So you mentioned tariffs to what are the potential long term or at least longer term effects because we're talking broadly about power. But you also have very specific, very concrete repercussions when it comes to the economy. What is the damage that's being done that will outlast this moment. You think, well, let's talk about the numbers that were actually released before the head of the BLS got fired. They showed a substantial deceleration in job growth, not just for last month, but then they revised down the two prior months to show a very small amount of job growth over the last three months. And that is worrisome that suggests that the labor market is weakening significantly. And if you talk anecdotally to CEOs, they will tell you that their hiring plans have come down substantially. If you talk to any young person who's out in the job market right now, they will probably tell you that the job market has gotten a lot tougher. But I think clearly from as I talk to CEOs, they have all cut back their hiring plans, in part because of the uncertainty around the tariffs. And the damage that they believe the tariffs will ultimately do to the economy. And I'll make one last point about this, which is historically, and I'm not here to tell you, I know for sure that this time will be the same or different. Historically, when unemployment numbers have gotten revised one way or the other, up or down by a significant amount, it can often portend a trend. It can often be an early indicator of a trend. And so the fact that you've had such significant downward revisions for two prior months, as well as a poor number for the most recent month has got a lot of people very, very nervous about the state of this economy. It's also I mean, the president doesn't understand this. His advisors are too sycophantic to really, I think, make the argument to him. But this is also detrimental to his own political interests. There's the phrase, the aphorism, the map is not the territory. You can change the numbers they report to make you look better. But that doesn't change the underlying reality of what's happening in the economy or the underlying reality of what's happening in anything. If you're going to change the number to juke the Stax stats, if you will. And so the president can put pressure on the nation's statisticians to make him look good. But if the underlying conditions are actually on the downturn, if things are actually getting worse for people, then the only thing he's done has made it more difficult for his government to respond to whatever is bubbling up from the surface. Well, that's what I was going to ask you both, is that this move by Trump spotlights his panic about what's happening, certainly how it will impact his party's fortunes and whether he keeps a death grip on the government going forward. I think our assumption has always been that no matter what the numbers say, if people start to feel some pain, it's going to come back and then you will start to see some pushback. I mean, do you think that the tariffs and what we've got coming and the softening job numbers are the beginning of what Trump has been worried about or at least what his party has been worried about in terms of people actually being able to see what's going on. I think that the perception of economic growth and prosperity is basically the thing that holds up Trump's public standing right. People don't actually like Trump that much. And you see this in the polling whenever he gets back into power. People really do not like his general thing. But what they accept in this trade off is that, O.K, Trump may be terrible in x, or z way, but he brings prosperity. He's like this totem for wealth. If it turns out that under Trump there is a significant economic slowdown, if there is a recession, even I think that is a moment where the bottom can really fall out from under his administration and his political standing. Now, what this means in practice, you just have to see what happens. But I do think that that's a real danger for him, that in the absence of any other compelling thing outside of his particular cult of personality, to keep him buoyed up with the rest of the public, he just doesn't have that much. Well, I'd suggest that's actually already happening. In other words, if you look at the polling data, as you said, Jamelle, he is unpopular himself. His job approval ratings are terrible, plus or - 40 percent depending upon which poll you look at. But people's perception of the state of the economy has not improved at all since Trump came back. His big beautiful bill act, whatever you want to call it, polls. Well, that is not what I want to call it. Yeah, I have many more names for it than that. The big ugly bill. There you go. Polls? quite negative, I think honestly, I would say on behalf of all of us who are journalists or opinion people or commentators on the situation, I think we've actually done a pretty good job of explaining to the American people what's really going on in the Trump administration and what's not going on, and I think that's part of why he panics and does something like the BLS, but when you see polling data on that, I think you're going to find that even that has backfired on him, and people are simply not going to believe that the data is manipulated or that he did the right thing in firing the head of the BLS. O.K, so the topic of political danger is a perfect segue into the second part of this, which is I have been following the Texas redistricting drama for weeks, since well before the new congressional maps were posted. And this is all about Trump panicking about what's going to happen in the midterms. So asking state lawmakers in Texas, which is led by Republicans, to redraw them a congressional map that finds the party five more seats before the midterms next year, which they've done, and they have put them out there and it has exploded. So this week's Hot new development is that Republicans have drafted the FBI to help them track down and arrest Texas Democratic lawmakers who fled the state in an effort to bog down this power grab. Democrats at the National level are spoiling for a fight. They're looking to push back. Blue states like California are threatening to redistrict. In response, Democrats I've been talking to including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, understand that they cannot take the so-called high road any longer, but are going to need to dig in and punch back hard. So I am I am very interested in where all this is going. Jamelle, I want you to look at this because this is obviously this is far from the first time Republicans have done this. This is ain't their first rodeo, as they say. But this has happened in your backyard in North Carolina. They went through it in 2021 when that legislature redrew the maps. And at the time you had suggestions for how Congress could address this issue. Do those still apply. Kind of. What have you been thinking watching all this. So my thought watching all of this, and I believe my suggestions way back when, was just that Congress should pass a bill ending partisan gerrymandering, which is well within Congress's power to do. And I still think that I still think that there should be a national ban on partisan gerrymandering. I think that the country should move away from single member districts, which necessitate gerrymandering, and move towards multi-member districts, which could open the door to more viable third parties in the American system. Having said that, I do think that one cannot bring a knife to a gunfight. One of the things that's worth saying is that gerrymandering is something of a gamble. So in Texas, if they're going to squeeze out five more Republican leaning congressional districts, this necessarily means spreading Democratic voters across other already Republican leaning districts, and these new districts may be only modestly or slightly Republican leaning, and prior districts from which you're moving. Populations may become a little less Republican leaning as well. And what you're counting on is a certain baseline level of partisan swing if you get above that. What can actually happen is that you lose all of those seats. A wave can wipe out a map in that way because you've lowered the barrier. And so part of what's funny to me about all of this is that it's clear that Donald Trump has a vision of what gerrymandering is, which is just that it's a generic way to get more seats and there's no cost to it. So of course, why wouldn't you do it. But the reality is that there is a cost to it. And the cost is that if you find yourself in a situation where there's a broad public swing against your party, you can lose all the seats that you may have gained with gerrymandering. The other thing I'll say here, just in terms of fighting fire with fire, whatever cliche you want to use is that there aren't that many high population Republican states. Like the typical Republican State is, population wise, a little smaller, a little more sparsely populated. And so, Yes, in Texas, you can maybe net a few more seats. In Ohio, you might be able to net a seat or two. California, Illinois, New York have actually a lot of room to really severely gerrymander their maps. And so if you do get into this game of tit for tat, you might end up in a situation where in fact, what you've done is made the map lean a little more Democratic than it otherwise would have been. And I would say that this is a response Democrats should have and they should say openly as well, that we will stand down. If you stand down, if you elect us into a majority, we will pass a bill outlawing partisan gerrymandering, which in addition to I think being smart politics is just the right thing to do. Well, that is one thing that has popped up. I mean, Jamelle's to Jamelle's point. Blue states have a lot of voters that could be redistricted in ways that disadvantage Republicans, but so many of these blue states have what now looks like unilaterally disarmed by having the redistricting process turned over to independent commissions. And what they're having to look at now is clawing back a process that was supposed to be going, pushing the country in a less partisan, less polarizing, more good government direction. And in some places, there's a little bit of hesitation about this. But, I mean, the people in Texas, if you talk to them, are like, we can't afford to just stand down at this point because they have taken this fight national and Republicans have no concerns about blowing through good government guardrails or anything like this. So, Jamelle, it sounds like you think this is the right response from the Democrats, even if it's potentially leading to a kind of slippery slope acceleration problem with it. That's right. I mean, I think one thing you have to ask yourself is like, how do you actually conceptualize the United States. Is it like, is it one country where all of our fates are linked, or can we all just silo ourselves in our individual States. If you believe the latter, then I can understand the hesitation about wanting to abandon nonpartisan redistricting commissions and that kind of thing, because it feels like a retreat from ideals of fairness and good government. But if you recognize that yeah, what happens in Texas has relevance to my life in Virginia. What happens in North Carolina has relevance to someone in Wisconsin. This has national implications, and the only way to deal with this is in a national manner. And if you recognize that fact. Then I think it leads you, inevitably to the conclusion that those people who are interested in actually fair elections have to do what it takes now to win the power to pass laws to ensure fair elections. But maintaining a position of we're going to fight for fairness in our state and we're not going to worry about what's happening elsewhere is ultimately a recipe for losing the war. You win a battle and you can lose the war. So what do you guys see as the best case scenario for this. First of all, I agree completely that Texas started this fight and New York and California and Illinois need to fight back. And the Democrats need to fight back. It would seem to me that on present course and speed, those legislatures legislators are eventually going to have to go back to Texas. They'll probably go ahead and get this done. And then I hope the big blue states will go ahead and do what they have to do. And then hopefully, as Jamelle said, if we Democrats and I'm a Democrat can get back in power and can pass some laws to bring this to a better place, then that is the most optimistic scenario I can see. To build on that, I think that the best case scenario does involve Democrats nationally recognizing that the only way past this moment in our politics, past Trumpism, you might say, is through serious political reform. And that's going to include, I think, some kind of restriction on partisan gerrymandering. So the best case scenario is that Democrats nationwide recognize the fight that they're actually in and build a consensus around the next time they hold power. We're going to begin this project of political reform. And again, I'll say this is something that's popular with voters. Voters voters don't like gerrymandering. They really do not like it. And so this is an opportunity to make a promise that you can deliver on, and also a promise that you can deliver on that will, in the long run, make our politics better. So I want to jump on that because I actually spent some time down in Austin, and I've talked to a lot of the Democrats who've been watching this thing down there for a long time. And they do have this situation where you need public pressure, you need public attention. It's not going to be the lawmakers alone that save you or some redistricting commission. This is one of those things that the Republicans are counting on people caring about. And let's be clear for the hearings that they were holding on this. The people were lining up and in the Capitol to testify and the other arenas where they were having these things, people were lining up online to testify they had overflow rooms. There was a lot of local pressure. But what Republicans count on in these situations is that people get really fired up, but then they don't really follow through, or they don't press hard enough. For Democratic lawmakers like Gavin Newsom or Kathy Hochul in New York to feel like it's a must do. So I just want to throw that out there because it does come down to voter priorities. And even if people don't like gerrymandering, unless they make that really clear and come up at these moments, nothing's going to get done about it. Well, I mean, you got to I think it's worth saying that public opinion is in a kind of dialectical relationship with actual politicians and that the baseline state of public opinion is they don't like gerrymandering, but it may not be the most salient thing. And so the important thing for politicians to do is to make it salient, to enhance its salience and to connect it to other kinds of issues that voters care about and to use that to create a cycle in which voters understand gerrymandering to be just one example of a kind of manipulation of the rules of unfairness that affects other parts of their lives. Like, that's the job of politics. And I think that if Democrats say to themselves, Oh, well, I don't know if we can mobilize voters to care about this, I think they're just not they're not trying hard enough. I think it's a tough issue for the American people to understand and grasp, I think. Sure there's a headline, Jerry, partisan gerrymandering. I suspect if you ask the average American, they probably think both parties do it. It's just part of the seamy side of politics. Eric Holder's been working on this issue since the end of the Obama administration, and obviously hasn't made a huge amount of progress. And I would have to say the Democrats don't come to this with absolutely clean hands, because back in 2022, they redistricted in the state of New York and the courts threw it out, claimed it was too partisan, and the court drew the boundaries for that election. And the Democrats ended up losing four seats as a result of it. So then they went back in and redistricted again in a way that was less overtly partisan, and it got past the courts and got some of those seats back. So I think the American public finds all of this really complicated, confusing, and has a hard time figuring out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. And so I certainly agree with both of you as to what we need to do, but I don't want to underestimate how tough a Hill. This is to climb. No, I think you're absolutely right. And I think the difference this time is that Trump has been so naked about it, and that's what's gotten a lot of attention. So like Jamelle, I think this could be, once they get through this immediate response and how to deal with Texas specifically, it would be nice if this could go back on the table as a nationwide issue of reform. But I am not super optimistic about it. So not to be the skunk at the Garden party as well. So we have an attack on the integrity of economic data and an attack on the integrity of the nation's electoral map. So the common thread here seems to be about who gets to define reality. Whether it's the healthy economy or the will of the voters. Trump obviously thinks it should be him, and only him and many other Republicans seem content at this point to play along. But at what point do you guys expect to see any pushback or at least any serious pushback. And what do you think it will look like from within his own party. I have to say, I've been around this stuff for a pretty long time. I started my career at the times in the Washington Bureau, and I have never seen a president have this kind of a hold on his party. I would have never predicted, based on what congressmen and senators said about the big ugly bill before it was passed, that he would get that through Congress. It was just I couldn't imagine it. You had people like Josh Hawley saying, I'm never going to vote for these Medicaid cuts right before he voted for the Medicaid cuts. And he has this incredible control. This conference I mentioned, which was under Chatham House rule. So I can't identify the people. It was bipartisan. There were a number of very senior former Republican legislators there, and they basically think Trump owns this party and will own it for the foreseeable future. And remember, he's raised money that he will never need because he's not going to I don't believe he's going to run, try to run for a third term. And we can debate that if you want. But he's holding he can hold this over the heads of all of these legislators and essentially tell them he's going to primary them. I would have never predicted that some of the nominees, some of the manifestly unqualified nominees that he put forward, Pete Hegseth, just to pick a name, would have gotten confirmed by the Senate. But they did. And so I think it's going to take I think it's going to take an awful lot before this breaks, in my opinion. I think it would take probably a disastrous midterm election, and I'm not sure I see that as likely. I think probably the Democrats will get the House back. But the Senate map is pretty tough for the Democrats, so I'm not sure that will flip. And so I think it would take a lot a really major downturn in the economy, a disastrous midterm election, something like that. If the Republicans are willing to sit back and allow him to fire the head of the BLS, allow him, ironically, to weaponize the Justice Department after attacking Biden for so-called weaponizing the Justice Department, then I'm not sure what short of one of those two things I mentioned, is going to cause the Republicans to push back in any kind of major way. Yeah, we are in an interesting moment. Usually what you look for is a bad midterm or some electoral punishment. I do think the Democrats have such a brand problem that you're right. It would be surprising if it was a midterm Wipeout, but even if it were a midterm Wipeout, I think we're in this weird zone where Republican lawmakers are not just politically afraid of upsetting Trump, but they are physically afraid for their safety. I have talked to plenty of congressional members during the Trump years who are afraid for their families. It has reached a very dark place, and I don't know how that plays out until he is an unfortunate memory in this office. Which kind of brings me to where I want to wrap this up, which is that he is a lame duck president, as you point out, unless he totally blows up the Constitution, he'll be gone in another few years. Will that be enough to halt this bad trajectory, the erosion of trust. Like, I guess, what happens that outlasts Trump. That's a really interesting question because part of me thinks that Trump's own personality, his own particular force as an individual, has such an important role to play in all of this that if and when he goes. If he just leaves office or whatever happens to him. I think his absence from the scene will. Will it won't make. It won't fix anything, but it will transform. It will change things, I think, in a measurable way. But then he's been on even when this happens, he will have been on the scene for well over a decade. And that does shape and change American politics. There will be basically a generation of Republican politicians politician from Trump is like is their lodestar. Republican voters certainly for Trump is their lodestar. And if you buy that there's such a thing as a moral ecology to a society, then Trump has influenced the moral ecology of American politics in such a way as to make the kind of open and explicit corruption and casual and open bigotry, all these things to make them common again in American political life. And so I love this view that there will be tangible policy things from the Trump era that may not last beyond Trump, that may not last beyond the personnel associated with them. But there'll be maybe like an ethos that cultural changes, cultural changes, that does survive beyond him. To sound a little like the conservatives of my youth culture matters and character matters, and these things do shape a society. Oh, that's so passé now, come on. I know. I mean, I have many thoughts and feelings about the way these things are these days. But I do think that might be the thing that endures out of all of this. But it's hard to say. It is hard to say, and it's really going to be interesting. It'd be more interesting if the consequences and the stakes weren't so great. But I started my career, as I said at the times Washington Bureau in June of 1974, and of course, in August of 1974, Nixon resigned and Gerald Ford got on television and said, we are a nation of laws and not of men. And my point is that the pendulum swung back and we went through a period of what I'll call good government, where a lot of where norms were reestablished and where we went on for a good while before we got to this place. So I don't really know what's going to happen. I like to think I'm an optimist. It's possible that whatever's left of the moderate wing of the Republican Party, and I will absolutely grant you that he's driven most of them out of power and out of office, will reassert itself. And so I think it's a straw in the wind that could blow either way, depending upon what happens in the next 3 and 1/2 years. But I I've not given up hope. I really do think our country's been through a lot of bad stuff over the last 250 years. Civil war, certainly, I think we've endured. And so I'd like to be optimistic and think we're going to find our way through this. O.K well if you're going to be optimistic, I'm going to be optimistic right there with you. We're going to land this plane. Guys, Thank you so much for coming in to talk through all of this. Hope you come back again very soon. Thank you. Thank you so much. President Trump is destroying trust in public institutions, and there's a reason for that, the Opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie tells the Opinion national politics writer Michelle Cottle and the contributing Opinion writer Steven Rattner on the episode of 'The Opinions.' Below is a transcript of an episode of 'The Opinions.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity. Michelle Cottle: The White House wrecking ball just keeps on swinging this summer as President Trump pursues his passion for undermining key American institutions. Just the past couple of weeks, we've seen the White House fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the agency responsible for providing unbiased info on the labor market, because the president was displeased with a jobs report. Meanwhile, and this is my personal obsession, Republican state lawmakers in Texas, at Trump's command, redrew the state's congressional map to give the G.O.P. five more House seats. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
