
‘The Dumbest S--t Ever': Ex-Pelosi Adviser Gets Candid About Jeffries
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries received mad props from the base this spring for his showdown with the GOP over Elon Musk and a potential government shutdown.
But to hear one longtime Nancy Pelosi whisperer tell it, the New York Democrat's leadership is lacking.
For Playbook Deep Dive's podcast this week, I invited the woman who ran the former speaker's anti-Trump war room, Ashley Etienne, to discuss Democrats' latest efforts to find a path back to political relevance. We talked about what Democratic kingmakers need to do to win back voters — from building out a better ground game to ditching attention-grabbing stunts that reek of desperation. She scoffed at the Democratic Party's failure to conduct an autopsy of what went wrong in 2024, which has left the party reaching contradictory conclusions about how to fix its problems.
But the most interesting part of our conversation centered on Jeffries. While Etienne said she has 'a tremendous amount of respect' for Jeffries, she gave voice to concerns I've heard from some Democrats privately: that the New York Democrat hasn't shown enough backbone as a leader, and that his organizational skills are deficient at a time when strong, creative leadership is badly needed.
'Trump is just giving us all this incredible red meat. I mean, incredible. I've never seen anything like this before. It's like the biggest gift any party has been given by the opposition and we're just squandering it,' Etienne said, pointing to Jeffries as the main culprit.
Etienne believes Jeffries isn't doing enough to wire the Democratic infrastructure with an anti-Trump message. He's not coordinating enough with outside groups and elected officials around the country, she said, or deploying his moderates to argue that the party needs to heed the center.
'If you don't have coordination, you've just got words on a paper that you're calling talking points,' she said. 'It's meaningless. And I think that's where we are right now.'
Her criticism speaks volumes. Not only did she have a front-row seat to Pelosi as speaker — and her famed political instincts and iron grip on the party — Etienne ran point for the speaker on coordinating messaging. Earlier she worked for Barack Obama and House Oversight bull Elijah Cummings, and most recently, she served in the Biden White House, where she advised Kamala Harris for a time.
The most shocking part of our conversation: Etienne said Jeffries' team has spurned the idea of seeking advice from Pelosi or her former team. She said she recently ran into Jeffries staffers and offered to help them. But they told her that 'the members don't want any Pelosi.'
'I was hearing from leadership staff that the leadership on Capitol Hill right now wants to sort of move away from that Pelosi era — that they … don't want to embrace anyone or anything that's like Pelosi,' she said. 'Which I just think is the dumbest s-h-i-t ever.'
Pelosi, she added, is 'the baddest in the business. We actually landed punches. We actually won 40 seats. I'm just surprised that they're not calling everybody that has landed some punches on Trump asking for the best advice.'
Jeffries spokesperson Christie Stephenson disputed the characterization of Jeffries' relationship with Pelosi as well as the description of the office's outreach. She said Jeffries often seeks the ex-speaker's input, something Pelosi's office confirmed. As for coordination, Stephenson said their office holds weekly calls with outside grassroots where attendance regularly tops 100 people, and often schedules calls with talking heads and outside strategists.
To be sure, Jeffries has had some winning moments as leader, which Etienne acknowledged. Democrats credit him in part with helping push Joe Biden out of the 2024 race — though Pelosi herself started the mutiny behind the scenes. And months after taking over, Jeffries rallied his caucus to oust Kevin McCarthy as speaker at a time when many were predicting that the party would fracture and the California Republican would survive.
More recently, he's received praise for presenting a united front against the GOP's tax bill. Some centrist Democrats who might be enticed to negotiate with Republicans have instead blasted the bill as a giveaway to the rich.
Still, Etienne is not wrong that Pelosi dominated the party apparatus in a way that Jeffries does not — at least not yet. In many ways, Pelosi operated like the conductor of a sprawling orchestra, bringing in liberal groups when she needed them to fire at Trump and cueing moderates when she needed the center to cool down the left. She knew exactly what turn of phrase would make Trump go ballistic — and she'd often press his buttons for maximum impact at just the moment to suit her needs.
Jeffries is still finding his conductor's baton, Etienne suggested.
Outside groups are thirsting for more guidance and many are asking her how to help replicate what she did with Pelosi's team.
'They're not hearing from Capitol Hill right now, and I think that's a huge loss,' Etienne said.
Not everyone agrees. Some believe Pelosi's outreach amounted to getting groups on the phone and dictating to them. Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee told me last night that 'we hear more for Jeffries than we ever heard from Pelosi.'
Yet during our interview in the POLITICO newsroom Wednesday, Etienne held up her phone and gave an example. That very morning, she noted, Jeffries was giving a speech about 100 days fighting Trump, but no one from his team sent talking points about what he said.
'And I'm going to be doing TV and this interview all day,' she said. 'That's a failure.'
'How do you get to discipline if you're not telling people what the hell you want them to say?' she added.
Jeffries' office says they did multiple calls with outside groups to preview the speech and that Etienne was on one of them.
Meanwhile, some longtime centrist party bosses have privately questioned whether Jeffries can stand up to the left. His decision to embrace a shutdown earlier this year — averted only after Chuck Schumer threw himself on the sword — has led some to question whether the new leader has what it takes to tell the base no, though Etienne did give him credit for keeping the caucus together.
Pelosi, a San Francisco liberal, did it all the time, 'I need your energy, not your policy,' she'd often say. And the former speaker would regularly quash progressive ideas bubbling up in her own caucus, from Medicare for All to the Green New Deal.
Jeffries hasn't done much to push back on the left so far. Some Democrats wanted him to rebuke Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) for his outburst during Trump's joint address to Congress; Jeffries refused. Others argued that he bowed to liberal groups when he decided to whip his members against a GOP bill targeting sanctuary cities, even as the party maintains abysmal poll numbers on immigration.
Jeffries is generally known for his caution, sticking to his talking points and rehearsed lines. He's a former corporate lawyer and often acts like it. But with Democrats divided, Etienne said members are craving forceful and visionary leadership. She's heard some House Democrats express frustration that Jeffries — who has a reputation for governing by consensus — solicits too much feedback before making a decision. (Though some Democrats like that he's the opposite of Pelosi's top-down approach.)
'He takes too much counsel and then takes too long to make a decision — which says that maybe you don't trust your gut in the moment — which, you know, is also fair when you're a new leader, because you're still trying to figure it all out,' Etienne said. But it 'might also suggest maybe you don't have a handle on the caucus — or you don't have a hand on how to actually land some punches on Donald Trump.'
Even when Jeffries has planted a flag, she points out that he's had trouble containing his members at times. During Trump's address to Congress, Jeffries specifically instructed his caucus not to protest; instead, dozens of them made such a pitiful scene breaking decorum rules that the party became the story instead of the controversial president at the podium.
One thing Pelosi did in moments like this was 'leverage the moderate Democrats against the progressive Democrats,' Etienne said. I remember it well from covering her: Behind the scenes, she'd green light people like then-Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) or other frontline members to blast ideas from the left — like impeaching Trump or defunding the police and ICE — as dumb politics.
'Where Pelosi would always start is: We've got to get to a win — that's all that matters,' she said. 'Without the moderates, we don't win. Without winning, we don't have the majority. We can't do what we really want to do. And progressives would eventually cower to that argument.'
Etienne has a simple theory on why she says Jeffries isn't going to Pelosi for help: 'Ego — I hate to say it.'
She said Jeffries and his team are trying to establish themselves as leaders — and in fairness, it's hard to imagine Pelosi as a quiet sidekick who wouldn't dominate the entire conversation. But Jeffries could certainly pick up some useful pointers from his predecessor even as he puts his own stamp on the role.
After all, Pelosi had decades to hone her skills before she met her greatest match in Trump. Jeffries is effectively learning everything on the job.
Per Etienne, maybe he should pick up the phone and call Nancy more often.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
7 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump admin sanctions El Chapo's sons and offers $10 million reward for their capture
The Trump administration imposed sanctions on Monday against the two fugitive sons of jailed Sinaloa Cartel boss Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman and offered up a $10 million reward for information leading to their arrests. Archivaldo Ivan Guzman and Jesus Alfredo Guzman run the 'Los Chapitos' faction of Mexico's Sinaloa Cartel, which has been at 'the forefront of trafficking fentanyl into the United States' since their father's imprisonment in the US, according to the State Department. Los Chapitos' ability to procure fentanyl precursor chemicals, combined with its penchant for violence and control of secret laboratories in Sinaloa, has allowed the syndicate to dominate the illicit drug trade. 3 El Chapo's sons run the 'Chapitos' faction of the Sinaloa Cartel. AP 'Los Chapitos is a powerful, hyperviolent faction of the Sinaloa Cartel at the forefront of fentanyl trafficking into the United States,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement announcing the sanctions. 'At the Department of the Treasury, we are executing on President Trump's mandate to completely eliminate drug cartels and take on violent leaders like 'El Chapo's' children,' Bessent added. 'Treasury is maximizing all available tools to stop the fentanyl crisis and help save lives.' The sanctions will block all property and interests in property and entities owned directly or indirectly by the Guzman brothers. 3 Archivaldo Ivan Guzman and his brother are both wanted by the US government for drug trafficking. Archivaldo and Jesus were also designated as targets under the State Department's Narcotics Rewards Program. The department has offered a reward of up to $10 million for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of each brother. 'We will continue to protect our nation by keeping illicit drugs off our streets and disrupting the revenue streams funding Mexico-based cartels' violent and criminal activity, ' State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said in a statement. 'Today's action further demonstrates the Trump Administration's unwavering commitment to eliminating cartels and ensuring the safety of the American people.' 3 The Trump administration has offered a $10 million reward for the capture of Jesus Alfredo Guzman and his brother. Additionally, the Treasury Department sanctioned several businesses controlled by Mexican businessman Jose Raul Nunez Rios and his make-up artist wife, Sheila Paola Urias Vazquez. The couple is believed to be financing an important Los Chapitos cell in Mazatlan, Mexico, which has been waging war against rival cartels and is engaged in drug trafficking, extortion, kidnapping and money laundering, according to the Trump administration. The sanctions follow the Trump administration's designation of the Sinaloa Cartel as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and Specially Designated Global Terrorist in February. El Chapo was convicted in 2019 on multiple conspiracy counts and sentenced to life in prison. He is serving his sentence at ADX Florence, a federal supermax prison in Colorado.


Fox News
7 minutes ago
- Fox News
This is putting our officers in danger, former FBI special agent says
All times eastern Kelsey Grammer's Historic Battles for America Kelsey Grammer's Historic Battles for America Kelsey Grammer's Historic Battles for America FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Mayor Bass speaks as Trump deploys Marines to Los Angeles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump vs. California
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Under Donald Trump, the federal government is like a bad parent: never there when you need him but eager to stick his nose in your business when you don't want him to. The relationship between Trump and California has always been bad, but the past few days represent a new low. On Friday, CNN reported that the White House was seeking to cut off as much federal funding to the Golden State as possible, especially to state universities. That afternoon, protests broke out in Los Angeles as ICE agents sought to make arrests. By Saturday, Trump had announced that he was federalizing members of the National Guard and deploying them to L.A., over the objections of Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat. Americans have seen the National Guard called out to deal with the aftermath of riots in the past, but its involvement over the weekend represents a dramatic escalation. The National Guard was deployed to L.A. in 1992, during riots after the acquittal of four police officers in the beating of Rodney King. The scale of the destruction in that instance, compared with scattered violence in L.A. this weekend, helps show why Trump's order was disproportionate. (National Guard troops were also deployed in Minneapolis during protests after the murder of George Floyd, at the request of Governor Tim Walz. Trump has falsely claimed that he deployed the troops when Walz wouldn't.) In all of these recent cases, however, governors have made the call to bring out the National Guard. A president has not done so since 1965, when Lyndon Johnson took control of the Alabama National Guard from the arch-segregationist Governor George Wallace and ordered it to protect civil-rights leaders' third attempt to march from Selma to Montgomery. The situations aren't even closely analogous. Johnson acted only after local leaders had demonstrated that law enforcement would violently attack the peaceful marchers. By contrast, the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department have plenty of experience and sufficient man power to deal with protests of the weekend's size, and military forces are a riskier choice because they aren't trained as police. This morning, Newsom said he will sue the administration over the deployment. Elizabeth Goitein, a scholar at the Brennan Center for Justice who has written extensively in The Atlantic about the abuse of presidential emergency powers, told The Washington Post that Trump's order 'is completely unprecedented under any legal authority.' 'The use of the military to quell civil unrest is supposed to be an absolute last resort,' she added. Trump is doing this, as my colleague Tom Nichols writes, because he wants to provoke a confrontation with California. The president sees tough immigration enforcement as a political winner, but he also wants to use the face-off to expand the federal government's power to control states. Trump's vision is federalism as a one-way street: If states need help, they might be on their own, but if states believe that federal intervention is unnecessary or even harmful, too bad. If the president wants to shut off funds to states for nothing more than political retribution or personal animus, he believes that he can do that. (A White House spokesperson told CNN that decisions about potential cuts were not final but said that 'no taxpayer should be forced to fund the demise of our country,' a laughably vague and overheated rationale.) If states have been struck by major disasters, however, they'd better hope they voted for Trump, or that their governors have a good relationship with him. Some of these attempts to strong-arm states are likely illegal, and will be successfully challenged in court. Others are in gray areas, and still others are plainly legal—manifestations of what I call 'total politics,' in which officials wield powers that are legal but improper or unwise. This is a marked shift from the traditional American conservative defense of states' rights. Although that argument has often been deployed to defend racist policies, such as slavery and segregation, the right has also argued for the prerogative of local people to stave off an overweaning federal government. Conservatives also tended to view Lyndon Johnson as a boogeyman, not a role model. Kristi Noem, now the secretary of Homeland Security, bristled at the idea of federalizing the National Guard just last year, when she was serving as governor of South Dakota. But Trump's entire approach is to centralize control. He has pursued Project 2025's plan to seize new powers for the executive branch and to establish right-wing Big Government, flexing the coercive capacity of the federal government over citizens' lives. Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, has suggested that he wouldn't hesitate to arrest Newsom, and Trump endorsed the idea today. And Trump allies have proposed all sorts of other ways to force state governments to comply, such as cutting off Justice Department grants or FEMA assistance for states that don't sign up to enforce Trump's immigration policies, an issue where state governments do not traditionally have a role. This duress is not limited to blue states. Just last week, under pressure from the DOJ, Texas agreed to trash a 24-year-old law (signed by then-Governor Rick Perry, who later became Trump's secretary of energy) that gives in-state college tuition to some undocumented immigrants. If nothing else, the Trump era has given progressives a new appreciation for states' rights. Democrat attorneys general have become some of the most effective opponents of the Trump White House, just as Republican ones battled the Obama and Biden administrations. On Friday, Newsom mused about California withholding federal taxes. This is plainly illegal, but you can see where he's coming from: In fiscal year 2022, the state contributed $83 billion dollars more to the federal government than it received. If California is not getting disaster aid but is getting hostile deployments of federal troops, Californians might find it harder to see what's in it for them. No wonder one poll commissioned by an advocacy group earlier this year found that 61 percent of the state's residents thought California would be better off as a separate nation. Secession isn't going to happen: As journalists writing about aspiring red-state secessionists in recent years have noted, leaving the Union is unconstitutional. But the fact that these questions keep coming up is a testament to the fraying relationship between the federal government and the states. Trump's recent actions toward California show why tensions between Washington and the states are likely to get worse as long as he's president. Related: David Frum: For Trump, this is a dress rehearsal. Tom Nichols: Trump is using the National Guard as bait. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: An uproar at the NIH The real problem with the Democrats' ground game Where is Barack Obama? Today's News President Donald Trump's travel ban is in effect, affecting nationals from 19 countries. Israel intercepted a high-profile aid ship en route to Gaza and detained those on board, including the activist Greta Thunberg. They have been brought to the Israeli port of Ashdod, according to Israel's foreign ministry. Officials from America and China met in London for a second round of trade-truce negotiations. Dispatches The Wonder Reader: Summer is heating up. Isabel Fattal compiles stories about an invention that changed the course of human life: the AC unit. Explore all of our newsletters here. Evening Read What's So Shocking About a Man Who Loves His Wife? By Jeremy Gordon The first time that someone called me a 'wife guy,' I wasn't sure how to react. If you are encountering this phrase for the first time and think wife guy surely must mean 'a guy who loves his wife,' you would be dead wrong. The term, which rose to popularity sometime during the first Trump administration, describes someone whose spousal affection is so ostentatious that it becomes inherently untrustworthy. 'The wife guy defines himself,' the critic Amanda Hess has written, 'through a kind of overreaction to being married.' The wife guy posts a photo of his wife to Instagram along with several emojis of a man smiling with hearts in place of his eyes. He will repeat this sort of action so many times that even his closest friends may think, Enough already. Read the full article. More From The Atlantic The Democrats have an authenticity gap. The Wyoming hospital upending the logic of private equity Helen Lewis: The Trump administration's nasty campaign against trans people Culture Break Read. These six books are great reads for anybody interested in the power of saying no. Examine. Money is ruining television, Sophie Gilbert writes. Depictions of extreme wealth are everywhere on the small screen, and, well, it's all quite boring. Play our daily crossword. P.S. My colleague Katherine J. Wu's latest wrenching dispatch from the dismantling of the federal scientific establishment was published today. Katherine writes about a letter from more than 300 National Institutes for Health officials criticizing the NIH's direction in the past few months. One official, who both signed the letter and spoke with Katherine anonymously, told her, 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state.' The official added, 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' That quote struck me because it dovetails directly with the mindset that Trump demonstrates in his dealing with the states: Parts of the federal government are most valuable to him when they can be used not to provide services to citizens, but to serve as a cudgel. — David Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic