CSPAN - Ceasefire Kirsten Fontenrose & Dana Stoul
Aired: 2026-04-18
Duration: 01:01:59


=== Survival vs Ideology (14:42) ===

[00:00:00]  And the president promised some more information by the end of today, but he didn't really take questions on that conflict.
[00:00:06]  So we'll have to see if he weighs in publicly for the rest of the day.
[00:00:09]  But as of now, the president is slated to spend the rest of this Saturday in Washington after returning from a trip to Arizona and Nevada over the last two days.
[00:00:17]  And the global community right now is tracking the Strait of Hormuz and whether or not the U.S. and Iran are inching any closer to a peace deal.
[00:00:24]  That's straight getting reopened, oil prices dropping, or if this conflict is going to be prolonged.
[00:00:30]  That's it for Washington Journal today.
[00:00:31]  Thanks for calling in and tuning in.
[00:00:34]  Ceasefire is up next.
[00:00:51]  Welcome to Ceasefire, where we look to bridge the divide in American politics.
[00:00:54]  I'm Dasha Burns, Politico White House Bureau Chief, and joining me now on either side of the desk, two foreign policy experts: Kirsten Fontenrose, former Senior Director for Gulf Affairs for the National Security Council during the first Trump administration, and Dana Stroll, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East during the Biden administration.
[00:01:13]  She also worked for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
[00:01:16]  Thank you both so much for being here.
[00:01:18]  There is so much to discuss.
[00:01:19]  We need your brains today.
[00:01:22]  Let's start with the White House strategy on Iran.
[00:01:25]  Big picture.
[00:01:26]  In a guest essay for the New York Times, Jonathan Geyer of the Institute for Global Affairs writes: For Kushner and Witkoff, CEO diplomacy is no longer working.
[00:01:34]  Mr. Kushner and Mr. Witkoff represent the Trump mindset, a rogue version of diplomacy that's focused on the flashy and theatrical, a reflection of the Trump real estate developer ethos.
[00:01:44]  But that ethos has failed, and Iran is proof.
[00:01:47]  I mean, to both of you, are these the right people to be handling this?
[00:01:53]  What I find interesting about this round of talks is that the vice president has been involved, and we're hearing that it's because Iran requested that he be at the table.
[00:02:02]  That there's an understanding on Iran's side that Vice President Vance is the one who is being less hawkish on Iran.
[00:02:09]  Now, you would ask, is this a give by Iran to have direct face-to-face talks at all?
[00:02:15]  I mean, you had somebody even less hawkish when you had a Biden administration or a Vice President Kamala Harris.
[00:02:20]  She was not invited to do direct talks.
[00:02:22]  So I would say that it's an indication that Iran is looking to make a deal as well, finally, which we have not seen in the past.
[00:02:31]  That they consider JD Vance someone who is less hawkish and more willing to see their point of view.
[00:02:37]  What they're running into, however, what we saw in the first talks, is that Vice President Vance saw their intransigence up close and personal and has instead said, We'll come back for second rounds if we can, but we're kind of seeing through your playbook, Tehran.
[00:02:51]  Yeah, Dana, how are you reading this?
[00:02:53]  So I look at it more from an institutional perspective.
[00:02:56]  Generally, when you go into a high-stakes negotiation like this, you would want to have intelligence professionals analyzing the other side.
[00:03:03]  Since it's about the stakes of a nuclear program, you'd want nuclear nonproliferation and technical experts.
[00:03:08]  You want people who have a history of diplomatic experience, etc.
[00:03:12]  And what's unique, I think, about the American team this time is it's people who certainly have direct access and the confidence of President Trump, but none of that experience.
[00:03:21]  Look at the Iranian delegation that went to Islamabad last week: 70 people ranging a variety of sectors in Iran, three people for the Trump administration.
[00:03:31]  And then we have to look at the record of Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner on other files like Russia, Ukraine, or Iran talks before we went to war here.
[00:03:40]  And the history of it, or at least what's been disclosed, is that on some of the technical details, they may not have completely understood what's on the table.
[00:03:49]  And I think that asymmetry of expertise and not being surrounded by the wealth of knowledge that we actually have in the U.S. government is not serving the United States well.
[00:03:59]  You mentioned Vice President JD Vance.
[00:04:01]  I'm also curious for both of your takes on where Secretary of State Marco Rubio is in all of this.
[00:04:08]  At least publicly, he hasn't had as big of a role or hasn't been as much in the spotlight here.
[00:04:15]  Not in these talks at this table, but he's been very involved in the conversations behind the scenes that are shaping the policy.
[00:04:21]  And he's been the face for many of the other foreign policy conversations been happening at the same time.
[00:04:27]  Unfortunately, Iran is not the only issue we have to deal with.
[00:04:30]  So they do have to distribute the inner circle a bit to make sure we have coverage on that.
[00:04:36]  But he's definitely a part of those conversations.
[00:04:39]  And I think what we're looking at when you see the diversity of the kinds of delegations that Dana mentioned, large numbers on the Iranian side, small numbers on the U.S. side, you're also looking at what each expects to get out of this.
[00:04:54]  One of the expectations of this administration is that Iran will try to drag these out, delay diplomacy, keep us at the table so that Tehran can continue to try to smuggle arms and funding to their proxies and continue to build up their consolidation of power domestically and continue to put down any sort of domestic opposition that might be rising, all while the U.S. keeps Israel on a leash, their perception, because we are at talks.
[00:05:21]  Whereas the U.S. side is saying, we're sending top people, we're focusing on this right now, but this isn't the only issue they have on their plates.
[00:05:28]  They're busy folks.
[00:05:29]  So you either get to a deal or you don't.
[00:05:32]  As David Ignatius put it recently, Khaliba, you put up or shut up, right?
[00:05:36]  Time is ticking.
[00:05:37]  Yeah, I mean, you both have watched past presidents deal with Iran.
[00:05:42]  In this moment, kind of where all of the puzzle pieces are laying out right now, what do you see as the possible paths forward from here?
[00:05:51]  Well, first of all, on Secretary of State Rubio, he actually has the most well-documented views on Iran because he was a leading member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, very active in the debate about the original Iran nuclear agreement.
[00:06:06]  And I do think it's noteworthy that here with these high-stakes negotiations about Iran, there's nobody from the State Department.
[00:06:12]  And generally, when you're having, again, this kind of deal with both the technical and the diplomatic elements of it, you'd want somebody from the State Department there.
[00:06:22]  And also, we know Marco Rubio's views on Iran not having a right to enrich uranium domestically in its country, on the problems with its ballistic missile program, and on the terrible devastation that's been wrought across the Middle East because of Iranian support for terrorism.
[00:06:38]  And I think what's interesting about the moment we're in and what we understand about the parameters of the negotiation right now in Islamabad is that apparently they have narrowed to just a discussion about timelines for how, for when Iran needs to stop enriching uranium.
[00:06:54]  So apparently Vice President Vance suggested 20 years and the Iranians have countered with five years, which means from a negotiating standpoint and a history of U.S. policy positions, we have shifted from no enrichment ever in Iran to no enrichment for a period of time.
[00:07:12]  And we're not hearing anything about the other kinds of elements of this deal technically that you would want to have inspectors on the ground deconstructing or eliminating the infrastructure around it, what's going to happen with that enriched uranium stockpile that Iran has in its country.
[00:07:28]  And without addressing those things, and again, that's why I think it's so important to have people from our national security apparatus there to help think through creative technical solutions to this, whether or not we actually get to an outcome that is good for American national security interests is in jeopardy.
[00:07:45]  Kristen, what do you make of that?
[00:07:46]  And how likely do you think it is that the president will be comfortable with an outcome that simply sort of limits how long Iran won't enrich, but doesn't say unequivocally no more enriching uranium?
[00:08:01]  If they've given this concession that they're willing to talk about 20 years versus never, that's already a give.
[00:08:07]  I think both sides have shown a little bit of flexibility even coming in to this conversation.
[00:08:12]  The U.S. said hormuz must be open before we'll talk.
[00:08:15]  It wasn't.
[00:08:16]  Iran said Lebanon must not be at war.
[00:08:19]  There must not be the Hezbollah Israel conflict.
[00:08:22]  It is.
[00:08:23]  So both sides have kind of said we're willing to flex a bit, and that's called market sum, and that's made the president say maybe there's something we can work with here.
[00:08:32]  Now, the reason the small number of years is not acceptable to the party that's negotiating right now is because the IAEA itself has said that Iran would be unable to produce a weapon within at least three years if we left them alone and didn't bother them at all right now.
[00:08:46]  So what they're offering really isn't a concession on the nuclear file.
[00:08:51]  They are talking about what to do with the enriched uranium.
[00:08:53]  Iran's saying, leave it to us.
[00:08:55]  We'd like a blend down plan.
[00:08:56]  And the U.S. is saying that's not verifiable.
[00:08:59]  We're not doing something that's trust-based.
[00:09:00]  We need to ship it out.
[00:09:01]  So those conversations are happening there.
[00:09:05]  Kirsten, is the president at risk here of coming out of this with the U.S. in a worse place than Iran, at least strategically, maybe not with their military capabilities, but in a better place than before this whole thing started.
[00:09:18]  What would better place mean?
[00:09:20]  You know, if you lack all military capability and you only have half of your leadership and your population loads you and you're lacking a lot of command and control and you have no finances to boost yourself, your economy, or to pay your salaries for very long for the very weapons of oppression that are keeping you in power, how long can you retain that?
[00:09:40]  So the administration right now is saying we applied the military pressure.
[00:09:44]  We're looking at this economic pressure.
[00:09:46]  This epic fury turns into economic fury.
[00:09:49]  So eponomic fury.
[00:09:52]  The GLU non-renewal, the letters of the Chinese bank, the blockade, we're saying we're squeezing there.
[00:09:58]  And if that puts Iran in a position where it can no longer do things like pay these salaries or import the basic staples that it needs, how long until the regime support that keeps them in power either turns on them or just stays home and doesn't go to work, does that create that pathway for the people to take the helm of their government?
[00:10:18]  Let's talk about the regime and the people in power right now.
[00:10:21]  The Wall Street Journal writes Iran's regime has changed for the worse.
[00:10:25]  The U.S.-Israeli attack fast-tracked this end of hardliners and apocalyptic religious followers raising doubts about a lasting peace.
[00:10:32]  I mean, the White House says that regime change was not the goal when it took out those numerous leaders, including the Ayatollah.
[00:10:39]  But the current leadership, is it making the chances of peace more or less likely here?
[00:10:48]  So I think, first of all, President Trump had shifting objectives throughout this whole thing.
[00:10:54]  Let's remember that in January, part of the reason we had that military buildup was because the former regime turned on its people and committed the most significant massacre in the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran, allegedly up to 30,000 people killed.
[00:11:09]  President Trump was talking about regime change.
[00:11:12]  Then it was shifting to things that have always been consistent in U.S. policy across Democratic and Republican administrations, the nuclear program, the missile program, and the drone program, and then the support for terrorism.
[00:11:26]  So here, President Trump has actually said we've had regime change, and my view is it's for the worse.
[00:11:33]  What we have now are the survivors of that decapitation strike that happened on day one.
[00:11:39]  The new supreme leader is the son of the previous supreme leader.
[00:11:43]  In one day, he lost his father, his mother, his wife, and other family members, and he's apparently very injured.
[00:11:50]  So he's probably traumatized, deeply angry, and more beholden to the residual remnants of the regime that have survived, which apparently are mostly Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leadership.
[00:12:02]  So these guys are the protector of the Islamic Revolution of Iran.
[00:12:06]  They're the protectors of the regime, and they have been in the forefront, the vanguard of this whole strategy of regime survival through the terrorist program and all of these things.
[00:12:18]  Those are the guys who are calling the shot at the shots.
[00:12:21]  And to me, when I look at why that Iranian delegation in Islamabad didn't make any decisions yet, it's because they didn't have the blessing of the guy in charge, which is this new Supreme Leader, Moshtaba Khomeini, which suggests that they're still command and control.
[00:12:38]  So now we have a hardened regime.
[00:12:40]  The worst thing that could possibly happen to the Iranian regime happened, which was a direct U.S. military campaign against them, and they have survived.
[00:12:49]  And these are people that survived a six-week brutal campaign with Israel.
[00:12:53]  They survived the worst case of COVID in the Middle East.
[00:12:57]  They survived years of maximum pressure campaign, that brutal economic sanctions campaign during the first Trump administration, and they're still there.
[00:13:06]  So does economic fury after these six weeks of war force some hard decisions?
[00:13:11]  I'm sure it forces hard decisions for them, but if it's about helping the Iranian people versus whatever they're going to do to survive, they're probably going to pick survival.
[00:13:22]  And that creates, I think, real choices for the United States.
[00:13:25]  So Kristen, how do you think that does and should factor into the administration's decision-making and strategy here?
[00:13:31]  What they're saying is yes, and the factions that we're seeing within the regime remnants who are left, you have everything Dana spoke of in terms of hardline ideologues, you have IRGC hardliners, and while we had sanctions on that, they've survived, they've made quite a bit of money.
[00:13:51]  They've created a sanctions-based economy where they've monopolized much of the economic sectors, all industries for the most part.
[00:13:58]  And they would like to keep other countries and companies out because that then impacts their ability.
[00:14:03]  They don't want the competition.
[00:14:05]  That's where the lever is.
[00:14:07]  So when you have a reduction in the number of ideologues, but you have folks in place who are not beholden to an autocratic supreme leader, that autocratic supreme leader none of us have seen is instead beholden to them.
[00:14:20]  It gives them the ability they have not had in the previous 40 years to make some decisions on their own.
[00:14:26]  And if the U.S. administration is giving them decisions that are based on whether or not their financial futures are intact, we don't assume they care about the economic growth of the country or the prosperity of the people.
[00:14:37]  Rational actors can be rational actors even if their rationality is self-interested.

=== NATO Strategy Shifts (11:20) ===

[00:14:42]  And in this case, it likely is.
[00:14:44]  If these gentlemen, because they are all gentlemen, decide their interests lie more in preserving their economic prosperity and their families and their survival.
[00:14:52]  They've lived through the six weeks, but they've lived at hiding in tents in the forest and sleeping in their cars as their cars move around to avoid being pegged in one place, that's unsustainable.
[00:15:02]  If they say, ideologues aside, we're interested in a future for the country.
[00:15:07]  We fought through the Iran-Iraq war that hardened in us the idea of a strong Iraq in the face of external threats.
[00:15:16]  We want that to survive, and we would like to sustain this economic largesse we've built up over this time period.
[00:15:23]  That may be the lever to move them toward making a deal that in fact is a win on that side for them.
[00:15:31]  There are no gives for them on the economic side, only gains.
[00:15:35]  So it's really a test of where they are putting their interests.
[00:15:38]  Well, there's also been a debate about how much the administration fully understood the reaction that the Iranian leadership would have to this existential threat and how much power they ended up having over the Strait of Hormuz.
[00:15:56]  The future of the waterway is still in question.
[00:15:59]  We have this blockade in place right now.
[00:16:02]  I was reporting for Playbook this week.
[00:16:05]  One White House ally told me that, quote, people knew that Iran could do this, right?
[00:16:09]  People told the president this, the person said, regarding the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
[00:16:13]  But I think he had this belief in his invincibility that somehow he can always defy the odds.
[00:16:17]  And he does a lot of the time.
[00:16:19]  He really does, but that doesn't always translate and it's not translating in this case.
[00:16:24]  Kirsten, I want to go to you again, and then I want to get more from you, Dana.
[00:16:28]  But you've worked in a Trump administration.
[00:16:30]  Do you think it's possible that the president didn't fully understand the ramifications of the strait in this war?
[00:16:37]  What many of the advisors, including in our own intelligence community and the intelligence communities we communicate with in the Gulf, were saying before this decision was made was that Iran had more to lose from the closure of the strait than anyone else did.
[00:16:50]  So they wouldn't actually take that step.
[00:16:52]  Now the step they've taken is to selectively allow ships through, which is why you now see the blockade.
[00:16:57]  It's to make Iran feel the same kind of pain, the same economic squeeze that the rest of the world is feeling from that closure.
[00:17:04]  So it's not a double closure as some people describe.
[00:17:10]  It is equalizing the pain point there.
[00:17:13]  So Iran will have no incentive to open the strait if they are still able to import and export.
[00:17:19]  But if they are not, then their calculation changes.
[00:17:21]  So that's the reasoning behind the blockade.
[00:17:24]  Dana?
[00:17:25]  I think that Trump doesn't listen to his advisors or the intelligence community.
[00:17:29]  And I think there's two really important sets of facts that is worth taking a moment and reflecting upon.
[00:17:36]  The first is in all, having worked in the Pentagon, when we thought about, because every president, both Republican and Democrat, has said that diplomacy is the first choice to address this unacceptable threat, but there's always a military option on the table.
[00:17:53]  And so when you're working in the Pentagon and when Kirsten worked in the National Security Council, part of our job was to make sure there really is a credible military threat.
[00:18:00]  And part of the responsibility of those who are putting together those military plans is to brief the risks and the assumptions.
[00:18:07]  And the risks and the assumptions have always been that if the United States directly attacked the regime, the Iranian regime, when the Iranian regime was existentially challenged for its survival, it would escalate in all sorts of ways, not just against Israel, against civilian populations, against U.S. military bases across the Middle East, probably against civilian population centers in the Gulf, and possibly even civilian energy infrastructure.
[00:18:33]  Those assumptions and that understanding has always been there.
[00:18:37]  So I think that's one set of facts that President Trump would have been familiar with from his first administration and certainly from the second administration.
[00:18:46]  And number two is that he's actually had a decent run of luck with his uses of military force in the first year of his second administration.
[00:18:53]  So the 12-day war last summer, that was an Israeli campaign.
[00:18:58]  The United States fit in for 24 hours, did one thing, in and out, no risk to U.S. forces, no risk to U.S. fighter aircraft, easy.
[00:19:07]  He also had a big operation 58 days against Yemen called Operation Rough Rider.
[00:19:12]  Same thing.
[00:19:14]  U.S. forces did very significant actions inside Yemen.
[00:19:18]  There were some wear and tear of U.S. fighter aircraft, but there wasn't any U.S. casualties, right?
[00:19:26]  And so then he had some anti-ISIS and counter-terrorism operations in Africa and the Middle East and Venezuela.
[00:19:31]  And then there's, right, and then there's Venezuela.
[00:19:33]  the same thing, an exquisite and operationally truly impressive operation by the U.S. military.
[00:19:40]  Discrete objective, one thing, in and out.
[00:19:44]  And so I think this seduction of easy military operations is very much in President Trump's mind.
[00:19:51]  And so whether or not I think that he looks at certain sets of facts and is, I think, just quite emboldened, and this was just a different piece of business.
[00:20:02]  Kristen, does that resonate with you?
[00:20:04]  Sure.
[00:20:05]  And I think what you're seeing also is a consolidation of a strategy in end states.
[00:20:09]  Because of these kinds of successes, you're seeing a replication effort.
[00:20:13]  So I'm looking at Venezuela, you're looking at Iran, you're looking at Cuba, and what I'm seeing is if we apply sanctions and blockades, we can create a change in the regime where someone we can work with comes to the forefront.
[00:20:28]  And then they have to come to us for licenses to then export or import anything, which makes that redone regime, maybe not a new regime, but this revamped regime, reliant on the U.S. for its economic prosperity or growth going forward, for the foreseeable future.
[00:20:45]  And we've seen it work so far in Venezuela.
[00:20:47]  I think that's what we're going for in Iran.
[00:20:49]  And I think that might be what the plan is also for Cuba.
[00:20:52]  I think this is the problem right now, which is that this perception that Venezuela is working, that it was a swift operation, there's no systemic change that will coerce the Venezuelan system without changing it to what the United States wants in a way that's preferable for our commercial and business interests, has compelled President Trump to think there's a Del C Rodriguez in Iran.
[00:21:16]  I've heard that from administration officials.
[00:21:19]  They are looking for the Del C.
[00:21:20]  And the challenge there is that the system of government and the history of Iran is totally different from Venezuela.
[00:21:29]  This is a religiously motivated ideological regime.
[00:21:32]  They believe that the Ayatollah is the expression of God on earth.
[00:21:37]  And so the idea that if you force this IRGC, you can either protect your own bank accounts and your own financial interests or you can work with us.
[00:21:46]  The risk is misunderstanding the motivation and incentive structures inside Iran and this regime.
[00:21:52]  Because this is a death to America, death to Israel regime.
[00:21:55]  And the behavior of the regime hasn't changed and the regime has not changed.
[00:21:59]  I do want to talk about another factor.
[00:22:02]  This war has also created more friction between the United States and our allies in Europe.
[00:22:09]  And talking specifically about NATO, the Wall Street Journal reports that NATO has a backup plan if Trump decides to pull out.
[00:22:15]  A fallback plan to ensure Europe can defend itself using NATO's existing military structures if the U.S. departs is gaining traction after getting buy-in from Germany, a long-term opponent of a go-it-alone approach.
[00:22:29]  Do you think this is smart strategy from the other NATO members?
[00:22:33]  And is it necessary strategy given what the president has said?
[00:22:36]  It's certainly smart contingency planning.
[00:22:38]  The president has, as we all know, threatened to withdraw from NATO previously.
[00:22:43]  And frankly, that strategy worked because that threat resulted in the NATO countries increasing their defense spending budgets right before there was a crisis with Russia's invasion of Ukraine where that budget was really necessary.
[00:22:56]  So him saying now, hey, look, this request for your support in Hormuz was a litmus test of our relationship.
[00:23:02]  We came to your support in World War I and World War II, and we hate to be throwbacks, but we weren't consulted on those wars, and we didn't want to go in, and we did.
[00:23:11]  And now we've come to ask you for support in something even much smaller, and all of you have said no almost to the one, do not expect us to pay the way for NATO then, because obviously this kind of support is not a two-way street.
[00:23:23]  They would be smart to be thinking about it.
[00:23:25]  And frankly, the more they bolster their own collective defense, the more the U.S. will want to be a part of it.
[00:23:32]  Dana, what do you make of the U.S. reaction to Europe's reaction of, hey, we don't want to get involved with this, Mr. President.
[00:23:40]  This is something you wanted to do in Iran.
[00:23:42]  Like, we're not coming in here.
[00:23:45]  Well, first of all, I think the Europeans were also aware of the risks of Iranian retaliation and the effects on their economies, their fuel prices, their economic security are more intensely felt right now than here in the United States.
[00:24:01]  And second of all, I mean, some might say that's more of a reason to get involved.
[00:24:05]  Right.
[00:24:06]  And I do think that if you, for our European allies, that there is the disagreements over Trump's decision and the circumstances of going to war, and then there are foundational national security interests.
[00:24:21]  And one of them should be freedom of navigation, free flow of transit, and that a terrorist regime like Iran shouldn't be dictating who gets to transit the Strait of Hormuz.
[00:24:32]  There are actually plenty of reports that the NATO navies are thinking through what a mission would look like.
[00:24:38]  And here, actually, we've seen the Iranians multiple times try to mess with maritime traffic in the Middle East.
[00:24:45]  It happened during Trump's maximum pressure campaign in his first administration.
[00:24:49]  It happened when the Houthis in Yemen tried to block Red Sea traffic after the October 7, 2023 attacks.
[00:24:54]  And actually, the Europeans always show up.
[00:24:56]  It's just not exactly how the Americans want it at the time we want it, with the authorities we want it.
[00:25:01]  And by the way, that's what alliance management and partnership maintenance is.
[00:25:04]  The United States generally works and consults with our partners, gives them a heads up, listens to their constraints, their resource availability, and figures out how we can all work together.
[00:25:14]  All right, really quickly, we have about 90 seconds, so 30 seconds to each of you on Cuba and the reporting that there are some potential military operations in the works, or at least the Pentagon is preparing some military ops in Cuba.
[00:25:27]  Is it the right time for the president to be thinking about that?
[00:25:31]  The decisions on whether or not to take military action are never made in a vacuum.
[00:25:35]  So if the president decides to take the action right now, it will be because there are other leading indicators about reason, like we have the intel in Iran that the Supreme Leader and his inner circle will be meeting together.
[00:25:48]  I do think, though, that this is what you're seeing, as I mentioned before, perhaps a strategy of replication.
[00:25:53]  Sanctions, blockade, military action if it's needed, pressure on the existing regime, and then an economically dependent country that follows.

=== Trump and Pope Leo (15:18) ===

[00:26:03]  Dana, risks or benefits to going into games.
[00:26:05]  The United States just learned that a military forward, military-only strategy has tremendous blowback.
[00:26:12]  We have the majority of the U.S. military forward deployed in the Middle East.
[00:26:16]  Now would be a time to consider other options short of military force.
[00:26:19]  All right.
[00:26:20]  Thank you both so much.
[00:26:21]  That's all the time we have.
[00:26:22]  Kirsten Fontenrose, former Senior Director for Gulf Affairs for the National Security Council, and Dana Stroll, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East.
[00:26:31]  Thank you both so much for lending your expertise today.
[00:26:35]  All right, let's turn now to this week's C-SPAN flashback, where we dig into the archives to show you a moment from political history that resonates with today's headlines.
[00:26:43]  President Trump and the Vatican find themselves at odds after Pope Leo criticized the United States' use of force in the Iran war, warning about the risks of escalation and urging restraint.
[00:26:53]  Trump says that the criticism is out of touch with real-world security threats, and it's not the first time a Pope has stepped into the U.S. political conversation.
[00:27:01]  More than a decade ago, Pope Francis addressed a meeting, a joint meeting of Congress, offering a broader message on leadership, restraint, and the role of government during conflict.
[00:27:11]  Here's a portion.
[00:27:12]  A good political leader is one who, With the interest of all in mind, seizes the moment in a spirit of openness and pragmatism.
[00:27:30]  A good political leader always opts to initiate processes rather than possessing space.
[00:27:44]  Being at the service of dialogue and peace also means being truly determined to minimize and in the long term to end the many armed conflicts throughout our world.
[00:28:08]  The late Pope Francis focused his message on diplomacy and de-escalation.
[00:28:12]  To react to the current tension between President Trump and Pope Leo and other top political stories of the week, I'm joined by two political pros.
[00:28:19]  T.W. Arighi, former National Press Secretary for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and John McCarthy, former senior advisor for political engagement for President Biden.
[00:28:29]  He was also deputy political director for the Biden 2020 campaign.
[00:28:33]  Thank you both so much for joining me today.
[00:28:35]  This is going to be a fun chat.
[00:28:37]  We have quite a bit to dig into.
[00:28:39]  I do want to start with the Pope and the President.
[00:28:44]  There's been this back and forth between President Trump and Pope Leo.
[00:28:47]  The pontiff is critical of the U.S. war in Iran, which has prompted backlash from the president.
[00:28:52]  Take a listen to just some of what he had to say.
[00:28:54]  Pope Leo said things that are wrong.
[00:28:57]  He was very much against what I'm doing with regard to Iran.
[00:29:02]  And you cannot have a nuclear Iran.
[00:29:04]  Pope Leo would not be happy with the end result.
[00:29:07]  You have hundreds of millions of people dead, and it's not going to happen.
[00:29:11]  So I can't.
[00:29:13]  I think he's very weak on crime and other things.
[00:29:16]  So I'm not.
[00:29:17]  I mean, he went public.
[00:29:18]  I'm just responding to Pope Leo.
[00:29:20]  All right, John, I got to go to you on this one because you advise President Biden on Vatican and Catholic issues.
[00:29:28]  Just give me your thoughts.
[00:29:29]  Where to begin, really?
[00:29:30]  Where to begin?
[00:29:30]  There's a couple things that I think kind of have to guide a lot of this conversation.
[00:29:34]  And the first part is that I think that there's a difference in the way that the president is attacking the Pope and the way that the Pope is speaking broadly.
[00:29:41]  You know, the Pope really comes to this conversation talking in moral terms about the Church.
[00:29:45]  He's not really calling out Donald Trump by name.
[00:29:47]  He's not taking personal attacks at the president.
[00:29:50]  He's really trying to be kind of a static and kind of above the fray leader on this and talking about things that have been part of the social fabric of the church since the founding of the church.
[00:29:59]  Donald Trump seems to be kind of going after the Pope quite personally.
[00:30:03]  So I do think that that's pretty different.
[00:30:05]  And I would also say it's important to remember that the Pope at the end of the day is a pastor and not a politician.
[00:30:10]  And the Catholic social teaching of the church doesn't fit neatly into either box.
[00:30:13]  So Democrats at times find themselves up against the church, and so do Republicans, and that's kind of how it ought to be.
[00:30:18]  Yeah, TW, the religious right is not loving this.
[00:30:22]  And take a look at this headline from USA Today: Trump's attack on Pope Leo may hurt the GOP with Catholic voters.
[00:30:29]  Is it worth it for Trump to engage on this?
[00:30:32]  Not like that.
[00:30:34]  The fact of the matter is politics is a game of addition, not subtraction.
[00:30:39]  And when you're attacking the pontiff, you're subtracting voters.
[00:30:43]  And John and I are both Catholic and respect the papacy, love the papacy, and love Pope Leo.
[00:30:48]  But to John's point, you know, church teaching does not fit neatly into one box.
[00:30:53]  And we've seen Catholic presidents go into armed conflict.
[00:30:56]  And I'd be shocked if the vicar of Christ on earth wasn't out there promoting peace, wasn't out there seeking to end armed conflicts.
[00:31:04]  Unfortunately, the presidency demands that people and presidents take decisions that may run afoul of church teaching broadly.
[00:31:16]  But I think it's also wise to note just to the non-Catholic audience that just because the Pope says something doesn't make it infallible.
[00:31:24]  There's only certain circumstances in which the Pope can speak infallibly.
[00:31:28]  So I think that the Pope, just like anybody else, is open to disagreement, and the American people are allowed to make their own judgment.
[00:31:37]  I mean, for both of you, look, the midterms are not till November.
[00:31:41]  The likelihood that people are still talking about this months from now, given how crazy our news cycles are these days, is not likely.
[00:31:50]  But how sticky is something like this with voters?
[00:31:53]  How much do voters care about this kind of thing?
[00:31:56]  I think you've got to talk about, and we're sitting here in D.C., talk about the numbers and politics on this, right?
[00:32:02]  The Pope enjoys quite high favorability amongst American Catholics.
[00:32:04]  About eight out of 10 American Catholics have positive favorability.
[00:32:08]  Yeah, just across the board.
[00:32:10]  Catholics tend to like their Pope writ large.
[00:32:12]  Donald Trump's numbers, not to break any news here, but are nowhere near eight out of 10 Americans thinking favorably about the president.
[00:32:18]  So typically, if you're advising a candidate or a politician, you want to always say, you know, you want to align with where there's positivity and voter support.
[00:32:26]  So the president should want to find ways to align himself with this very popular message.
[00:32:30]  The other thing I would say is that Catholics tend to be pretty bellwether voters.
[00:32:34]  We've seen them go for President Trump in the past.
[00:32:35]  They voted for President Biden.
[00:32:37]  So they kind of will kind of go to either side.
[00:32:39]  They're not really the home team for either political party.
[00:32:43]  But if you look across the country at where there are concentrations of Catholic voters, California, Pennsylvania, New York, Arizona, Iowa, those places also happen to be where, as we're looking towards the midterms, there's also your highest concentration of tough reelection seats for members of Congress.
[00:32:58]  So I think that this is something that maybe it won't be sticky in terms of I don't think people are going to step into a voting booth and say suddenly, I'm voting this way because he attacked the Pope.
[00:33:07]  But I do think that it does kind of lean into a voter's conscience and say, this guy is not really aligning with what I'm valuing.
[00:33:12]  And it's going to bring the view of the president down in, I think, a lot of voters' minds.
[00:33:16]  TW?
[00:33:17]  Yeah, I think a lot of that's accurate, especially the last point.
[00:33:21]  There's just so much noise today.
[00:33:23]  I don't think that's, again, breaking any news.
[00:33:25]  There's so much going on.
[00:33:27]  I doubt, unless he continues this drumbeat until November, that people will actually think of it too much going into the voting booth.
[00:33:35]  But more importantly, to John's point, and Catholic voters, you know, there's a lot of things Catholic voters take seriously.
[00:33:42]  As we were talking about, the message of the church, the message of the gospel not fitting neatly into one political box.
[00:33:48]  And I think it's really illustrated in Poplio's family, right?
[00:33:51]  Donald Trump loves talking about his brother who's MAGA, but he also has a brother who isn't.
[00:33:56]  The church is for everybody.
[00:33:58]  And I think when Donald Trump realizes that by attacking him, he's not bringing down Popelio's numbers at all, I think the better.
[00:34:06]  And focus on the message, focus on the economy, focus on winning the conflict in Iran and messaging that appropriately, and that will have better impacts than attacking the Pope.
[00:34:16]  There's also the Vance of it all.
[00:34:18]  The Vice President weighed in on the Pope's messaging.
[00:34:21]  Take a listen.
[00:34:22]  When the Pope says that God is never on the side of those who wield the sword, there is a thousand year, more than a thousand year tradition of just war theory.
[00:34:33]  Okay?
[00:34:33]  Now, we can, of course, have disagreements about whether this or that conflict is just, but I think that it's important in the same way that it's important for the Vice President of the United States to be careful when I talk about matters of public policy.
[00:34:45]  I think it's very, very important for the Pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology.
[00:34:50]  I think one of the issues here is that if you're going to opine on matters of theology, you've got to be careful.
[00:34:56]  You've got to make sure it's anchored in the truth.
[00:34:58]  And that's one of the things that I try to do.
[00:35:00]  And it's certainly something I would expect from the clergy, whether they're Catholic or Protestant.
[00:35:05]  So what is the strategy for Vance here?
[00:35:07]  Because he is about to come out with this book that is focused on his faith.
[00:35:12]  He has made faith a really big part of his political identity.
[00:35:16]  But you have the president doing things that don't necessarily align with how he speaks about his faith.
[00:35:22]  Now he's kind of taking the president's side here.
[00:35:24]  But how does Vance strategize?
[00:35:27]  Yeah, I mean, he finds himself in a peculiar situation at the moment.
[00:35:31]  And just war theory is obviously long studied.
[00:35:34]  And the Catholic Church itself has a long history of armed conflict under its own flag.
[00:35:41]  But look, that is besides the point.
[00:35:44]  And I think he's trying to sort of make a roundabout argument to justify the administration's actions in Iran, which I don't believe need a roundabout option.
[00:35:55]  But I think, you know, he's going to have to level himself as a Catholic and as a proponent of what we're doing in Iran and the administration and sort of make it all make sense.
[00:36:07]  So this is not the last he's going to be answering questions on this.
[00:36:11]  I think it's going to be a big topic for him moving forward, especially when the book comes out.
[00:36:16]  And I think you're going to hear a lot more of these sort of pulling things from the catechism, pulling things from just war theory to try to use it as further evidence for why the Pope is wrong.
[00:36:27]  We also can't forget about the Jesus post, which looms over all of this.
[00:36:33]  The president posted an AI image that appeared to depict him as Jesus.
[00:36:37]  He later took it down after some backlash and claimed that he thought it was an image of him as a doctor.
[00:36:45]  John, how did Democrats respond when they first saw this?
[00:36:49]  Is this something that they sort of like we can jump on this immediately?
[00:36:53]  Yeah, I mean, the amount of times that the president has done that type of thing where he just tries to gaslight you into seeing something or saying something you're not seeing, this is not the first.
[00:37:01]  It won't be the last.
[00:37:03]  And, you know, there's a humor to it.
[00:37:05]  I get it.
[00:37:06]  You know, the White House is trying to downplay it.
[00:37:08]  But I actually think when we go back to how this whole thing started and why the president started lashing out, there's been obviously reports that he was responding to after the Masters Tournament, the CBS interview with the three American Cardinals.
[00:37:20]  And they brought up this issue.
[00:37:22]  And one of the things that I think was really important out of that interview was actually from Cardinal Supic out of Chicago, where he said that the biggest disturbing thing out of the White House is not these AI images.
[00:37:32]  It's not the President Trump picturing himself after the death of Pope Francis as the Pope, another image we forget to talk about.
[00:37:39]  But it's actually the almost gamification of war.
[00:37:41]  So I find it ironic that JD Vance tries to sit and lecture the Holy Father on what just war theory is when the White House itself is putting out these videos with like video game style theatrics and hype music glorifying human killing.
[00:37:53]  So I think that that's actually the place where the moral voice of the church is coming in here.
[00:37:56]  It's not about just the funny images.
[00:37:58]  It's just about the kind of callous nature that they're going about this work with.
[00:38:01]  And I think for swing voters, you know, the presidency in many ways is entirely about character.
[00:38:05]  And I think that this is the type of thing that really starts to weigh with voters and say this is not what I'm for.
[00:38:09]  Yeah, TW, there were a lot of Republicans that very rarely criticized the president that came out saying he's got to take down this post.
[00:38:17]  Yeah, look, faith is a crucial part of the Republican coalition.
[00:38:23]  Faith-based voters, religious voters, and they take these things seriously.
[00:38:28]  And none of it is new in terms of Trump putting out sort of inflammatory images, videos, statements, that he's been doing that since before he ran for office.
[00:38:39]  But right now, we're at a crucial moment where there are men and women in harm's way.
[00:38:45]  And people are going to bed every night and praying for those people in harm's way.
[00:38:51]  And many of them are praying to their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
[00:38:54]  And so when you denigrate or you put yourself in a blasphemous position, they're going to react poorly when there are men and women deployed in harm's way.
[00:39:03]  And so I think, and I've heard Riley Gaines say, you know, a little humility would have gone a long way with the president.
[00:39:10]  And I think that might be a very good idea.
[00:39:18]  Humility would serve him incredibly well.
[00:39:21]  Literally, the ability to say, I'm sorry, Maya COPA, would serve him well.
[00:39:26]  Unfortunately, he doesn't like to deploy that.
[00:39:28]  The reason that there is so much concern from Republicans about this is because we are in a midterm year, and a lot of this stuff can end up mattering.
[00:39:38]  Take a look at this headline from some of my reporting for Politico.
[00:39:41]  I report that Republicans worry White House, quote, nonsense is hurting midterm prospects.
[00:39:46]  A sputtering economy, high gas prices, a fight with the Pope, and a pair of foreign policy setbacks in Pakistan and Hungary have left many White House allies newly exasperated.
[00:39:55]  TW, what I'm hearing from Republican operatives is they already knew that there were going to be headwinds coming into this year, just the history of midterms and the challenges for the Republican Party.
[00:40:07]  But on top of that, you have the leader of the party kind of constantly distracting from the main message.
[00:40:14]  Yes.
[00:40:15]  And when I worked at the NRSC and I worked at other places, we always had this discussion.
[00:40:20]  Again, something that isn't new about the president, distracting from the central message.
[00:40:25]  The election will always be about the economy.
[00:40:27]  And that's why the wrapping Iran up so quick is crucial because with the oil price, with gas prices going up, with fertilizer costs going up, that will bleed into the fall, if not handled soon.
[00:40:41]  But the president views this, as obviously his last term, as a sprint to get everything accomplished that he can.
[00:40:49]  He obviously believed that Iran was an imminent threat, and he had to take this off the table now.
[00:40:56]  And there actually is a tremendous argument to be made.
[00:40:59]  And our men and women in uniform have done a tremendous job in Iran.
[00:41:03]  And what he should be doing is not only messaging that consistently to the American voter so that they understand clearly what we're doing and what the objectives are, but secondly, going out and touting the wins he's had on the economy with taxes, with the elimination of tax on tip, on Social Security, and on overtime.

=== Congressional Accountability (12:59) ===

[00:41:21]  There's a ton of great, well, again, I think not well enough.
[00:41:25]  And that is what the concern that you're hearing in your reporting and Republicans like me are saying all the time.
[00:41:32]  Get on message and do it consistently.
[00:41:34]  So what are Democrats watching and what are they trying to take advantage of right now?
[00:41:38]  Yeah, I mean, the president does this to himself in many cases.
[00:41:41]  And the only thing I would add to the layer of the Trump administration is that midterm elections, yes, are often about the economy.
[00:41:47]  But I do think that the era of Trump and politics has also added an overstimulation of the presidency.
[00:41:52]  And I think that voters are actually just feeling overwhelmed with the amount of time in their day that they are reacting to something the president said, posted, or tweeted.
[00:42:00]  So yes, the president came into office with a mandate to lower costs.
[00:42:03]  He said he was never going to start forever wars.
[00:42:05]  There have been all of these things that he said he was going to come in and do, and he hasn't done.
[00:42:09]  Democrats are going to be able to run on that message.
[00:42:11]  And for the House Representatives, you know, that's probably enough to get us there.
[00:42:14]  You know, the political wins are probably in our favor.
[00:42:16]  For the House, at least, midterm elections tend to be a referendum on the party in power.
[00:42:20]  But I would also say if you're looking over at the Senate, that is a place where the map is hard for us.
[00:42:24]  And the map is going to be hard for the next couple cycles.
[00:42:27]  But I actually think because of really strong candidate recruitment and because the president continues to kind of get in his own way on this, you're starting to see these states come online that probably shouldn't be open to Democrats as much as they are right now.
[00:42:38]  I feel really good about North Carolina.
[00:42:40]  Ohio, which has been a hard state for Democrats, is starting to trend in our direction.
[00:42:43]  We have an amazing candidate in Georgia that's going to keep that in our column.
[00:42:46]  And even in places like Alaska, because of incredible candidate recruitment and the political headwinds coming out of just the president's actions, Democrats are looking to be in a much stronger position than people were even expecting.
[00:42:56]  Yeah.
[00:42:57]  TW, do you think that the president cares about the midterms?
[00:43:03]  Or cares that much?
[00:43:05]  Or is he, at this point, to your point about the mandate and the sprint that he feels he has to do, is that outweighing sort of the political considerations of how he is governing?
[00:43:19]  I do think he cares because I think he lived through it last time around in the impeachment proceedings, the investigations, the incessant looking into his family's life, and he doesn't want to relive that.
[00:43:31]  So, of course, he cares about the outcome of the election.
[00:43:36]  But look, the foreign policy aspect of all of this is something that every president deals with differently.
[00:43:45]  Presidents are thrust into situations on the foreign policy front that they did not anticipate.
[00:43:50]  You can go all the way back to Jefferson, a man who didn't want a standing army, and the next thing you know, he's outfitting frigates to go to North Africa, all the way to George W. Bush.
[00:43:59]  He was an education president, the 9-11 happens.
[00:44:01]  These foreign policy things are thrust upon you.
[00:44:04]  It is incumbent on the president to message it effectively, to tell the American people why blood and treasure are being risked.
[00:44:11]  And so I do think he cares, and I do think he has delivered on a mandate because he believes that the core tenets of his platform remain popular.
[00:44:20]  And there is definitely evidence to suggest that, especially on the security front, law and order front, on border security front.
[00:44:28]  And tax cuts and government spending decreases remain popular.
[00:44:33]  So get on those messages and stay on it.
[00:44:35]  Let's talk about some of the ethics issues on the Hill, because there has been a lot going on.
[00:44:40]  Punch Bowl sums it up like this.
[00:44:41]  In the span of 55 minutes, Monday evening, Representatives Eric Swalwell and Tony Gonzalez both announced their resignations from the House, a double-barreled political blast that rocketed across official Washington.
[00:44:53]  As two congressmen stepping down following sexual misconduct allegations, first, what do you all make of the timing, Swalwell and Gonzalez resigning at the same time?
[00:45:03]  I will say I think on the Democratic side, the compressed timeline is a good thing.
[00:45:06]  And I think it shows the difference between a political party that has a backbone and is willing to hold their own to account and one that isn't.
[00:45:12]  I will say I also think that some of this is a generational shift inside the Congress writ large.
[00:45:16]  Younger members, both in terms of length of service and actual age, I think have very, very little tolerance for this.
[00:45:23]  They want to move up in the ranks.
[00:45:24]  They don't want to sit and be a part of the old boys club.
[00:45:26]  They want to come to Congress and try and do something.
[00:45:29]  And I think that that's why these kind of things that might have been acceptable 30 years ago, now there's a zero tolerance party, at least on my side of the aisle.
[00:45:37]  Well, I think the timing is to, with the Congress in such a razor's edge in terms of who's in charge, people don't want to lose.
[00:45:47]  I mean, Gonzalez would not have gone down if Swalwell hadn't.
[00:45:49]  That is correct.
[00:45:50]  And now we talk about ethics investigations, you'll notice that the bucket has grown a lot bigger to make sure that that balance of power stays the same.
[00:45:58]  It's an unfortunate side effect of the close margins that we do have.
[00:46:04]  But look, I think broadly speaking on the sexual harassment things, John and I both worked on Capitol Hill.
[00:46:09]  There are rumors that you hear all the time.
[00:46:13]  Rumors about misconduct.
[00:46:15]  There's been people and even reporters tweeting that they've known about these whispers for a while, which begs the question, why wasn't that reported on earlier?
[00:46:22]  But what is clear to me is now with social media omnipresent, with everyone having a phone in their pocket, with TMZ now going on to Capitol Hill, looking for salacious reports and offering potentially money for those stories, I think you're going to see these things come to light.
[00:46:38]  And people are going to have to determine really quick whether or not they stay in or get out, which also begs the question for Representative Swalwell.
[00:46:46]  Why would you run if you knew you had these demons?
[00:46:48]  Yeah, the Hill compared this to the Me Too movement, writing, a second wave of the Me Too movement is dominating Capitol Hill.
[00:46:55]  The swift expulsion threats and ultimate resignations showcase the increasing anger and frustration among a vocal group of female lawmakers who say the problem of sexual misconduct in the Capitol is more widespread than what's been made public.
[00:47:07]  And they raise questions about whether the moment will be a reckoning that leads to reforms around sexual misconduct policies or a blip diffused by Swalwell's and Gonzalez's quick exits.
[00:47:17]  I mean, they stepped down under the threat of possible expulsion.
[00:47:21]  Do you guys think that Congress can sufficiently police itself on sexual misconduct allegations?
[00:47:27]  I mean, this has been a problem that Congress has had, not just with this, but it's had with ethics writ large.
[00:47:31]  I mean, the Ethics Committee is the last place you want to end up as a member of Congress because historically it means you're investigating your colleagues and it's a deeply uncomfortable position to be in.
[00:47:40]  There have been lots of suggestions from outside groups about how to reform that, some of which include outside bodies having at least ethical oversight into the Congress.
[00:47:47]  But I do think that, you know, back to the generational argument, I think that these younger members are much more committed to this than it was in the past.
[00:47:54]  As you see members of Congress spending less time in Washington, the kind of clubbiness of Capitol Hill has really changed even within the last 10 years.
[00:48:01]  I think that, you know, the tolerance for this is going down.
[00:48:04]  I also think that if you look at the people who are now kind of in the spotlight on this versus the people who are in this kind of in the height of the Me Too era, it's a big generational difference.
[00:48:12]  Those were kind of senior elder lawmakers at that period of time.
[00:48:15]  And now these are people who are in their 30s and 40s.
[00:48:17]  So I think there's a difference.
[00:48:18]  Yeah, do you think there is a culture problem around this for both parties on Capitol Hill?
[00:48:23]  You both worked there.
[00:48:24]  I mean, you know how the vibes are.
[00:48:26]  I'm not so certain around members of Congress behaving poorly if there has been a culture shift, in large part because it's existed since the beginning of Congress.
[00:48:36]  I mean, you can go back in history.
[00:48:37]  There's members of Congress with up to five mistresses in the 1800s, five mothers that they had.
[00:48:44]  So it's not a new problem.
[00:48:46]  And unfortunately, you're asking how do you ethically police human behavior in human ethics?
[00:48:53]  And that's really hard to do.
[00:48:54]  And I think it begins with electing candidates of moral character and high moral standing.
[00:48:59]  I think that's a good start.
[00:49:00]  And obviously, Congress has a role to police itself to make sure it looks good and has the trust of the American voter.
[00:49:06]  But the American voter also has a say in this as well.
[00:49:08]  And they need to step up to the plate to make sure that the candidates they're doing are people of good character.
[00:49:14]  This has also shaken up the California race for governor with Swalwell dropping out of that race.
[00:49:21]  John, what is the impact that this has?
[00:49:24]  Yeah, I mean, this race has been up and down since the very beginning.
[00:49:28]  The way that it's kind of looking now, you have Katie Porter, who we thought was all going to be kind of pushed out of this months ago, now kind of reemerging in some ways.
[00:49:35]  Tom Steyer, who's been on the outs and kind of, you know, wasn't able to kind of break into more senior polling, is now moving up.
[00:49:40]  So I do think that there's a very serious reshuffle in the party happening.
[00:49:44]  There is a lot of talent on that bench.
[00:49:46]  And I think people are saying, you know, give me a second look.
[00:49:48]  The outstanding question is going to be, can we consolidate enough support around, you know, a frontrunner or two here to make sure that we can get across the finish line and not have two Republicans running against each other?
[00:49:57]  So there is a Republican piece in this, which is kind of extraordinary.
[00:50:01]  I actually spoke to Republican candidate Steve Hilton for my podcast, The Conversation, this week.
[00:50:06]  I asked him about the Trump endorsement, which he has received, whether that helps or hurts, among other things.
[00:50:12]  Take a listen.
[00:50:13]  Let me ask about the Trump endorsement because you mentioned how important you think that was for you.
[00:50:20]  Listen, no Republican has won statewide in California for two decades, right?
[00:50:26]  President Trump, his approval rating is underwater in California.
[00:50:31]  So did you really want that endorsement?
[00:50:35]  Well, I didn't ask for it, just to be clear.
[00:50:37]  I know the president.
[00:50:39]  Why didn't you ask for it?
[00:50:40]  Well, because to be honest, I thought that he's got other things on his mind.
[00:50:44]  Like, truly.
[00:50:46]  Was there any concern there that an endorsement could potentially hurt you, given his approval ratings?
[00:50:52]  Not at all.
[00:50:52]  And in fact, every time I've been asked about it, I've said what I think, which is I'd be honored to have it.
[00:50:57]  I am honored to have it.
[00:50:59]  I just didn't think that it was top of his agenda.
[00:51:03]  All right, TW.
[00:51:04]  What do you think realistically are his chances?
[00:51:06]  And does the Trump endorsement hurt?
[00:51:08]  Well, his chances are really good if it's two Republicans on the ballot.
[00:51:12]  But I think Donald Trump, in a pre-Swalwell world, the idea was to ensure that at least one Republican did get on the ballot by sort of consolidating Republican support around one candidate.
[00:51:25]  I think that was the thought behind that process.
[00:51:28]  But looking ahead at the Democratic field, not only is it not consolidated around one candidate, it's also really weak.
[00:51:37]  Tom Steyer is a perennial candidate, yes, a billionaire with tons of money, but who doesn't have this sort of movement and natural group of his in the Democratic Party.
[00:51:50]  And then you have Katie Porter, someone who I know pretty well because I worked for Mimi Walters when she first ran for Congress.
[00:51:58]  We ran against Katie Porter.
[00:52:00]  And I know the opposition research pretty well, and it's not good.
[00:52:03]  It's quite bad.
[00:52:05]  A lot of domestic abuse allegations for Katie Porter.
[00:52:08]  So the field is really, really weak, which gives Republicans, now this environment might shift it a bit, but gives them a fighting chance, a puncher's chance, going into November.
[00:52:19]  And if Steve Hilton can keep a message sort of between the 40s and talk about reform, maybe he has a chance.
[00:52:26]  Let's talk really quickly about Virginia redistricting.
[00:52:29]  The Washington Examiner laid out the stakes like this.
[00:52:32]  Early voting is underway in Virginia on a closely watched redistricting referendum that is shaping up to be a razor-thin race, with both parties increasingly treating the April 21st vote as a pivotal and unpredictable fight for control of the House.
[00:52:46]  How predictive could this be for the outcome in the midterms?
[00:52:50]  I mean, I think that the redistricting fight as a whole, similar headlines like that kind of exist every time one of these plays out in these states.
[00:52:56]  Every state that's voting on it believes that they are doing so to support the midterms in one way or the other.
[00:53:01]  I think just for our body politic as a whole, this is a pretty unfortunate practice that we feel like we have to redraw maps.
[00:53:08]  Politicians shouldn't choose the districts that they're running in.
[00:53:10]  That said, you know, the thing that keeps me, you know, able to sleep at night is that Democrats have been the ones who have put forward plans for independent redistricting commissions.
[00:53:17]  Democrats have been the ones who have put plans forward to get money out of politics.
[00:53:20]  And in all of those resolutions, Republicans in the House don't join them.
[00:53:23]  So, you know, I don't love that this is going this way, but if Republicans are going to play this certain way, it's a new Democratic Party and people want to fight back with every tool that they have.
[00:53:30]  TW, quickly.
[00:53:31]  Yeah, I'd push back a little bit on the other two.
[00:53:34]  I've long been a huge opponent of gerrymandering and redistricting.
[00:53:38]  It's a problem that's plagued us since the early 1800s, and it still plagues us today, and we need to fix it.
[00:53:44]  I think one of the reasons you're seeing in Virginia that it is so razor-thinned is because not only did they redistrict up long to make more blue districts, but it's so outrageous.
[00:53:54]  Arlington, just one city, you can drive across the city and go through five different congressional districts.
[00:54:00]  They're making a mockery of the system.
[00:54:02]  And I think a lot of voters, especially independents and some moderate Democrats, are insulted by it, that this went way over the mark, and it's time to self-correct.
[00:54:09]  Yeah, both parties have done it.
[00:54:10]  Both parties say it's bad, and yet it keeps happening.
[00:54:13]  Before I let you guys go, I want to turn to our weekly feature, Not On My Bingo Card, where we highlight a funny, offbeat, or downright weird political or cultural moment.

=== The Tipping Incident (02:32) ===

[00:54:20]  Reporters outside the White House were caught off guard this week when a DoorDash driver approached the Oval Office with two bags of McDonald's.
[00:54:28]  The encounter was staged to tout a Trump-backed tax law that allows Americans to deduct some taxes from income earned on tips.
[00:54:36]  Watch.
[00:54:38]  McDonald's.
[00:54:45]  Nice to meet you.
[00:54:47]  I just went to Ashley for you, Mr. President.
[00:54:50]  That's very much.
[00:54:51]  Look at this.
[00:54:53]  This doesn't look staged, does it?
[00:54:55]  They're all your favorites.
[00:54:56]  That's what he's a good.
[00:54:58]  That's just doing a good job.
[00:55:00]  So, the reason for this is the fact that I heard you picked up an extra $11,000 that you didn't get because the tax bill was so big, the refund was the biggest you've ever had.
[00:55:12]  Is that a correct sign?
[00:55:14]  It definitely was.
[00:55:16]  Yeah, I saved over $11,000 by not having to claim.
[00:55:21]  Was that surprising to you?
[00:55:23]  It was very surprising.
[00:55:25]  Very surprising.
[00:55:26]  Great, big, beautiful bill.
[00:55:27]  A member of the press asked the delivery driver if the White House tips well, prompting the president to remember to hand over a $100 bill.
[00:55:36]  Gentlemen, this was a moment.
[00:55:39]  There was a viral clip actually from C-SPAN that people were passing around saying this feels like the beginning of an SNL sketch.
[00:55:47]  But a very sweet driver there in the spotlight nationally handing over McDonald's to the president.
[00:55:54]  I think these things are so funny.
[00:55:56]  President Trump can create memes so quickly.
[00:55:59]  And whether or not you like President Trump, you hate him, the man has tremendous comedic timing and awareness.
[00:56:08]  And in that, like the, oh, like you didn't expect this to happen, blah, blah, blah.
[00:56:12]  I think it's so funny, and I enjoy it.
[00:56:15]  By the way, I hear his favorite thing at McDonald's is actually the phileo fish.
[00:56:20]  Oh, that's good.
[00:56:21]  You know, there.
[00:56:22]  I will say, I loved the woman who was the DoorDash delivery person.
[00:56:26]  I thought she was really great.
[00:56:27]  And I did think it was kind of fitting and appropriate that he forgot to tip.
[00:56:30]  Because I will say, just to get the dig in, I mean, Donald Trump doesn't pay his contractors.
[00:56:33]  And so at the end of the day, these people are always who they end up being.
[00:56:36]  He does love passing out cash, though.
[00:56:37]  Yeah.
[00:56:38]  He did hand over the $100 bill and I'm sure got a phileo fish in one of those bags.
[00:56:42]  All right, that is all the time we have to know.
[00:56:44]  T.W. O'Reilly, former National Press Secretary for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and John McCarthy, former senior advisor for political engagement for President Biden.

=== Live C-SPAN Event (04:06) ===

[00:56:52]  Thank you both.
[00:56:54]  And let's close this week's program with our ceasefire moment of the week, highlighting what's possible when politicians come together as Americans, not just partisans.
[00:57:03]  Members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, gather for a Holocaust remembrance ceremony at the Capitol this week, honoring survivors and the millions of lives lost over 80 years ago.
[00:57:15]  To the members of Congress, dignitaries, all of our distinguished guests, most importantly, the 30 survivors who are with us today, welcome to the United States Capitol.
[00:57:26]  It is good to see you all.
[00:57:28]  It is our great honor to join you on this solemn occasion.
[00:57:32]  We gather each year during these days of remembrance to honor the blessed memories of 6 million Jewish men, women, and children who were viciously murdered in one of the darkest hours of human history.
[00:57:46]  To Speaker Johnson, my colleagues in Congress, distinguished guests, and all those assembled for this incredibly important event, thank you for your presence.
[00:57:59]  Let me especially acknowledge Andrew, Irene, Henry, Ray, and all of the survivors who are here.
[00:58:08]  Thank you for your resilience, for your courage, and for continuing to teach and inspire us into action.
[00:58:17]  Among those attending the event, the family of the late Benjamin Feretz, a U.S. Army soldier who was among the first outsiders to witness Nazi concentration camps and later prosecuted Nazis during the Nuremberg trials.
[00:58:28]  Members presented his family with a congressional gold medal.
[00:58:32]  That's all the time we have for this episode.
[00:58:34]  Join us next time as I sit down with Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner and North Carolina Republican Senator Tom Tillis.
[00:58:41]  Ceasefire is also available as a podcast.
[00:58:43]  Find us in all the usual places.
[00:58:45]  I'm Dasha Burns, and remember whether or not you agree, keep talking and keep listening.
[00:59:01]  Today, former Vice President Kamala Harris and New Jersey Senator Corey Booker are in Detroit to speak at a fundraising luncheon hosted by the Michigan Democratic Women's Caucus.
[00:59:11]  You can see that event live at 11.30 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN.
[00:59:14]  And then at 7.45 p.m., Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Kentucky Governor Andy Bashir will be speaking at the Michigan Democratic Party's annual legacy dinner, also happening in Detroit.
[00:59:25]  Again, that's live on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, and online at c-SPAN.org.
[00:59:36]  Join C-SPAN Saturday, April 25th at 7 p.m. Eastern for Washington's premier black tie event, the White House Correspondents Dinner.
[00:59:44]  Watch live coverage from the Washington Hilton featuring red carpet arrivals of top journalists, political leaders, and celebrities.
[00:59:51]  This year's featured entertainer is renowned mentalist Oz Perlman, and President Donald Trump is expected to make his first appearance as president.
[00:59:57]  The White House Correspondents Dinner, live Saturday, April 25th at 7 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
[01:00:11]  American History TV, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
[01:00:17]  As the nation celebrates the 250th anniversary of its founding, join American History TV for our series America 250 and discover the ideas and defining moments of the American story.
[01:00:27]  This weekend, we'll look at the retreat of British forces from Boston in 1776.
[01:00:32]  Richard Bell will talk about his book, The American Revolution and the Fate of the World, about the Revolutionary Era.
[01:00:38]  On our Civil War series, it's the Lincoln Forum in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.
[01:00:42]  Hear discussions on Confederate plots against President Lincoln and more.
[01:00:46]  Exploring the American story, watch American History TV every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org slash history.

=== Independent Media Oxygen (01:00) ===

[01:00:59]  Hi, I'm Amy Goodman from Democracy Now.
[01:01:01]  Can you tell us what you think about President Trump saying climate change is a Chinese hoax?
[01:01:06]  I'm sorry, I'm running late for a meeting.
[01:01:07]  Right, but you weren't running late when you're just standing there.
[01:01:10]  So.
[01:01:12]  My first impressions of Amy.
[01:01:14]  What did you say to those who say that you're a war criminal?
[01:01:17]  Smash doesn't show anybody thinks that.
[01:01:18]  So don't push me.
[01:01:19]  I'm a journalist there.
[01:01:20]  Independent media is the oxygen of a democracy.
[01:01:23]  What do you mean by independence?
[01:01:25]  Not being sponsored by corporations.
[01:01:27]  Amy's chaotically brilliant at the spy game.
[01:01:30]  We began on nine radio stations.
[01:01:33]  If she believes something, she's going to fight for it and get it out to the world.
[01:01:37]  Straight up, journal.
[01:01:39]  That was a clip of a trailer for a newly released documentary called Steal This Story, Please.
[01:01:44]  It focuses on the career of journalist Amy Goodman, who joins us now.
[01:01:49]  She is the co-founder and host for Democracy Now!
[01:01:52]  And that documentary highlights her 40-year career in journalism, where she's here to talk with us about that as well as News of the Week.
[01:01:59]  Good morning.