The following is a lightly edited transcript of the April 10 episode of the Daily Blast podcast. Listen to it here.
Greg Sargent: This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.
President Donald Trump’s tariff chaos has gone off the rails yet again. He just announced the temporary pause in the tariffs that isn’t much of a pause at all. For the next 90 days, the reciprocal tariffs will come down, but a universal 10 percent tariff will remain, and he’s hiking tariffs on China into the stratosphere. Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson just executed a new maneuver designed to prevent the House from voting on whether to rein in Trump’s assertion of unilateral authority to impose the tariffs, which is a clear abuse of power. This, plus the House GOP gearing up to cut Medicaid by hundreds of billions of dollars, gives Democrats clear openings to inflict major political pain on Trump and Republicans. Will Democrats capitalize? Today, we’re talking about all of this with Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives. Leader Jeffries, thank you so much for coming on with us.
Hakeem Jeffries: Great to be with you.
Sargent: We just learned that Trump has changed his tariff policies once again. He’s pausing his tariffs, but apparently keeping in place 10 percent reciprocal tariffs on all countries while hiking tariffs even higher on China. Your reaction, Leader Jeffries?
Jeffries: Well, two things are occurring here. One, Donald Trump continues to crash the American economy in real time. He’s increasing costs when he promised to lower costs on the American people, and that will continue. In fact, Donald Trump and the reckless Republicans in the House of Representatives are actually driving us toward a recession that is going to hurt everyday Americans all across the country.
At the same period of time, what we’ve seen as a result of this so-called pause is that Donald Trump is at least backing down again, which has been a repeated pattern throughout his presidency. The whole flood-the-zone strategy is designed to create the appearance of inevitability—when nothing can be further from the truth. The American people have been rising up consistently, we’re battling him in Congress, battling him in the courts, battling him in terms of pushing back aggressively in community after community after community to win the hearts and minds of the American people. And it works when the American people show up, stand up, and speak up. This is another example.
Sargent: Well, the tariffs are continuing in some sense, as you point out, and there’s a very decent chance that they’ll come back in 90 days because he’s pretty erratic. And now, House Speaker Mike Johnson is using a procedural maneuver to prevent a vote terminating the national emergency that Trump has declared to justify imposing these global tariffs unilaterally. Johnson’s move prevents this vote from being privileged, which would have meant that it has to go to the floor. He doesn’t want that to happen. What’s your reaction to that, Leader Jeffries?
Jeffries: Mike Johnson and the Republicans are afraid of a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives because they know that Democrats—partnering with a handful of more enlightened Republicans on the tariff issue—will vote to reclaim our authority as members of Congress and push back against these out-of-control tariffs that Trump has imposed, and as you pointed out, Greg, will continue to try to impose moving forward. What we’ll need to see happen is just a handful of Republicans to partner with us so that Congress can end these fake emergencies that Trump is using to justify the wild imposition of these tariffs, which are a tax on the American people.
In fact, the Trump tariffs would represent the largest tax increase on the American people since 1968 and will cost the average American family at least $3,800 a year in additional costs. This is why we believe that there are a handful of Republicans who would partner with Democrats in strong opposition to these tariffs—which is why Mike Johnson is now using these procedural gimmicks to try to prevent an up-or-down vote. But we’re not going to relent, and we will get an up-or-down vote. We’ll fight to make sure we get that sooner rather than later so Congress can step in to try to end this mess.
Sargent: Well, I want to ask you about the ways to do that. Democrats have the option to pursue a discharge petition in the face of the GOP refusal to vote on whether to terminate the national emergency. Trump’s fake pause—or whatever you want to call it—should, if anything, whet the appetites of members of Congress to do this even more aggressively now. And there’s an interim period with which to pass something that deprived him of the power to really restart this madness. Will there be a discharge petition if necessary?
Jeffries: It’s my expectation that we will use every tool available, including the possibility in the near future of a discharge petition. Right now, we’re sorting through the different options. We can turn off these fake emergencies that Trump is using to justify his unilateral imposition on tariffs. That’s one legislative approach. We can also require Congress to approve any tariffs that go into effect. That’s another legislative approach, and that has bipartisan support as well. We could also clarify that Trump’s power to declare these national emergencies [doesn’t] generally exist, or severely restrict it. That’s a different, potential third legislative approach. So one of the things that we’re doing over the next few days in conversation with a handful of our Republican colleagues is try to figure out which approach would garner the most significant support—so that if we were to go down the road of a discharge petition, we can be successful.
Sargent: I want to ask you: In order to do something along the lines of what you’re talking about, something that clarifies that Trump doesn’t have these powers, you’d need a discharge petition to get that vote, right?
Jeffries: We would need a discharge petition to get that vote in the absence of a decision by some Republicans to force Speaker Johnson to bring the bill to the floor through the Rules Committee or through what we call the suspension process where two-thirds of the Congress could vote to suspend the rules and enact a law where there’s strong bipartisan support. So there are some options now. We’ve set the stage for the use of a discharge petition through Congressman Jim McGovern having introduced legislation earlier in the year that could ripen and give us the opportunity to actually launch a discharge petition in this area this month.
Sargent: Can I ask, Leader Jeffries: Have you spoken personally to House Speaker Mike Johnson about any of these options or more generally about the need to rein in Trump’s authorities?
Jeffries: I’ve consistently spoken to him more generally about the need for Congress to actually reassert itself in a situation where Donald Trump and his administration continue to do real damage to everyday Americans, to families, to children, to veterans, to the American way of life. I most recently spoke to Speaker Johnson—about a day ago indicating to him, on the Republican budget, Look, let’s have a one-on-one debate on the floor of the House, where he can articulate the Republican position, which, in our view, is to pass a reckless budget that would visit upon the American people the largest Medicaid cut in American history in order to pay for massive tax breaks for their billionaire donors like Elon Musk, and I’ll have the opportunity to defend the Democratic vision for building an affordable economy that makes life better for everyday Americans.
He indicated to me he’d take it under advisement. I’m going to be on the House floor later on today. I’ll be on the House floor tomorrow. I’ll continue to be on the House floor waiting for him to take me up on the offer so we can actually air our differences of opinion fully before the American people—including trying to get some understanding as to why the Republican leadership is denying up-or-down votes on issues that matter to the American people, like ending these reckless Trump tariffs.
Sargent: Has he indicated to you his view of whether Trump should have these authorities? Is there any indication whatsoever that he’s willing to act in that direction to limit those?
Jeffries: There’s no indication at this particular moment that Republican leadership is willing to limit Trump’s authority. But there is clear indication that rank-and-file Republican members have become increasingly frustrated with the erratic economic behavior of Donald Trump, which is driving us toward a recession.
Sargent: I want to get your reaction to a quote from Trump. He was speaking at an NRCC event and apparently talking about the midterm elections. Here’s what he said.
Donald Trump (audio voiceover): And I really think we’re helped a lot by the tariff situation that’s going on, which is a good situation, not a bad. It’s great. It’s going to be legendary. You watch. Legendary in a positive way, I have to say.
Sargent: Leader Jeffries, are Republicans going to be helped in the midterms by these tariffs?
Jeffries: Not at all. And the totality of the incredible mismanagement around the economy, along with the fact that Republicans lied to the American people about what their intentions were in terms of governing ... all of last year, Donald Trump and House Republicans said that their top priority was going to be to lower the high cost of living in America. We believe that the cost of living is too high, that housing costs, grocery costs, utility costs, insurance costs, and childcare costs are too high. America’s too expensive. That should not be the case in the wealthiest country in the history of the world where you’ve got hardworking American taxpayers struggling to make ends meet, struggling to get by, and can’t get ahead.
So Republicans promised to try to deal with that issue. We’re committed to doing it as House Democrats. But instead, this year, we haven’t seen a single bill, a single executive order, a single administrative action designed to lower costs. Instead, costs aren’t going down; they’re going up. Inflation’s going up, and part of it is a result of these reckless Trump tariffs. So I think what we’re seeing all across the country in special election after special election after special election—most recently in Wisconsin—is that Democratic voters are energized, and swing voters are moving in our direction, which is resulting in decisive Republican defeats in state after state after state. There’s no reason to believe that that is not going to continue throughout the rest of this year into the midterm election next year.
Sargent: Which brings me to my next question. The DCCC released its target list of House Republicans that Democrats see as vulnerable in the midterms. Dems are targeting some Republicans in districts that Trump won by around 10 points. What are really the prospects here for putting some of those plus 10 Trump seats in play? Is the fallout from the tariffs really enough to make those districts genuinely flippable? What else could come into play here?
Jeffries: Yeah, well, it’s not simply the fallout from the tariffs—but that is just the most recent outrage. What we’ve seen is an attack on our economy, an attack on health care, an attack on nutritional assistance, an attack by Trump and the Republicans on Social Security of all things, an attack on public schools, an attack on our veterans, and an attack on the American way of life and democracy itself. The totality of all of that—and it hasn’t even been 100 days—we think is going to be an overwhelming anchor on the Republican efforts to hold seats that otherwise might not be as competitive.
Some of the seats that we believe are now on the playing field also include members on the Republican side who are just out of control. Now, that’s hard to say because the whole group is generally out of control. But the so-called Freedom Caucus folks—you know, these individuals who basically are demanding that we eliminate Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid as we know it—they’re more interested in giving Trump a third term, putting him on Mount Rushmore, or naming some currency after him. These are actual bills that some of these Republicans on the target list have introduced while not doing anything to make life better for the American people. These are people who are out of step with their district—even some moderate Republicans in their districts—which is part of the reason we believe that we are going to be able to stretch the map. We only need three seats to take back the majority, but we’re going to stretch the map as far as we can.
Sargent: Well, on top of all the stuff you mentioned, Republicans are also gearing up to cut Medicaid by hundreds of billions of dollars. You have a number of House Republicans going through the motions of making noises in opposition to this. The thing is, though, these are Republicans who tend to have their own brands. They’re pretty good at putting on these airs of independence from Trump. What are Democrats going to do to make sure they can’t get away with that? Are we going to see some new type of communication from you guys, something maybe a little different from previous cycles? What’s in the works?
Jeffries: Well, there are definitely ongoing accountability efforts to make sure that the voters in these districts have clear visibility into the votes Republicans are actually taking. They’ve already voted in late February to enact the largest Medicaid cut in American history—up to $880 billion—which we will continue to point out will devastate children, and families, and seniors, and Americans with disabilities, veterans, close nursing homes and shutter hospitals—that impacts everyone in a community.
So we’re taking town hall meetings into these Republican districts. That’s an effort that’s being led by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. It’s been successful so far. We’re partnering with Democratic senators and, in some cases, governors and certainly local elected leaders and officials on the ground. Those will continue. Republicans are running away from these town hall meetings. They can try to run but we’re not going to let them hide. And when they don’t show up, we will—so that they are held accountable. These are the type of efforts that will continue.
We’re also taking our Steering and Policy hearings on the road throughout the country—in blue states, and purple states, and red states. We’ve held now three different hearings on Capitol Hill led by Democrats: one on Medicaid, one on Social Security, and one on nutritional assistance. This week, we’ll have one on the assault on our veterans. But we’re going to take this show on the road for the American people. That will be another way in which we will be able to bring the information to these districts, where you may have some Republican members who are voting in a very reckless way but go on TV, and when they’re at home, pretend to be moderates. We’re not going to let them get away with that anymore.
Sargent: Leader Jeffries, you have some Democrats out there that are taking a middle-ground approach to messaging about some of these tariffs. You’ve got them saying things like, Well, Trump actually has a point in certain ways; he’s right in certain ways. What’s your position on this? Does that get a little mealy-mouthed, and does it undercut what should be the Democratic message, which is that this is just an unqualified disaster—period?
Jeffries: Well, the Trump tariffs are reckless and they’re doing great damage to the economy. They are raising costs for everyday Americans—the largest tax increase in more than 50 years—and we are strongly opposed to it. Now, some of our colleagues and friends in organized labor—such as the United Auto Workers, the Steelworkers, and others who we have worked with on a whole host of other issues—do have a different perspective in terms of the use of tariffs: that targeted tariffs, in some instances where you actually do have economic cheating occurring by China or others, can be used as a strategy to make sure that American jobs and economic growth is more competitive. And that’s fine. That’s a discussion that can be had when we are in a period of actually being able to debate policy in an enlightened way.
That’s not this moment. What we have is a president taking a wrecking ball, a sledgehammer, and a chainsaw to the economy and everything that matters. And that, of course, is going to continue to require strong and principled opposition and righteous indignation to just the recklessness and irresponsibility of it all.
Sargent: It sounds like you do think that some of the mealy-mouthed stuff does potentially undercut that message, at least to some degree. If I hear you correctly, you’re saying that the time to have that debate is when we can actually have a real policy discussion, which is to say when Democrats are in power, because we can’t have a real one when Republicans are in power. Am I right about that?
Jeffries: Well, absolutely. There’s a time and place to have what we would all view as a more nuanced discussion, understanding and respecting the fact that our allies in many instances, particularly those in organized labor, do have a point when it comes to how targeted tariffs can be used. But we’re not in a position right now to actually govern in an enlightened way, because the other side is totally and completely out of control and not interested in actually enacting public policy in any meaningful way. So certainly, our view as House Democratic leadership is that at this moment, what we’ve got to do is stop these reckless Trump tariffs dead in their tracks so we can eventually get to a place where we can have a real discussion about building an affordable economy that brings the American dream to life for every single person in this country.
Sargent: OK, I want to move on to the broader threat Trump poses. It seems to me that Democrats could be doing more to draw public attention to the lawlessness of Trump, the ripping up of the constitutional order, the dismantling of the rule of law, the fundamental betrayal of our country that’s at the core of all these abuses of power. We often hear Democrats need to stay focused on kitchen table concerns—and that is essential. But are you satisfied with what the party is doing right now to alert the public to the profound danger Trump’s lawlessness poses in particular?
Jeffries: It is an all-hands-on-deck effort that is going to require a multidimensional approach. Now we understand that in order to reach the broadest number of Americans who may not be following the day-to-day goings-on in Washington or even what’s coming out of the White House on a regular basis, that whether they can pay their bills, and who’s actually trying to look out for them in terms of making their life better, has and always will be a central concern. But at the same time, we are seeing an extraordinary assault on the American way of life, on the rule of law, and on our democracy. And that, of course, is going to require an intense and continuing response.
A lot of that energy for us up until this moment has been channeled into making sure that we counter the flood of outrageous executive actions with a flood of righteous litigation in response so we can stop these unlawful actions and stop these unconstitutional actions with some immediacy, with the immediacy that is required. It’s one of the reasons why, as House Democrats, we partnered with Senate Democrats, with the Democratic Governors Association, as well as with the Democratic National Committee in a lawsuit where I personally, along with Leader Schumer, sued Donald Trump and the administration for the effort to suppress votes across the country as a result of what we view as an unconstitutional and unlawful executive order.
In some spaces, it’s been captioned Jeffries v. Trump. But it really is the people versus Donald Trump because this is the type of action that we’ll need to continue to take related to matters that concern government of the people, by the people, and for the people, democracy, the rule of law, and the American way of life. That’s going to continue. And we’re going to keep our foot on the gas pedal while at the same time, of course, speaking to issues related to the economic well-being of the American people; defending Medicaid and health care; defending [against] the assaults on Social Security; making sure they can’t take food out of the mouths of children, which is what they’re trying to do with this reckless Republican budget to pay for tax cuts for Elon Musk and their billionaire puppet masters. That’s crazy. This is what they are trying to do right now in real time. So we’re going to have to continue to stand up to all the things—and that, of course, will include protecting the rule of law.
Sargent: I just want to get a little more specific about this. We don’t hear as much as we might from Democrats about foreign students being snatched off the streets based on their political viewpoints and associations, or about the deportations of Venezuelans to this gulag in El Salvador. I think there’s a sense out there that Democrats believe they’ve lost the immigration debate. Is that your view? And should Democrats be saying more about the sheer lawlessness of these deportations in particular?
Jeffries: It’s definitely not my view that we have lost the immigration debate, and so as a result of that, we’ve got to stand down. In fact, I was at a meeting earlier today with Democrats across the ideological spectrum—progressives and New Dems and one or two Blue Dogs—where we were talking about how we can make clear to the American people what we stand for on these issues and what we will stand against. And so, from our standpoint—listen, we understand that we have to secure the border. The American people—a racially diverse group of American people, socioeconomically diverse group of American people—want us to secure the border, we’ve got to do it.
We also have to make clear that we have a broken immigration system and we need to fix it in a comprehensive and bipartisan way, while at the same time making sure that we are defending Dreamers, farm workers, and law-abiding immigrant families. What you are seeing from the Trump administration is aggressive and unconstitutional overreach, including as it relates to some of the people who have been snatched off of college campuses with no evidence of criminality. We should be focused on violent felons as a deportation priority. That’s what the American people want to see. And I think we’ll continue to show up and stand up and speak up about all of these—and call out the administration when they are clearly violating the law, when they are engaging in enforcement overreach to advance their own political agenda as opposed to actually trying to keep communities safe.
Sargent: Leader Jeffries, thank you so much for coming on with us. Great discussion. We really appreciate your time.
Jeffries: Thank you so much.
Sargent: You’ve been listening to The Daily Blast with me, your host, Greg Sargent. The Daily Blast is a New Republic podcast and is produced by Riley Fessler and the DSR Network.