The following is a lightly edited transcript of the June 12 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.
The political war over President Trump’s dispatching of the military into Los Angeles has taken a new turn. Journalists are rushing to amplify the White House’s spin that this is a big political winner for him, but the evidence isn’t cooperating with that take. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was clearly thrown on the defensive under harsh questioning from reporters about Trump’s true intentions, and a new poll had absolutely terrible news for Trump—especially on his core issue of immigration. So how much longer will commentators try to sustain the fiction that this is all a big political boon for Trump? Today we’re talking about all this with Jennifer Rubin, editor in chief of The Contrarian, who has a new piece arguing that California is a test run for the whole country. Thanks for coming on, Jen.
Jennifer Rubin: It’s my pleasure. Great to be here, Greg.
Sargent: So Jen, journalists seem to be very receptive to the White House spin on what’s going on in Los Angeles. The Atlantic quoted one White House aide saying, “We couldn’t have scripted this better.” The New York Times has a headline that reads “Democrats Enter Risky Political Terrain as Protests Grip California,” and the piece says Democratic leaders are worried the confrontation elevates a losing issue for the party. Jen, it’s hard to find journalists asking whether sending the military into a U.S. city is risky politics for Trump. Your thoughts?
Rubin: Exactly. And there are two levels in which I think the media is doing a great disservice to the public and possibly dangerously encouraging a president who, as we now know, will deploy military troops—not just National Guard but the Marines—to the streets of American cities. First, the degree to which you see this mostly on cable TV and local TV, that they run and rerun the very isolated instances of violence. How many times have we seen those Waymo cars burning? So the impression they give is the one that Trump wants to convey, that it’s everywhere. The city is out of control. There are riots on and on. And the reality is so different. We’re talking about dozens of arrests, not thousands, not hundreds. We’re talking about a curfew last night in Los Angeles that was a few city blocks; that was all. The second, as you outline, is this assumption that Trump must be winning. It must be a good thing to show what a tough guy you are.
Well, you could speculate that that might be the case, but now we know it’s not the case. We have polling showing people hate this. They think it’s a terrible idea. And that’s in part because the American people are not nuts. They know that it’s not a normal thing to send the U.S. Marines into a city to help execute a bunch of obviously inflammatory raids by ICE. And whatever poll you’re looking at, the raids are not popular. The immigration policy of Trump is not popular. Trump himself is not popular.
Sargent: There was a poll from YouGov, which yesterday found that only a small minority of respondents supported sending in either the National Guard or sending in the Marines—and a plurality opposed both of those. Now there was a large amount of undecideds in this poll, but clearly people aren’t won over up front by Trump sending in the military. And again, to your point, what’s critical here is the assumption by the press that it has to be a winner for Trump. It’s almost as if they think—the pundits think—that people’s brains will simply turn themselves off if they see people in military gear and they see a few burning cars. And I don’t think people will turn their brains off. I’m sorry, I just don’t buy it.
Rubin: I agree. And unfortunately, Democrats then imbibe that and they get nervous about talking about it. Democrats want to change the subject continually now, and they shouldn’t. And the message should be very simple. Trump is the one who is inflaming, causing violence on the streets, putting a very dangerous situation smack-dab in the middle of American cities, and he’s doing it for purely political gain. And that’s really, I think, what people need to understand about this. Yes, there are all kinds of legalities. He shouldn’t be doing this. It’s unprecedented. But it’s bad, it’s dangerous, it’s irresponsible. And of course, you expect the Republicans in Congress to nod their heads and go along, but you would also expect Democrats to be taking a more authoritative role.
And I do have to say, Governor Newsom, who’s not been all that popular in Democratic circles, certainly has risen to the moment. He gave an excellent stream speech in which he said, First of all, don’t tell me about law and order. You were the guys who let go hundreds of January 6 violent felons and others. Now we have evidence that not only [Trump] but Stephen Miller accelerated all this. They weren’t getting their quota numbers, so he told people to go into Home Depots and to make these incendiary raids with the express purpose of raising their numbers and, of course, sparking a response. So I think we need to readjust our sights to reality and recognize that, Oh, by the way, everything that Trump’s doing is not necessarily popular. People don’t even like the parade. They don’t even favor the military parade.
Sargent: Right. And in addition, Trump said the other day that anyone who protests this military parade this weekend will be met with “heavy force.” You’d think it would occur to a journalist or two to say, Man, that’s a pretty extreme statement. Is that politically risky for the president to say? But you hear none of that. And so you get White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt asked about it at the White House press briefing. In fairness, this reporter did a good job. Listen to this exchange here.
Jasmine Wright (audio voiceover): The president warned that any protests on Saturday would be met with force. Can you clarify what kind of protest President Trump does support or find acceptable?
Karoline Leavitt (audio voiceover): The president absolutely supports peaceful protests. He supports the First Amendment. He supports the right of Americans to make their voices heard. He does not support violence of any kind. He does not support assaulting law enforcement officers who are simply trying to do their job. It’s very clear for the president what he supports and what he does not. Unfortunately for Democrats, that line has not been made clear and they’ve allowed this unrest and this violence to continue and the president has had to step in.
Wright (audio voiceover): So if there were peaceful protests on Saturday for the military parade, President Trump would allow that?
Leavitt (audio voiceover): Of course, the president supports peaceful protests. What a stupid question.
Sargent: So Jen, this isn’t a stupid question at all because Trump didn’t actually distinguish between peaceful and violent protesters. He said anyone who comes to protest will face “heavy force.” Is the White House really going to pretend it’s not legit to demand clarification? Now, Jen, I know pundits like to say when you’re explaining you’re losing. They all say that always, right? Well, there, Karoline Levitt is explaining and explaining badly. I think they’re on the defensive. What do you think?
Rubin: I think they should be, and I think they increasingly will be as the press looks around. And by the way, the press is affected by public opinion. They check the polls too, because they’re looking for ratings, they’re looking for clicks. And I think what’s so interesting is not only is she explaining, but she’s so afraid of contradicting her boss [that] she resorts to an insult, or she doesn’t quite answer the question about whether he would support peaceful protest of the military parade, so she’s always ducking and evading. She is continually in the position of not wanting to affirm the unbelievable statements he has made.
And by the way, we seem to remember in the Biden years that the press continually talk about Biden’s inability to bring the country together. Remember, he was responsible for all the disunity. He was at fault because he wasn’t a leader of the entire country. Where is the discussion of that? Where is the criticism that [Trump] is the most divisive president in history? This question never is asked of him because they simply assume this is fine, this is how he operates, this is an appropriate approach for one party to undertake. And it’s really madness. Biden was criticized for not getting Republicans to stop complaining about things that weren’t happening. And Trump doesn’t get questioned about sending military troops for no good reason onto the streets of American cities. What kind of coverage is this?
Sargent: The coverage is just terrible. Although I will grant that another reporter followed up with Karoline Leavitt during the briefing and did a good job pressing her. She again lost her temper. Listen to this.
David Sanger (audio voiceover): Why is he not out saying all peaceful protesters will be protected?
Leavitt (audio voiceover): I think two things can be important at the same time, and the president as I just answered supports the right of Americans to peacefully protest. He supports the First Amendment, but that is not the majority of the behavior that we have seen taking place in Los Angeles. We have seen mobs of violent rioters and agitators assaulting law enforcement officers. Are you saying that that’s not a ... that’s appropriate behavior? Are you saying that he shouldn’t take action?
Sanger (audio voiceover): No, no, I’m not saying that at all. I’m just trying to figure out—
Leavitt (audio voiceover): The Democrat governor and the Democrat mayor of Los Angeles have failed their citizens.
Sargent: So that’s an essential point that reporter raised. Why isn’t Trump out there saying that peaceful protesters will be protected? And by the way, it’s complete bullshit that the military was needed to get control of things in Los Angeles as Leavitt suggested there, but what’s interesting is the White House absolutely needs people to believe the military was necessary. And I don’t think voters are going to buy that. Am I being too optimistic on that point?
Rubin: Well, you never know how public opinion eventually settles. But it is remarkable that with the bully pulpit as loud as it is and the mass disinformation throughout social media, people still haven’t bought it. It’s remarkable how resilient people are now becoming to this nonsense that is getting shoved down their throats. And of course, the reason why she couldn’t really answer that question is Trump doesn’t believe in peaceful protests. The order itself, the memorandum itself, says he will deploy the military and the National Guard whether there are threat of rebellion or protests. It’s right there in black and white.
He is willing to send troops—not just National Guard but the Marines—when people are protesting. This is the stuff of dictators. And we have been criticized, we’ve been called hysterical, we’ve been said we’ve been exaggerating calling him an authoritarian, calling him a dictator. This is language that would probably make Viktor Orbán blush. He would probably want to be a little bit more genteel in describing what the situation actually was on the streets of Budapest or wherever the trouble was arising. So I think for the average person, what they need to see is why has it never been the case that any other president never felt things were so out of control as to require the Marines to come in to put down some lawlessness in a major city. And by the way, Democrats are so afraid of being [seen as] on the side of lawlessness that they won’t talk about that. Of course they’re on the side of law enforcement. They’re supporting the LAPD, who has been arresting people and keeping the peace. That is not, by the way, what the National Guard and the Marines are doing.
Sargent: Jen, the LAPD actually has statements saying that sending in the military is going to make things harder. So who’s on the side of the law enforcement really here?
Rubin: Exactly, and we’ve had on the ground reports. I was talking the other day to Juan Proaño, who’s the head of LULAC, and he said when you go in the streets of L.A., it is so clear the police are doing what they usually do. They’re patrolling, they’re making sure people are calm, they’re settling things down. If someone gets out of hand, they arrest them. It’s the National Guard that’s tossing these flash bangs; that are resorting to extreme measures at really no provocation. And that’s because this is not their forte. This is not what they’re supposed to be doing. And it’s really not what the Marines are supposed to be doing.
And you know this is not necessary because of all the troops that have been sent there, most of them still haven’t been deployed. They have nothing to do. You see them surrounding federal buildings. There’s no one on the other side. There’s no one they’re protecting the building from. It’s all Kabuki dance. It’s all histrionics so that Trump can be the tough guy. And we’re going to see if the American people really fall for it. I think not. And one of the signs is whether on Saturday, which is “No Kings Day,” you see enormous numbers of people turn out—because that is the first clear opportunity for many people to register their disapproval. And I suspect the numbers are going to be off the charts.
Sargent: Yeah, I sure hope so. And that’s exactly why Trump is making the threats he is. He doesn’t want people to show up. And let’s just be real: Trump, of course, supports using violence against protesters—peaceful ones. It’s just pure nonsense that he believes in the First Amendment or anything like that. It’s amazing that Karoline Leavitt didn’t burst out laughing when saying that. I want to switch to this Quinnipiac poll that just dropped today. It’s really something. Trump’s approval among voters nationally is an abysmal 38 percent, while 54 percent disapprove. And note this, on immigration, Trump is floundering. Fifty-four percent disapprove of his handling of immigration issues while only 43 percent approve, and 56 percent disapprove of his handling of deportations while only 40 percent approve. There’s no way to say that he’s winning on this issue with numbers like that.
Rubin: There’s not, and I think he may have made a categorical error in sending in the National Guard and sending in the Marines. He’s saying, My ICE people are out of control. They’re being overwhelmed. The federal government—the ICE agents can’t do their job. It’s a tell on himself that things have gotten so out of control under him that only the military can come restore order. He’s president. It’s not like Joe Biden is president and [Trump] can say, Oh look, things are so out of control. The military has to come in. It’s he. He’s the guy who’s in control. Isn’t DHS not doing its job if there’s such a conflagration that only the military can put things to bed?
I think in some ways he’s trying to have it all ways. On one hand, he said L.A. was a war zone. How did it get to be a war zone under you, Mr. President? On the other hand, he said he has saved L.A. Well, then why is he sending more troops in? None of it makes sense. And none of it comports with the most fundamental, as you say: turn your brains on. And it isn’t that hard to figure out that he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Sargent: Absolutely. And I think a big problem here is the way the MAGA media universe functions—the MAGA media industrial complex, maybe you might call it. In that world, all these ridiculous contradictions that you’re talking about, all these glaring absurdities just simply don’t register. They’re never ever required in MAGA world to account for inconsistencies and absurdities, so they get lazy and they just think they can get away with saying anything. And that’s actually a really serious problem because it ends up encouraging Republican politicians to not actually have real arguments anymore. I don’t know, I think that that’s a pretty big problem. Trump is out there essentially speaking in MAGA language, talking about things that are happening in only MAGA’s imagination, and it’s hard to really know how to proceed. That’s why it’s so dreadful when the press legitimizes that kind of stuff. They’ve got to get in there and really puncture the balloons, pop the bubbles more that MAGA is inflating, don’t you think?
Rubin: It’s very funny that when you take a MAGA person out of his bubble and you put him on a real news show or you put him in a debate with a real candidate, the brain gets fried because no one knows what the hell they’re talking about and what their arguments are. First of all, they don’t have actual arguments; they just have catchphrases. It doesn’t really work. And you’re right. The danger of living in a bubble is you fail to persuade anyone who hasn’t been following along in the cult playbook and knows what all these wacky references are and what the assumptions are you’re supposed to know and what the facts are that you’re not supposed to pay attention to. And I think the press—the corporate press, billionaire press, whatever you want to call it—is still fundamentally unwilling to enter into conflict at a very basic level with MAGA politicians.
They don’t want dead airtime. They don’t want to be left with no guests on the Sunday shows. Even in the White House, they’re afraid of following the AP, which got kicked out for deigning to use the correct name of a geographic phenomenon, the Gulf of Mexico. So they either are so timid, or the right has worked the refs so assiduously that they are still petrified after all this about the slam and the label that they are the liberal media, or they simply don’t have the skill sets. I have often joked that maybe we should replace all these people with trial lawyers who know how to ask questions, who know how to pin people down. I’d rather have a lawyer who knows how to take a deposition than some of these reporters who are essentially TV hosts asking the questions. There’s a real skill set that’s missing.
Sargent: Yeah. And we have a TV host now as defense secretary, as well. Just to close this out, I want to return to your big point from early in this discussion—which is that in some basic sense, when the media and pundits go out there and they say Trump is winning the political battle over this stuff, it actually encourages it, right? And there’s another piece to this, as well, which is I think when the media says things like, Oh, this is a political winner for Trump, it’s good political strategy for Trump, it wraps this authoritarian and fascist madness in the aura of conventional politics. It makes it sound a little less threatening. It sounds almost as if, Oh well, Trump is just putting on a show. It’s not really about anything larger. There aren’t any deeper, darker intentions here. I think that’s a real problem. What do you think? How do we get out of this?
Rubin: Absolutely. And they wind up complimenting him. Isn’t he effective with these visuals? He’s getting what he wants. So you hear these phrases repeated over and over again. And I think we get out of this by requiring—and maybe some of this comes from the independent media, in which we operate, some of this comes from the politicians themselves—the people on the ground themselves to inject some reality, to show pictures of Los Angeles as a peaceful locale, to show that the National Guard and the Marines are essentially standing around doing nothing, guarding buildings where there are no protesters whatsoever.
You have to show people, you have to inject some reality, and I think you also have to make the poin—and Trump won’t like to hear this—He does this because he panicked. He thought he was losing control. So he did some things that no president in the similar situation would have done. Someone analogized it to calling the police when your kid gets teased at school. This overreaction, well, maybe he just isn’t tough enough, maybe he’s not calm enough, maybe he’s not stable enough to be commander in chief. And I would like to see Democrats advance that argument. You know who the grownup in the room is right now? It’s Gavin Newsom. That’s who’s acting like a person who cares about public safety.
Sargent: Really well said. And I really, really hope that a lot of Democrats listen to what you just said there and follow your advice. Jennifer Rubin, it’s always great to talk to you. Thanks for coming on.
Rubin: You too, Greg. Nice seeing you.