The following is a lightly edited transcript of the July 2 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.
This week, The New York Times released a batch of polls showing Democrats within striking distance of winning enough Senate races to win control. One big finding was that Donald Trump’s numbers in these states are absolutely abysmal. Small wonder, then, that Trump is taking some corrupt new steps to give Republican candidates a big boost. Steve Benen of MS Now noticed a really intriguing pattern. In several states, Trump is directly linking the approval of disaster aid right to his endorsements of GOP candidates in some of the most contested races.
That’s not how this is supposed to work, but it opens a window on something to watch for, which we’re talking to Steve Benen about today. Trump will surely scale up his use of the government to boost GOP fortunes in coming months, and God knows how he’s going to do that. Steve, good to have you back on.
Steve Benen: Thanks, Greg. It’s great to be here.
Sargent: So let’s just start off really simply. Steve, how is the president supposed to make decisions about disaster aid to states? And has he doled out disaster aid in an equivalent way to blue and red states?
Benen: Right. The foundational question here is exactly that. There’s a system in place that has been in place for generations. When it comes to federal disaster aid, presidents and their administrations are just simply supposed to make these decisions on the merits. Does a state deserve, and does it need, federal disaster aid? And if it does, great. If it doesn’t, then no. But that’s how it’s always worked, in a bipartisan and objective way.
Even in Donald Trump’s first term, we didn’t necessarily see any major controversies or scandals surrounding the politicization of disaster aid. However, over the last year, year and a half, it’s been much different. Politico reported in March—a report that I think really bears repeating:
Donald Trump approved just 23 percent of disaster funding requests from states with Democratic governors and Democratic senators, while at the same time, over roughly the same period, states with Republican governors and Republican senators had their requests approved 89 percent of the time.
Twenty-three percent, less than a fourth, for blue states; 89 percent, nearly nine out of ten, for red states. Now, it’s a dramatic, indefensible ratio, and it speaks to the fact that it’s really been corrupted and politicized in a way that has never existed before in the federal government.
Sargent: Well, you noticed this pattern in addition to this. In recent days, Trump announced huge amounts of disaster aid to at least six states. Most of them were red; two of them were swing states, Michigan and Wisconsin, and I want to focus on those for now. Let’s take Michigan first.
Trump said this on Truth Social: “I am pleased to announce that the great state of Michigan has been approved to be given $32 million in its disaster declaration request.” Trump added: “The people of Michigan are in good hands with Trump-endorsed Mike Rogers, who is running for U.S. Senate, and John James for governor.”
Steve, it’s true that Trump also cited the Democratic governor in the tweet, but she’s not running for anything. And he did boost two critical GOP candidates: Senate hopeful Mike Rogers and gubernatorial hopeful John James. Can you explain why you see that as corrupt?
Benen: You know, there was a point last year we saw some hints along these lines, where Trump would talk about the fact that he’d approved disaster aid for, say, Missouri, for example, and he would emphasize the fact that he won Missouri’s electoral votes in his previous elections, suggesting there was a connection between his political support in the state and his eagerness to provide federal relief for that state. But now he’s just dropped the pretense. There’s no real sense that maybe he’s just being coy or being subtle about any of this.
Here we have an instance in which he’s talking about approving federal disaster aid and literally, explicitly, and overtly including an endorsement for various candidates aligned with his White House, as if they’re interconnected in ways that, as far as he’s concerned, are inextricable.
Sargent: Yes. And let’s move to Wisconsin now. And here Trump was even more blatant. He posted this: “I just spoke with Congressman Tom Tiffany, who has my complete and total endorsement for governor, and informed him that the great state of Wisconsin has been approved to be given $22.6 million in its disaster declaration request.”
Steve, here he makes it sound as if this Republican candidate for governor helped deliver this money to the state. And Trump also says the people of Wisconsin are in good hands with him, and then also cites Congressman Derrick Van Orden, who is locked in an absolutely key House race. He’s just blurting it out right in public.
I want to be clear that all these races we’re talking about here—Michigan Senate and governor, Wisconsin governor and congressman—are really critical races, and they’re toss-ups. Your thoughts on all this?
Benen: The brazenness of it all is just breathtaking. I mean, here we have a situation in which we have a competitive state, arguably the most competitive state in the nation, Wisconsin. We’ve seen it over and over again in recent election cycles. And so instead of acknowledging the Democratic governor’s role in perhaps requesting federal disaster relief in the first place, Donald Trump just ignores that and makes a connection between this congressman who had nothing to do with the process and the money that’s going to the state and communities in the state that need the aid.
And so there’s no real pretense here. There’s no sense of propriety at all. It’s making a direct connection between a congressman running for governor who enjoys the president’s support and the money that the Trump administration is now providing to the state.
So I hope your listeners can appreciate the fact that it has never worked this way. We’ve never had a system in place in which a White House or any administration has necessarily made this connection, made this direct tie between endorsing a candidate and the federal disaster relief.
I mean, it’s scandalous. To my mind, it’s borderline impeachable, that we’d have this kind of indefensible connection between two things that should have nothing to do with one another.
Sargent: Yeah. And if you put this in the larger context, it really gets thrown into stark relief. He’s badly stiffed Democratic states of disaster aid relative to Republican states over much of his second term. And here he’s doling this out to these swing states, arguably precisely because they have very competitive and important races in them, right?
I mean, it’s not that much of a leap to say that’s why he approved the aid to them. He’s trying to create the impression that these candidates played a major role in delivering this federal money to these states.
Benen: Right. And we’ve had a series of controversies over the last year and a half—and I think that you and I have talked about this before—in which we’ve seen the administration and the White House being accused of misusing federal resources for political purposes to achieve electoral goals, which in itself is scandalous. And here we have more evidence to consider as part of these broader allegations.
Is the White House making decisions as it relates to federal disaster funds for the purposes of affecting the outcomes of elections? And if so, that’s the sort of thing that maybe the next Congress might want to investigate in more detail—maybe hold a congressional hearing or oversight hearing or two as it relates to this.
This is the sort of thing that can resonate, I think, with most people, because there’s an understanding: we don’t do that in the United States. We don’t connect communities that are affected by disasters, and the money that the people in those communities need and deserve, with electoral strategies and campaign strategies. Those two things should never be mixed.
And yet we have reason to believe that that’s exactly what’s happening here. And I feel like it’s incumbent upon lawmakers and policymakers to get answers to these questions, because really, if this is happening in our name, it is a scandal that should help define Donald Trump’s second term.
Sargent: Now, you singled out a number of other states. It’s not quite as clear that these are ones with competitive races, but they do have races in them. And in these cases, you found there really is an apparent connection between the decision to award the aid and the political fortunes of Republicans in these states. Can you talk about these other places that you looked at?
Benen: Sure. Let’s look at Kansas, for example. Now, Kansas, as your listeners will know, is a pretty reliable red state, but yet it has a Democratic governor, and it requested federal disaster relief. Now, fortunately, the president approved that disaster relief, to the tune of $5.5 million.
But when he did so, he specifically acknowledged Senator Roger Marshall, a close presidential ally who just happens to be running for reelection in 2026, and didn’t mention the governor. And then he took the additional step of mentioning Ty Masterson, the GOP candidate in the gubernatorial race for 2026.
Now, there was no need to mention Marshall or Masterson. But again, here we have a situation in which the president’s preoccupation is not with the people who need the aid or the communities that have been affected by natural disasters. What he’s prioritizing is the fact that there are these Republicans who are aligned with his White House who are on the ballot in the fall.
That’s the focus. That’s the priority. That’s the message that he wants to get through—that he’s approving this aid, and he wants people to make that connection between the federal emergency assistance and the candidates that are going to be on the ballot.
Sargent: Yeah, you did look at some other states, and you really drew a convincing pattern. Let’s just talk about the polls for now, though. The New York Times surveyed six Senate races. Democrats are ahead in North Carolina and up by a hair in Maine, tied in Texas, and just behind in Alaska, Iowa, and Ohio.
That puts Dems in striking distance of winning the four of these contests that they need to win to take the upper chamber, though they’re, I think, still clearly the underdogs for Senate control. Steve, I think on balance that polling’s pretty good news. Nobody really expected Dems to be this competitive in these particular states, many of which are red. What did you think about these findings?
Benen: Yeah, I think that last point that you mentioned a moment ago is exactly the key. If we look at this in the context of, say, where we had the political landscape two months ago, or really six months ago, or maybe even a year ago—the idea of a Democratic Senate getting elected in the 2026 midterms was absurd. It was not something that people were thinking about, wasn’t something people were talking about.
Democratic hopes were focused on the House, which seemed more plausible, more realistic, given the fact that there’s really a small GOP majority right now. And given historical trends, it seemed likely that Democrats were able to pick up enough seats to gain a majority and take the speaker’s gavel away from Mike Johnson.
The Senate was a long shot. It just seemed like it was out of left field and not really part of the conversation. That has changed considerably. There are contests now that are very much in play that people weren’t even thinking about at all. States like Alaska, Texas—these are states, even Iowa. The New York Times poll that you just referenced showed Iowa being very competitive, and that’s another state that is now generally seen as a red state that is now very competitive at the Senate level.
And so taken together, we start to see a path. Now, it’s not an easy path, especially given that there are 53 Senate Republicans and it would take a lot. But at the same time, given historical patterns, if there’s a serious enough backlash to the status quo—we have a very unpopular president, we have a MAGA agenda that is generating all kinds of pushback and protests nationwide—those factors, you put them together, coupled with the fact that people aren’t satisfied with the state of the economy or the war in Iran, you start to wonder: maybe the Senate can be flipped, given the right circumstances. It’s no longer unrealistic.
Sargent: Yes, and here’s what’s critical about these numbers from The New York Times. Trump himself is polling terribly in these states. On the war with Iran, across these six states, only 38 percent approve of his handling of it, while 59 percent disapprove. On gas prices, it’s 33 percent to 63 percent. And across these six battlegrounds, only 36 percent approve of his handling of the cost of living. And on that, his approval is 24 percent among independents.
Steve, I want to stress this. Trump won five out of these six states. We’re talking about places like Ohio, Iowa, Alaska, Texas. These are red states. And he’s in the thirties on the cost of living, and in the twenties on that among independents. That’s why these races are competitive. What do you think of that?
Benen: I think that if I were a Republican official right now, or if I were a GOP strategist looking ahead to the fall, I would be sweating. In fact, I would be losing sleep, because these numbers are abysmal. It would be one thing if we were looking at the polling in Vermont and Hawaii, and we saw Democrats with a big advantage, and we saw widespread opposition to the White House and its agenda. That would be expected and not necessarily alarming.
But for Republicans, what you just emphasized is exactly right. In red states, in states where Donald Trump won by large double-digit margins without even having to break a sweat, he is not only deeply unpopular, but there’s a rejection not just of him, but of his policies, of the effects of his policies, and the way in which his presidency is unfolding—the way that people are just dealing with the crises that are unfolding in their daily lives, that Donald Trump is ignoring.
You know, Mr. “I love inflation,” or “I love the inflation.” This is not a winning strategy, it’s not a winning message. And really, the party doesn’t have anything to run on except maybe their opposition to DSA candidates, which is really not going to be enough to get them very far.
Sargent: Yes. And by the way, I want to stress this number as well, on the Times polling. In these six states, only 35 percent say the economy is good, while 63 percent say the opposite. That’s really terrible, again, in states that Trump largely won, right?
Benen: Exactly. Year in and year out, especially in the wake of the pandemic, the economy is really the driving force that we see overriding every other consideration. There is an affordability crisis. We’ve seen weak job numbers, we’ve seen weak GDP growth.
Donald Trump ran for office saying that voters can expect an immediate economic boom on day one of his second term. He’s obviously failed spectacularly to live up to those promises. And voters have noticed.
There’s only so many ways that you can lie to people about their own wallets, about their own paychecks, about the bills that are piling up on their desks. And so really, I’m at a loss to explain what the White House can do about this, other than maybe hope that the ballroom is a lot more popular than it is now.
Sargent: I want to highlight still more findings here. Voters in each of these six states said the most important issues to them by far are jobs, the economy, inflation, the cost of living. The Times says this: by a 14 percentage point margin, voters in these battlegrounds said that Trump’s policies have hurt more than helped. And 52 percent of independents said Trump’s policies had hurt; only 22 percent said they had helped. Again, in states Trump won mostly, almost all of them.
Benen: Right. And I think that the significance of that is that the White House strategy over the last year and a half has been to blame Biden every time these questions have come up. Every time they’re confronted with another poll, another controversy, another pushback from Congress about the state of the economy, they say the same thing: no, no, no, let’s blame Joe Biden, let’s blame Kamala Harris, let’s blame the past.
But this poll indicates that that talking point, that pushback, simply does not work. People are looking at the effects of Trump’s agenda, of Trump’s policies, of what Trump has been able to deliver. And they’re saying, you know what? I’m not better off. I was better off before. Things are worse. The value of my dollar is worse. Every time I go to the grocery store, it’s worse. Every time I fill up the gas tank, it’s worse.
And so they can’t blame Biden when Americans are looking at the status quo and realizing that over the last year and a half, Trump has failed to deliver, and things are not better than they were. Despite his promises, despite everything he said he was going to be able to do, he hasn’t been able to do it, and people have noticed.
Sargent: OK, let’s tie this back to the broader theme of this episode. Again, we’ve been discussing how Trump, in a very blatant way, is kind of corruptly tying disaster aid to states right to Republican candidates in these states. Again, the larger context here being that he had been stiffing Democratic states in the past, and all of a sudden he’s now granting aid to the ones where he wants to boost the Republican candidates. I think this is all a sign that we’re going to see a real ramped-up effort to use the government in every conceivable way possible to try to swing these midterms.
The obvious stuff would be maybe using ICE or even the military to send in troops basically to create a sense of crisis. But that’s only the most prominent and dramatic thing that he could do. What we’re seeing with this pattern you identified is that there are subtle things he can do as well. Where do you think this is going to go?
Benen: I think that we should be expecting an all-of-government approach in the coming weeks and months. Because really, RFK Jr. has hit the campaign trail and is going to competitive districts and making connections between HHS and local elections, local officials running for statewide offices.
And so if HHS is doing it, and now we see FEMA resources, and then we see ICE across the board, I think what we can expect in the coming weeks is a federal government that is focused exclusively on helping Republicans win elections. Period, full stop. That is what is unfolding in real time right now.
I think it’s only going to get worse, especially as the polls show Democrats with an advantage—and especially as polls show Democrats with a stronger lead, I think the anxiety in Republican circles will intensify. The panic will lead to more abuses, more corruption, more misuse of resources. And I think it’s something that Americans need to be keeping a close eye on, because this is happening in their name. These are their resources. This is their government that’s being abused. And it’s a scandal that’s unfolding before our eyes, the likes of which we have not seen in modern history.
Sargent: And just to wrap this up, what’s really intriguing about the whole situation is that Trump has to blurt out the corrupt scheme right in plain sight, precisely because he wants voters to draw these connections. He wants voters to say to themselves, in these places, OK, it’s because of John James that Michigan is getting all this aid, or it’s because of Derrick Van Orden in Wisconsin, or the Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate, that Wisconsin’s getting this aid.
It’s sort of an intriguing situation in that sense, isn’t it? That he goes out of his way to blatantly blurt out the scheme right in plain sight in order to get voters to draw the link, right?
Benen: Right. He has no choice. I mean, the corruption doesn’t work if it happens in secret. He has to make it public—and I’m saying this deliberately—in order for people to vote the right way. He can’t keep it secret. He has to expose it in order for the scheme to work.
My fear is that as far as he’s concerned, he is above reproach. He is literally unimpeachable. He cannot be held accountable for his own actions, because as far as he’s concerned, he’s never been held accountable for his own actions. And according to the Supreme Court, he can’t even be prosecuted even after leaving office, so long as there’s some fig leaf about this being official acts. And so as far as he’s concerned, he can get away with it because he can’t be held accountable.
My hope is that if there is, say, a Democratic House next year, perhaps even a Democratic Congress, he will soon learn that he can be held accountable—that there is a Congress that will hold hearings, that will consider impeachment, that will consider penalties that will actually matter. Because up until now, he has gotten away with so much.
Sargent: I’ve said this before on this show, and I’m going to repeat it again: there is one body of people out there who can actually hold Trump accountable, and it’s the voters. We really need them to do that. We really need it, Steve. Steve Benen, always great to talk to you. Thanks so much. Good flag on this stuff, by the way.
Benen: Thank you, Greg. I appreciate it.