in 2017 when Trump came into the White

House for the first time on day one he

signed exactly one executive order it

was targeting the Affordable Care

Act in 2025 he signed 26 executive

orders on day one one withdraws the us

from the Paris climate Accord

eliminating Birthright citizenship

setting January 6th writers free

declared an energy emergency and

recognizing just two Sexes male and

female one of the difficulties of

covering Donald Trump is it's always

hard to know where to look first where

even to look at all back in the day I

used to do a policy podcast at Vox hello

welcome to another episode of the beeds

on the VOX media podcast Network I'm

Matthew glacius here today with Ezra

Klein daryn the weeds mat glacius is now

the author of The excellent substack

newsletter slow boring I mean I think

that it's and dar Lind is now a senior

fellow at the American Immigration

Council

thought it'd be good to have a bit of a

reunion with two of the people who

follow the policies the Trump is working

on most closely to get into the guts of

what is actually changing and what as of

yet really isn't as always my email as

reclin show NY

times.com darland Matt glacius welcome

to the show Good to be here good to be

on it's like old times yeah so let's

dive into immigration first Donald Trump

signed about 10 10 executive orders uh

on border security and immigration when

you look at them together Dar what do

you see um what we see here is a body of

orders that are pushing the federal

government to take a much much much much

much more aggressive approach on

immigration enforcement especially in

the interior of the United States

especially integrating the military into

border enforcement in a way we haven't

seen but without really prescribing a

whole lot in terms of specifics because

they understand that that's going to

have to happen at the agency level

that's going to have to you know that

that requires the actual Machinery of

the federal government to work itself

out a lot of Biden era enforcement

priorities got rescinded it is currently

and has and this is actually as of

Tuesday night um the US has the legal

authority to deport people without a

court hearing if they're arrested

anywhere in the US and cannot prove to

an ice agent satisfaction that they've

been in the US for at least 2 years

which is something we're going to have

to see how that how that plays out on

the ground and there is a push toward

building more capacity for detention

which is going to be very important if

they're going to scale up enforcement

efforts a push toward punishing other

countries that refuse to accept

deportation flights by putting Visa

sanctions on them which is going to be

extremely important if you're going to

succeed in deporting people so like on

the interior side that's there is there

there's a very big shift toward both the

kind of expanded legal Authority and the

expanded capacity which you can't do

immediately but which they're building

toward when you read this Matt does it

look to you like Mass deportation which

was promised and feared or does it look

to you like what they're trying to do is

create a climate of fear and as Mitt

Romney once put it self- deportation I I

mean it's what's actually happening is

closer to the latter right I mean in

terms of the question of like what is

the quantity of people who are deported

the historic Peak for the United States

came during Barack Obama and the main

reason for that at least as I understand

it is that there was really strong

cooperation between ice and state and

local law enforcement officials and

basically they were picking people up

out of jails um all throughout the

country which is a very efficient

process if you're thinking of

deportation as a a resource intensive

kind of operation people who are already

in custody are the the easiest people to

deport and then numbers started to come

down because of policy changes in blue

States then different enforcement

priorities things like that but what

Trump at least would like what real

immigration Hawks would like to see

happen is um create like harsh

day-to-day living conditions for people

who are in the country without

authorization very optimistically they

hope people will self-deport uh beyond

that they just think it's it's a

deterrent right like people come to the

United States um without visas because

they believe that life as an illegal

immigrant in the United States of

America will be better than their life

back at home so if you can make it worse

in any number of different ways

including by just raising uncertainty

that a person kind of working off the

books and minding their own business

might get deported you know that has a

has a kind of an impact if you do like

yesterday I think Tom Honan was on TV

and he was like we arrested 308 people

already which was like I think the

average under Biden was about 3110 isest

per day right so there's a certain

amount of like we're getting tough

theater that is occurring and that will

occur but we don't really know what's

going to happen right I mean we we

haven't ever seen really tough interior

enforcement in the United States both

because of the logistics but also

because the the politics are tough the

more concrete you get right I mean you

can get right now there's big

immigration backlash and so like should

we Deport everyone pulls like pretty

well you you know go into a restaurant

that you like and Ice has like deported

the guys washing the dishes and now the

restaurant's closed and one of them is

married and he's got CIT you know kids

who are American citizens and there's

like a sad story in the newspaper that's

where you get into more more difficult

things and it's why Trump always talks

about criminals because he's always

talking about criminals criminals

criminals criminals which is like I

think an easy cell right somebody who in

addition to immigrating illegally has

committed non-immigration crimes but the

impetus Behind these orders is to try to

say nobody is safe right like everybody

better watch their back so as far as

self- deportation the the immigration

Hawk theory of self- deportation has

never really been about fear of

deportation will lead people to

self-deport it's the inability to work

is going to lead people to self-deport

and as far as that is concerned there's

a provision in these executive orders

that says that the agencies shall ensure

that

no that that no unauthorized immigrant

can't has a work permit now that's

actually not current regulation current

regulation is if you have a pending

application for Asylum for a green card

Etc and it's been pending for a certain

amount of time you can apply for a work

permit and work in the US legally if

they're going to change those

regulations that takes people who are

currently working legally puts them into

the illegal labor pool and you know

potentially removes what would be an

impetus for them to stay so that's

definitely something to watch for and

there's this noise about you know

restricting all federal funding from any

Sanctuary jurisdiction which was

followed up with a memo sent by the

Department of Justice to attorneys

saying that they should investigate

state and local officials who refuse to

cooperate with the Trump Administration

so the question of whether places that

would be resistant are going to be

bullied into cooperating and places that

are enthusiastic are going to have the

full support of the federal government

behind them if you do both of those

things then you really ramp up the

ability to do this more frictionless

Handover do they dar have a legislative

agenda here and and one of the ways in

which I I mean that is you make the

point that the the self- deportation

theory is that you can't work here and

it's miserable to be here but the theory

of the longtime theory of how to make it

hard to work here wasn't deportations it

was things like e verify was things like

holding employers accountable for hiring

undocumented or unauthorized immigrants

I have not heard them or Republicans

talking that much about it but I've been

wondering if that's coming or they just

don't want to work with Congress so

they're not going to try the extent to

which you verify and I I was noticing

this even under the first Trump term

like that it was it had just fallen out

of the top tier of to hear about it all

the time under Obama under bush like

this was the theory what happened to it

I mean I think it's because the kind of

the traditional immigration Hawks the

center for immigration studies folks who

had been putting who put together the

intellectual framework of attrition

through enforcement which is what got

called self- deportation aren't the

people who are running the show they a

different flavor of immigration Hawks

who are much more concerned about

cultural threat and so the you know

putting together the the intellectual

apparatus of what exactly what are the

buttons we push to get people to leave

on their own isn't necessarily what

they're thinking there you know the

Steven Miller approach is what are all

of the other parts of the US code that

we haven't been looking at that can be

used you know there's there's a

provision in here that cites a little

used provision of US law that says

aliens have to register and says Okay so

the federal government is going to

publicize that people have to register

and then we have to do as much as

possible to criminally enforce failure

to register now people who entered the

US without papers have not had an

opportunity to register um you know in

in many cases and so there's a certain

bit of paradox for like punishing people

to for failing to do something you never

let them do but it's that sort of thing

it's identifying unused tools much more

than you know the big question for

Congress is I think is is really a

budgetary one is how much money are they

going to throw at enforcement because

you know as as Matt pointed out like

we've never done anything close to the

scale of what they are threatening to

want to do and the more that Tom homman

and Company want to spend on you know

getting Headlines by sending a bunch of

I agents into California the less money

there is in theory for stuff like you

know building softsided detention

facilities and other unsexy things that

you're going to need to do to get your

capacity out but but Matt you seem or

they seem to have a much clearer Pathway

to working with Congress than they would

have in the first term you mention

mentioned how one reason you had high

levels of deportations under Obama was

very strong cooperation between the

federal government and and the states

under Trump after Obama you had this

huge blue State backlash to immigration

enforcement and you had Sanctuary cities

and and so on I mean we're in New York

City right now I think Eric Adams would

love nothing more than to cooperate with

the Trump Administration but in but even

among Democrats in Congress even among

the kinds of Democrats in Congress who

were resistance Democrats in 2017 2018

you saw the move to working with lenford

on the the Murphy Cinema lenford bill

that then kamla Harris ran on that was a

big shift right for Democrats and now

you've seen a bunch of Democrats sign on

to the lake and Riley bill which is a

very sharp shift right for Democrats so

it seems to me that if the Trump

Administration wanted to kick off uh a

policy process with with Congress that

is trying to toughen enforcement on the

employer side it's a very different

political alignment than it was in 2018

I think yes clearly like the politics

have shifted in blue America I think

particularly around removals of people

who've been arrested and that to the

extent that Donald Trump uh wants to

like work with people and get back to an

Obama type um policy agenda there like I

I think he could get it done through a

mix of political fear and sincere change

of heart on the part of democratic

officials like in K Act deals with a

basically related set of considerations

I mean that the headline the thing

Republicans would put in an ad against

you if you voted no on it is that this

bill requires ice to detain people uh

you know who've been convicted of theft

and some other list of crimes uh

arrested for Arrested yes um so the the

you know objections to it relate to sort

of due process I mean people can be

arrested for things they have not

committed but also it it creates a lot

of um

like State causes of action where you

can sue the federal government for

having not done X Y or Z it was pretty

clearly written uh like when Joe Biden

was President like to get Democrats to

vote no right by saying like this is

unworkable it's going to hamstring the

executive and then Republicans could run

against it Democrats started saying well

we'll we'll vote to advance this but

like we're g to we're gonna like fix

that stuff in the amendment process then

because Republicans really like they

wanted to get to know on that bill so

they wouldn't do any of the Amendments

and then Democrats um refused to take

the no vote that Republicans wanted them

to take so now this like probably

unworkable bill has has passed e verify

an employer sanctions are are a

different kettle of fish because when

Republicans were putting together I

think they called it hr1 it was like

this big immigration package hr2 hr2 yes

um when when Biden was president and

initially mandatory e verify was in that

package because the the point of the

package was to be maximally hawkish

again they they wanted to get to know

with Biden so they could complain but

like that's a you know a sticky point

for republicans and it raises the

question of where does Trump want to go

with this ultimately in terms of

workplace raids other things that are

bothersome to the to the business

Community versus just kind of picking

fights with um Progressive Mayors and

governors about local law enforcement

cooperation Dar the piece of this that

people I think have heard the most about

is the executive order on Birthright

citizenship how did you read that just

laying out what it does um the

birthright citizenship order declares

that um it is the position of the US

government that anyone born after

February 19th of this year whose mother

is either someone who does not have

legal status in the United States or who

has some form of you know temporary Visa

or other temporary protection in the

United States and whose father is not a

US citizen or green card holder is not a

citizen of the United States by birth

most of the text of the executive order

is a defense of a very novel legal

theory that is not only is the 14th

Amendment of the of the Constitution not

as it has been interpreted by by you

know the Supreme Court for over a

century Etc but that we can change that

interpretation via executive action uh

and simply declare it by Fiat you you

could think of the birthright

citizenship debate as having two

components one which I think everybody

was expecting them to go after was

children born to people who are not here

legally and then there's this other

question that they added into it which

is people who are here legally they're

here on a student visa

they're here on an H1B Visa some people

called this a Harris provision I know

many people who were born in the United

States this way and this has not been

nearly as contested but they added that

in

too Matt how did you understand that I

think that part of it and you saw this

back when um during the um they're

eating the dogs eating the cats

controversy which is that uh the sort of

manga movement has tried to read Define

people with things like temporary

protected status um or people with um

Asylum applications uh you know in the

process as illegal immigrants right when

in a I don't know like in a in a legal

sense it is not illegal to arrive

without a Visa and then benefit from a

grant of TPS etc etc etc um you know I I

I think vice president Vance who's more

um cogent than president Trump has you

know explain that like in his view this

is like a loophole this is like lawyer

BS right and so I think part of the

intention of this expansive order is

just to to sweep all those people in the

fact that it also applies to people with

totally normal

uncontroversial visas like Trump was out

saying that he loves the H-1B visa

program that he employs lots of people

with H-1B visas he he clearly doesn't um

and I think he's referring to a

different h2b

um there's never been a question that

like you are allowed to come to the

United States on a J1 Visa you're

allowed to come on a a student visa and

then yeah like people uh get into

relationships particularly people with

employment based visas are often here

for many many years before they get a

green card and there's never been a

political controversy about that that

I'm familiar with and it's it's quite I

mean they really don't like immigrants

at least some of the people behind this

policy in a more extreme way than the

president's official position and I

think they are they are signifying that

and it you know people should rightly

read into that something I I think a

little bit menacing about the ultimate

intention are they just creating a piece

of this it could be lopped off in the

courts or even just in public debate or

okay the extreme position is that you

you know don't want to have um

Birthright citizenship for people here

on student visas and hmb visas but the

position then you're left with which is

the one they really care about is you

get rid of it for the children of

unauthorized immigrants so I I don't

think so and you know the reason I don't

think so is because yes we've never had

a big political controversy around

people on student visas having children

but there has been political controversy

around people on temporary visas having

kids in the United States there you know

when Trump was running for president the

first time in like 2015 2016 there were

a couple of of news Cycles about birth

tourism um and you know the the practice

of getting a tourist visa spending that

you know often spending that time at

like a designated Resort for this

purpose having a child during the time

you're on the 90-day tourist visa and

then that child who is not necessarily

raised in the United States but is

raised in you know whatever their

parents home country is has the benefit

of US citizenship at some later point

should they choose to act on it and that

is you know that was a very big Target

of the kind of banon wing of the MAA

movement which is very concerned about

the lack of a simil ability of in

particular Asian Highly Educated

immigrants who are you know taking jobs

that could otherwise go to disadvantaged

Americans and so I think that it's not

obvious to me that if you bict that and

say well we really only care about

children of unauthorized immigrants that

that really does satisfy everyone

because the question of birth tourism

has been tied up in the question of

Birthright citizenship as the Trump you

know as like Trump world has understood

it over the last do the existence of

birth

tourism suggests there is something

indefensibly Broad in the way that the

citizenship has been uh

interpreted I am as pro-immigrant as you

I think can possibly be and I think

that's abusive of the rules it is

surprising to me that this has continued

to exist because when you uh seek you

know there there's like an entire regime

in place that is designed to prevent

people from being issued visas that are

going to abuse the terms of those visas

right and so I am surprised that there

hasn't been more of a Crackdown on you

know excluding countries from the Visa

waiver program if they have a history of

birth tourism more aggressive you know

interviews at consulates about like gee

I noticed that this 90-day window it

seems like pretty definite you're really

staying for the whole 90 days can you

talk more about what you're doing during

that time and like more you know because

there's so much discretion to the state

department in denying visas you like in

theory you could have an enforcement

based approach to that that doesn't

change the law so that's you know I

think I think what we're identifying is

a policy problem so I like I see I see

where you are I just think that it's

it's reasonable to talk about like a

solution on the scale of the problem I I

take that point but obviously they don't

want a narrow solution to the the most

uh egregious of the policy problems what

they want is a big debate about what it

means to be a citizen and Matt I've been

thinking about our long career in

journalism and and you both probably

remember covering immigration in the I

don't know I call this like the 2005 to

2015 period and back then it was much

more common to talk about legal

immigrants and then you get a lot of

email from people in the immigration

advocacy community and and also just

people and say listen that's a really

dehumanizing way to talk about this

could we say you know it's better to say

undocumented immigrant unauthorized

immigrant sort of eventually has made

its way to yard signs right no human

being is illegal um you can talk about

illegal immigration but not illegal

immigrants and behind this linguistic

change I think really did come a change

in the Democratic party's affect towards

illegal immigration that that illegal

immigration unauthorized immigrants

moved from a really big policy problem

to solve then during the Trump

Administration particularly to a

disadvantaged class to

protect and this feels to me like the

argument that that the Trump

Administration is at a very core level

across both some of the enforcement and

and some of the birthright moves

engaging which is how should we feel

about these people who are here

illegally are they are they people we

should view with sympathy and try to

protect or are they an invasion a horde

are at the very least criminals who have

abused our system and need to be treated

the way we treat other criminals uh

which is with punitive measures I think

that Trump has basically won this

argument you know that he has gotten I

shouldn't actually say Trump because in

a lot of ways Greg Abbott was more like

the key figure here but like got

Democrats to Adit that like they in fact

think it is undesirable to have sort of

unlimited quantities of people arriving

in their jurisdictions in an irregular

manner you know and that's you see that

in the lake and Riley vote count you see

it in the Murphy Langford bill you see

it in the executive orders that that Joe

Biden issued and you know to an extent I

think that was always reflected in some

of Biden Administration policy but it

only very much at the end became like

what they would what they would say they

were trying to do the interesting

question for Trump I mean and I think

people who win elections face this this

divide all the time is like do you want

to make the most durable policy change

that you can or do you want to kind of

have fights about things because I think

clearly if the president of the United

States really really really wants to

shine a spotlight on birth tourism and

say like we need a bipartisan

legislative solution to create some kind

of denization process for egregious

abuses of this whatever it is I think

it's like tough for like swing state

democrats for anybody for me for you for

anybody to say like no birth terorism is

amazing like we want to encourage this

right the more things you stack onto the

pile the easier it is for everybody to

to say no right that like we're going to

basic 14th Amendment principles we're

talking about people on completely

normal work visas have all sort of been

lumped into this it's it's really easy

for Democrats to reject this order the

way it's been written because it's so so

so broad but that also means that

Republicans can have a fight about the

order right they can pick the strong

cases Democrats can pick the weak cases

nothing will get done uh I think they

they'll just lose in court I mean the

Constitutional argument they're going

with here is is risible in my opinion

but this is the first time I think in

our long Association together I've heard

you suggest that the fact that a

constitutional argument is risible Will

mean it will lose in court it's just the

I am pretty cynical about this but

you've always been more cynical than me

this is just a topic that has been

litigated like a lot over the years and

I've never that what people said about

the individual mandate and the Medicaid

expansion in Obamacare I know but like

but like I mean Dar will correct me if

I'm wrong but I mean I think like just

like very literally this question of

what does it mean to be subject to the

laws thereof has been litigated this is

not like a new version of an old

question they want to arrest illegal

immigrants right that's like a big point

of emphasis here which is to say they

are subject to the jurisdiction of the

American government there's no argument

that illegal immigrants have diplomatic

immunity or something like that or or

that you know they're Sovereign tribal

Nations well is it the argument that

they're an invasion right d that's what

they're trying to well the invasion

thing is I think a separate how you

describe

if you were to to say what they think in

this court they have helped build you

know in Ste when St goes to bed at night

and is optimistic about the morning what

Supreme Court opinion he's hoping gets

issued I mean it is it's very hard to

tell the to tell from the outside the

difference between um we genuinely think

that this question has never been

properly tried because when Wong Kim Arc

was decided over a century ago we didn't

have illegal immigration in the same way

the like circumstances of won Kim Arc

stem from the Chinese Exclusion Act

which was like three immigration regimes

ago and so now that we have a population

of millions of people who have no legal

status in the United States you can make

the argument that they're not subject to

the jurisdiction of the United States in

a way you couldn't before and how much

of it is but we have the Supreme Court

now so they can change like I genuinely

don't know if we can tease those two

apart and I don't know how much it it

matters to do so right ultimately the

Arbiters on how much Calin ball were

playing with constitutional law are the

people in robes um and I agree with Matt

that they would have to be playing a

whole lot of Calvin ball in order to

side with the administration on this I

think the the other question here when

we're talking about the kind of broad

politics of how do we talk about

unauthorized immigrants is that we have

a wave of new arrivals of people

primarily entering through the Asylum

system over the last decade um the you

know the growing population of people

with temporary protections such as TPS

such as these Biden parole programs who

are also more recent arrivals and you

still have the unauthorized immigrants

that you had 10 years ago who have been

here 10 years longer um and who for the

most part still haven't had any point of

access into the immigration system and

so as we've talked for the last 10 years

about immigration as being a border

Asylum issue you know and I think Matt

was actually really Matt was calling

this out years ago that that like

created political problems for Democrats

because it took a population that had

been here for a long time and made them

feel like they were being shunted aside

in favor of more recent arrivals but it

also means that they're now in danger of

getting lumped in as like

Invaders um and I I I think that the

invasion like the legal aspects of the

invasion argument are really hard

because they're they're primarily

military and I'm not an expert in that

but I do think that it is very important

for the birthright point that it is it's

building the rhetorical case that they

aren't subject to our jurisdiction they

are trying to come for us so I want to

move to the economy When Donald Trump

was running for president one of his

very strongest arguments was that

everything got in very expensive under

Joe Biden he has himself said that the

price of groceries was a very big part

of why he won the election when you look

at what Trump said in his inauguration

speech when you look at the executive

orders when you look at what they least

said they are

doing what agenda emerges for you on the

cost of

living well they are clearly hoping that

increased domestic energy production

will have uh benefits for cost of living

I mean that's that's the part that you

can connect the dots on I mean I think

um experts have some skepticism about

that on the groceries you know there's

really not not a going on here um in the

orders is like literally nothing I could

have suggested some things for them if

if if they wanted to um so like the

Biden Administration for example like

raised um like wage floor standards for

agricultural guest worker visas it was

like the only restrictionist thing that

they really did and you could you could

put that back down U make things make

things cheaper well let's hold on the

energy piece because he did do a lot on

on energy and it's not crazy to say that

increased energy production would be

good for American growth and and and

bring down prices uh I think people

forget this but it took him months to

leave the Paris climate Accords in his

first term I mean they moved much more

slowly in their theory of what to do on

climate and energy back then they mus

was very angry about it Elon Musk was

very angry about it yes Elon Musk had

some very different views back then um

the theory now is you're going to

increased domestic production domestic

production of fossil fuels which is what

they're targeting is currently at record

levels it has never been higher in

American history how much Headroom do

they have here I I you know this is a

tough one right I mean I think if you

talk to people in the oil and gas

industry the thing that they were really

mad at the Biden Administration about

was pausing the construction of new

liquefied natural gas terminals uh the

Trump Administration has done what the

industry wanted there I think he's

correct to frankly and this will

increase American natural gas production

but the reason it will increase American

natural gas production is we will be

able to export more gas uh which as the

Biden people like to point out will

raise the price of domestic electricity

not lower it the thing that the oil and

gas industry wants is more demand for

their products that's what these l&g

export terminals are going to create and

that's what sort of the federal

government um you know foaming the

runway for permitting of Big Data Center

projects is going to ensure that there's

a lot of demand for natural gas um but

is it it going to make it cheaper for

you at home like probably it might make

it more expensive it's just ambiguous in

terms of it its basic upshot similarly

you know he's going to resend uh some of

these electric car type regulations that

that Biden issued but I think people

will continue to buy more electric cars

than they did at the p in the past one

way or another again Elon Musk continues

to be out there making his Teslas so the

the long-term outlook for oil stop on

that for just one second for a very long

time I felt well look I don't personally

love Elon musk's sharp right work swing

and all the conspiracy

theories but it's going to get more

people buying electric cars yeah if Elon

Musk can depolarize electric vehicles

and make it something not just that

liberals in San Francisco want to do but

but actually a status symbol for for

Texans too and maybe get Donald Trump on

board with it as a a sort of symbol of

like Ingenuity and and dominance of one

of the obvious industries of the

future and it's not like Trump is

outlawing electric vehicles but Elon

Musk becoming the central

conier to the Trump Administration and

his Central in theory uh industrialist

concern is the rapid adoption of

electric vehicles and Trump's main

policy on electric vehicles is to roll

back the regulations that were

accelerating their adoption

is a I mean I guess I you give Elon Musk

points for being principled on things

that are not just his business interest

but it's a little bit uh disappointing

as what the trade ended up being can I

step back a little bit because like I

think that one of the things that really

strikes me going into this Trump

Administration as opposed to the first

one is the first time around it was very

clear that Donald Trump was a politician

without a constituency he had not been

made by anybody and so he there was

nobody who was going to haul him into a

room and say we brought you here if you

don't listen to us we will end you and

that made it much harder to predict what

he would do it made it much it made like

the kind of White House intrigued

stories of who he was listening to much

more important because you couldn't use

that standard political calculus this

time around he's coming in with what

looks much more like a traditional

political Coalition with various people

feeling they have claims on him which

includes both in this case the like musk

and Company you know industrialist

policy chrony capitalist we it is very

important for the government to

affirmatively subsidize the things that

we want and the like Russ vote and

company massive deregulatory you know

there's absolutely nothing the federal

government should be doing to support

electric vehicles and like it's weird

for Trump but it's very normal for

politics and it's going to be

interesting to see how this like very

traditional interactional divide plays

out when the person making the decisions

is still Donald Trump a man who pretty

famously doesn't really hold on to

anything you know consistently enough to

make it very predictable which way he's

going to fall I think that's right as

like a political science theory but but

actually maybe wrong about the factions

my understanding of musk right now is

like you can imagine musk in his Tesla

guys not his International wi provocator

and and funer and and attention getter

guys as having like plausibly two

theories right there's always the

argument all he cares about is saving

the world from climate change and

getting to Mars there's this other

theory that what he wants is for Tesla

to be like the biggest company in the

world because that is where the bulk of

his wealth is and and his power is and

getting the subsidies for electric

vehicles pulled back at the time that

Ford and General Motors and these other

are accelerating into electric vehicles

and maybe getting to a point where they

could challenge Tesla for making good

cars well Tesla's a really big Advantage

they've been doing this for a long time

they're way ahead of everybody else

their marketing is way better people

know them and so my sense of musk at

least in part is that he's really let's

call it chilled out on the climate

change question um much less worried

about that than he once was although he

still says he is worried about it uh and

you know he got his like the support for

electric vehicles is what made Tesla

into the company it is today but Tesla

is fine now and if there's no support

for electric vehicles then it is the

other players prbly the Legacy players

trying to climb the electric vehicle

ladder who about to find the ladder

falls down under them before they attain

um you know the the sort of level of of

of quality and production that that

Tesla did again under years and years

and years of federal and state support

I I mean I think that's right what what

will be interesting will be see how

Democratic states sort of react to this

because Tesla profits uh have been

accounted for by basically um credits

tax credits right um this is not as

important to their business as it used

to be but it continues to be a big kind

of money maker for them because

California has increasingly strict

emissions rules and then a number of

other blue States kind of piggyback on

them Kavin Nome seems to be trying to

see like can he reconfigure that as like

a subsidy for non-tesla electric cars

and I think there's legal questions and

implementation questions around that a

big picture though like I I think the

the thrust of Trump's energy policies

will increase America's gross domestic

product by causing us to care less about

climate change and certain other kinds

of things whether they will reduce

prices to American consumers I think is

is much more questionable right

Democrats were going nuts all throughout

20 24 they were like why are people mad

about inflation inflation's down to 2.4

you know year-over-year and the answer's

like well we didn't like forget that

there was 9% inflation 18 months ago and

that it was 5% inflation 9 months ago

and so like now and the prices did not

go down you couldn't forget because

things were still more expensive but you

get used to price levels and also we

were I don't want to say we remember it

was Joe Biden's fault but the people who

think it was Joe Biden's fault remember

that they think it was Joe Biden's fault

so like I don't know that it's actually

now a lot of conservative uh Tak

Slingers will be hypocritical when they

pivot back around to being like you

can't actually make the price level fall

but like it's true you can't actually

make the price level fall and I just

don't you know it's it's a shame for Joe

Biden that we had 9% inflation when he

was president but like people were mad

about that and I don't know that there's

going to be so much juice in like law

prices didn't get cheaper that being

said I mean we we when I was a a guest

on your show previously we talked about

this a lot but like Trump's tariff

agenda his fiscal policy all of that

points toward a re uh acceleration of

inflation and that's you know perilous

even if it doesn't get up to n although

that's something we we saw D which is

that he did not come in on day one and

impose a bunch of new tariffs I was

wondering where the tariffs were

we're we're studying the creation of an

external Revenue Agency which definitely

sounds to me like the kind of thing you

do when you don't want to put into play

your big tariff proposal right we're

creating a blue ribbon commission but

then but then he did say there's going

to be tariffs on Mexico in Canada uh

starting in February one of the

questions on tariffs has always been

does Donald Trump really really really

want to find a way to get to yes on

tariffs or does Donald Trump love the

ability to come into an negotiating room

and say if you don't give us everything

we want we'll tarff the hell out of you

like this is you know the the arguably

the signature policy win of Trump's

first term on immigration was getting

Mexico to agree to accept large numbers

of people AC you know across the border

who were waiting for Asylum hearings in

the United States which he accomplished

by threatening Mexico with really

punitive tariffs for months and months

and months so like I I think that that

this is all consistent with we're using

tariffs as a big stick and now that

Marco Rubio is actually Secretary of

State he gets to play good cop and go in

and tell Claudia Shin Bal here is the

way that you can avoid these tariffs

that the president really wants to put

on you but I have your back but I'm

actually not sure like it's it there

also really does seem to be a belief um

among Donald Trump himself and at least

some of the at least a professed belief

among some conservative intellectuals

that tariffs are affirmatively good for

America so if he ends up saying oh we've

suspended all tariffs because Canada you

know because we're taking the win with

Canada and Mexico and China does that

leave a constituency

unsatisfied I I think you know I think

some foreign leaders have to ask

themselves if they want to call the

bluff here you know because you're right

d right I mean Trump in his first term

pretty effectively wielded the threat of

tariffs as a kind of negotiating

strategy then during the last six months

of the presidential campaign um Trump's

business Community supporters were like

everywhere um in the business press and

amongst themselves telling people like

don't worry don't listen to what Janet

Yellen and KL Harris and you know as re

Klein are saying about this like the

president is just using this as a

negotiating tactic you know Trump during

lame duck he just tweeted or truth

social that there's going to be 25%

tariffs on Canada and Mexico and then

Trudeau put out some announcement that

was like we're going to get really tough

on Fentanyl and then Trump took yes for

an answer and was like oh the tariffs

are off but now he says they're going to

be back on and I hesitate these people

they got to listen to their own advisors

they got to think about what's what but

you know we all you don't want to be a

sucker in every negotiation right like

at a certain point somebody has to be

willing to say Mr trump it appears to me

from your behavior that you in fact know

that these tariffs are a bad idea and

are doing a ploy and I can like read to

you the passage from the art of the deal

where you talk about how you like to

a lot in negotiations and make

dumb threats and like if you do this it

will be bad for my country it'll be bad

for your country the exchange rates will

also adjust it's going to be political

blowback on you though not me because

people know this is your stunt and like

just like you know leave us alone it's

it's risky um but the fact that they

weren't in the day one right I mean it

it does call into question right that

like maybe these business guys were

correct I mean that's the question I

think I'm really asking here were the

business guys correct he doesn't want to

do this he's not going to do this I

thought it's been interesting that that

Bob ligher who was Trump's trade

representative in the first term and is

widely considered

probably the most effective single

member of the Trump Administration in

the first term is not anywhere there

right there was you you heard him talked

about for treasury secretary you heard

him talked about for Comm but he's in

Florida somewhere at the moment right

there's just New Yorker piece on him you

know it's not that the people who are

there are not pro tariff they've many of

them the head of the Council of economic

advisers has written you know positively

on tariffs Scott bessent the the

treasury secretary has talked about

tariffs but bessent has talked about

tariffs as a negotiating ttic and stenin

wrote an article for uh I think he just

like did it for his his hedge fund or

something and it's like what the article

quote unquote says is that like the

Liberals are wrong and tariffs are

really good but then the analysis is

that tariffs actually won't raise prices

because exchange rates will adjust and

that means that you want to make the

tariffs phase in slowly so that

financial markets have time to adjust

the tariffs and it all just seems like a

way to say that you're for tariffs while

actually acknowledging that they're

bad one view I guess is that Trump was

like tricked by these guys I I don't

know I I kind of feel like I I've been

looking at all the like obsequious

flattery that different CEOs have been

throwing Trump's way and I'm like do I

really think that Donald Trump is such a

like naive py as everybody is saying and

it's like everyone knows the way to

Trump's heart is with like completely

disingenuous flattery or does he just

enjoy this right like as a thing he

thinks it's funny that he can make the

Monkeys dance by putting it out there

that like if you say nice things about

Trump he'll like you no I I would go

further than this I I think it I think

you're missing an option on that so one

of the things going on right now is this

announcement of Stargate a Consortium of

companies working on AI who want to put

in huge amounts of money into energy and

AI data center infrastructure and

Stargate was going on and getting ready

and people were working on this before

Donald Trump became president then he

became president and now they're like

thank you Donald Trump we couldn't do it

without you which in some technical

sense is probably true it's useful to

have the the help of the the president

but it's not a trump initiative um but

then Elon Musk who hates Sam Alman and

is suing open AI for turning himself

into a for-profit or trying to turn

himself into a

for-profit he tweeted something mean at

Sam Altman I I don't remember exactly

what and then he and Alman got into a SP

musk said they don't actually have the

money yeah something and then Alman came

back and was like you know I hope that

in your new role you mostly make

decisions that are good for America so

that was interesting and then the next

day Sam Alman comes out and says I

really realize that I completely

misjudged Donald Trump in the first term

I was thinking like a an NPC which is a

like right-wing internet meme for

non-player character coming from video

games which is like a crazy thing to say

about yourself but whatever and that

Trump is going to be so great for

America and and I've really turned

around on this whole thing and I'm sorry

for underestimating him before but I am

all in I'm paraphrasing him that's

functionally what he

says maybe that's how he feels maybe

it's half how he feels but certainly

looks like he's now trying to

outmaneuver musk right Trump excited

about Stargate musk is undermining

Stargate and now Alman comes in and says

God Trump is so great well and musk

retweeted a December

2021 Altman tweet where Altman had been

praising Reed Hoffman for how much he

spent on defeating Trump and saying that

like liberals don't know like how much

they should appreciate Reed Hoffman the

point I want to make on all this because

it's amazing to talk about I guess and

depressing but is it something I think

there's another option between Trump is

a py who will believe any level of

flattery no matter how disingenuous

and uh Trump is a cynic who just enjoys

the

flattery which is that Trump understand

speech as a form of action and

commitment and that whether you believe

it or not when you go out and you say I

am Pro Trump and he is a genius you have

either subtly or aggressively shifted

who you are in public if you're Sam mman

or somethingone like that in ways that

then change how you have to act and who

your allies are and you know in the same

way that making Sean Spicer say that the

inauguration crowds were the biggest

ever was a way of you know arguably I me

you see this a lot in authoritarian

countries enforcing that loyalty test

makes it people who have taken it more

loyal because there other options to

become worse right Sam Altman is

probably held in worse repute in the

Democratic party today and to be fair

Democrats were already annoying him by

sending him letters about why he was

donating so much to the inauguration

fund but if you move Sam mman out of the

democratic party because you get him to

say very nice things about Trump and

that makes Democrats mad at him and then

he gets mad at the Democrats then you

actually have increased his loyalty

whatever the real content of the

flattery was because to speak that way

is to take an action it's to reorient

your alliances and then your incentives

change and they change in a pro Trump

way I'm not saying Trump is a mastermind

lots of strongman leaders have come to

this Theory independently it's just a

way human beings work I mean it's a way

corporations work you make people go out

and whether or not they really agree

with the new corporate policy if they

have to say they agree with it then they

sort of have to act more like they agree

with it but but that's what I read is

happening here so we need a a Michael

Bennett Sam Alman beer Summit where they

can they can talk about their letter

sending no I mean that that all make

sense I think it's like a year ago I was

really maybe even six months I was

really on like no like Trump is a tarff

fanatic like that's why he keeps talking

about this that's why he's having so

much problems with these things but

there are now they are now doubts

significant doubts in my mind based on

the team that he's assembled because he

has to your point gotten them to sort of

say that they're for tariffs but they

kept enough caveats in that analysis

right like they didn't act if you look

at Besson statements mirin's statements

the things that they've put on paper

they did not like burn their Bridges

with conventional neoclassical economic

analysis which is different from there

was this Wilbur Ross paper where they

were like net Imports are subtracted

from the GDP calculus so therefore if we

balance trade GDP will go up and that's

totally wrong that's like really bad

economics and everybody wrote that was

like these guys are numb skulls um and

so that was this kind of bridge burning

movement right where if you're willing

to make a statement like that you are

not going to be like welcomed back in

the polite Society of people who

understand um International Trade

whereas like this Marin thing where like

well it might generate some revenue and

the equilibrium price effects are not

actually that large that's like I think

not what most people think but it's

reasonable all of this is unpredictable

uh my wife and I are thinking about

buying a new car we were asking

ourselves like do we need to rush out

and get it uh before the tariffs come in

and we're like I don't know it's like

exchange rate might adjust like we don't

know what's going to happen there could

be retaliation that actually makes

things cheaper the world is complicated

and like on that level of tariff defense

that they've come up with is um

respectable enough that it just kind of

makes me think like maybe this is just

just for show and you know I'll I'll eat

my words when uh imported fertilizer all

has a 20% tax and nobody can buy bananas

but the like the question of

predictability is what like I cannot get

my head around though because like in

economics as it's understood like and I

didn't think this was particularly

controversial like the important the the

fundamental Insight of Law and E

economics is that firms require

predictability from the government in

order to make internal decisions not

knowing whether they are going to be

tariffs on your products or whether

you're going to have to you know devote

a tremendous amount of you know

attention Capital to flattering the

president and having your CEO do that

instead of a lot of other things your

CEO could be doing like you can imagine

that being a problem it does seem to me

that like at a certain level there

should that like the inab to know

whether there are going to be these

massive tariffs has to have some kind of

KnockOn economic effect right but only

if you buy that it only has a

unpredictability effect if the business

Community actually acts like it's

unpredictable but I think they've all

persuaded themselves perhaps correctly

that it's not unpredictable that you

might have specific tariffs and we've

already been having tariff back and

forth with China for some time including

under Biden so I think there is an

expectation that you're going to have uh

tariffs on China those might go up up

that's probably somewhat priced in but

you know the business world is not

acting like we're going to have 20%

tariffs or 10% tariffs on on everything

if it happens then yeah that's going to

be a

hit but in part because they're not

preparing it that's actually a hedge

against it happening in a strange way

like the worst hit you can persuade

Donald Trump it will be to the stock

market the less likely he is to do it

like you could really imagine a day

where there's a big Wall Street Journal

story and it says on Monday the tariffs

are happening it's happening it's on and

then it's going to be a crash and then

there's a three and a half you know

there's a some significant drop in the

in the Dow and then all of a sudden

they're not happening on Monday right

that that that's a thing I'm I a little

bit think is going on here by acting

like it's not happening you probably

make it a little bit less likely that it

happens one of the other dogs that is

barking a little bit more quietly than

it was maybe a month ago in between

Donald Trump winning and Donald Trump

taking office we heard a lot about Doge

the department of governmental

efficiency sure did co-run by vivec

ramaswami and Elon Musk and they're all

over X and having big debates about H1B

visas and you know what spending to cut

and there was a big wall shoot Journal

oped they did where they said that they

were um going to advise Doge at every

step to pursue three major kinds of

Reform regulatory recisions

administrative reductions and cost

savings uh musk talked at times about

cutting as much as $2 trillion from the

federal government then said you know

maybe you don't get quite there but you

cut a trillion

dollars now we see the EO on doge

ramaswami is

out and the executive order's mandate is

quote modernizing Federal technology and

software to maximize governmental

efficiency and

productivity what what happened there

it's a little bit hard to say um I mean

so literally right uh the it was the

Obama Administration created the United

States digital service uh back when

exciting Silicon Valley entrepreneurs

are mostly Democrats with this idea that

you could improve the efficiency of

government by having like Elite uh Tech

Strike Team I I know people who've

worked there uh doge is now going to be

the new name of the usds which will be

the United States Doge service so that

they can reuse the logo uh which I guess

is efficient um and it is now zeroed in

on changing uh it procurement which

seems like a good idea from everything

that I've heard about Federal it

procurement it is an area that is ripe

for reform and some increased efficiency

I mean when all these doop Eds were

flying around I think if you looked at

you know the more sober-minded uh people

in conservative think tank land they

were all saying like guys like this

isn't going to work that's not how the

government works like you can't you

can't just come to the agency and say ah

there aren't regulations anymore because

I mean I don't know what to say like

it's the government we have laws we have

courts we have the administrative

procedure act it is true that the

government is not run as efficiently as

a well-run startup uh because unlike at

a well-run startup you can't just decide

something isn't working and shut it down

you can't just lay somebody off because

you think they're super like all all of

that is accurate but it's like it's

genuinely true it's not like it you have

to change it through legislation right

and it's just it's not like it never

occurred to anybody that it might be

more fun for the president of the United

States to just be able to make stuff up

or tell people what they should do um

you have to implement the laws that

exist yeah and I also have questions

about who exactly it is who did that

realizing right like it is clear that

whoever on the transition team was

responsible for drafting executive order

related to Doge had that

realization has Elon Musk come to that

conclusion that he can't just Waltz into

you know the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco

and Firearms and say 50% of you are

fired and the other 50% have to show me

20 pages of code one of the things that

as we sort of come to a close here I

have been trying to to read the leaves

on is what is Donald Trump's

relationship with Congress and

legislation about to be compared to

every other presidency I have ever seen

come in this one has come in with nobody

really talking about big bills they want

to pass and on everything we have spoken

about from uh energy to the economy to

immigration to it procurement in the

federal Workforce right and what who you

can fire and who you can't all of that

could be much more ambitiously reshaped

through legislation yep we know in the

background that Mike Johnson with his

extremely narrow majority is working on

a tax bill I think everybody expects a

bill updating and expanding Trump's tax

cuts uh and extending them to to at

least be proposed at some

point but they seem just really intent

on what they can do individually I'm

curious how Daren then Matt you all are

reading what seems like a very executive

focused presidency but in being

executive focused is giving up on a

certain amount of ambition that you only

have if you are going to really work on

a legislative

agenda I think that everyone is very

comfortable with the equilibrium we've

seen over the last like 10 years or so

of instead of instead of policy

originating in congress with legislation

policy originates in the executive

branch then via litigation it gets pted

to the judicial branch to issue a thumbs

up or thumbs down on and and half of

Congress is responsible for turning the

judge machine on and off like that is

the equilibrium we have Congress has not

been super interested in legislating

under presidents of either party and so

it is not that surprising to me that an

Administration that is very focused on

areas where there is a lot of executive

leeway in terms of you know trade

negotiations and immigration enforcement

is has the general attitude that they're

going to see how far far they can get

with the executive branch and know that

Congress isn't going to stand up for its

prerogative as the legislative branch

and like try to stop them from doing

things that might have been seen as

quasi legislative action in the past

well so just one thing I wanted to flag

that it to me is like it's small but it

but it really um signifies what you're

talking about which is that the

Congressional tax writers told the

transition do not issue an executive

order resending Joe Biden electric

vehicle regulations we want to put that

into the tax bill because since there

are tax credits for people who buy EVS

if you resend it in a bill that scores

as saving money and you can use that to

offset the cost of the tax cuts and then

like there were stories that like it's

all squared away like they're not going

to do this executive order it's going to

be part of the pay fors it was in the

the the menu of of spending reductions

and then Trump just did it right like it

was not just that he's taking action on

his own rather than waiting for Congress

or engaging with Congress he did

something that Congressional Republicans

like specifically asked him not to do

because they were going to do it right I

mean it wasn't a disagreement and it

would make it easier for them to do

other things he wants them to do

supposedly and I think you know I I

think the Paradox of trump as leader of

the Republican party for a long time now

is that he is just not as interested in

Chang ing American public policy as the

typical highl politician is it's been

very um like politically potent of him

to just kind of like cut off the

anti-abortion movement at the legs once

it became politically inconvenient for

him he's a very dominating presence in

Republican politics um Joe Biden spent

like like a lot of time worrying about

blowback from the left over various

things and showing that he was

delivering but like with Trump you know

the the presence the Persona the lib

owning the the the announcements kind of

are delivering for his core supporters

and I don't think he stays up at night

worrying if they wind up needing to

settle for a temporary extension rather

than a permanent tcja like I'm really

going to be in for it you know but like

it's actually a really big deal like

there's a reason like Earnest

Congressional Republicans would strongly

prefer to find enough offsets to make

this permanent because if you make it

permanent that makes life a lot more

difficult for the next Democratic

president if it's temporary and a

Democrat wins in 2028 or 2032 that's

that's like way better for the cause of

progressive

politics it's not like Trump won't sign

the permanent version or that he opposes

this kind of thing but like he's clearly

not that invested in this question of

permanent policy change and again I mean

I I was saying this about immigration

stuff like I think he's he's made so

much Headway politically with this that

like he could get stuff done in a

bipartisan way that overcomes the

filibuster that is hard to reverse but

it doesn't that doesn't seem that

important to him versus the position

taking the sense of action but he

genuinely appears to be a much more

forceful presence who dominates the

scene and like he's he's really into

that and I I just don't I don't know

that he that he cares about the

permanence that comes with legislation I

think that is a good place to end always

our found a question what are three

books you would recommend to the

audience and dar why don't we start with

you um this is like the most good

government Normy take to have on this

particular week but uh I think that like

the fifth Risk by Michael Lewis is

probably a good book to revisit if you

if you have it and to skim if you

haven't read it checked it out yet just

for a reminder of the innumerable things

that the Federal government does that a

like broad-based attack on the civil

service is going to end up you know

degrading it some in some form or

another uh demon Copperhead was the only

novel I read twice last year and I think

that it is the rebuttal to all of the

you know pseudo sentimental like Hil

hbil elogy debate in terms of what

really happened to the rural poor over

the last 25 years uh and if I don't say

an immigration book I'm probably going

to be fired so everyone who has gone is

here by Jonathan Blitzer specifically

the first half um which talks about the

80s and has really great archival

material uh as a reminder that like

Government is made of people and people

make decisions Matt uh Tim Shanks book

left a drift is a great sort of

intervention into the like what's up

with Democrats um kind of debate looking

historically at Bill Clinton and uh to

an extent Barack Obama but also a lot of

Tony Blair at Hood Rock sort of Center

left figures um very good stuff um Mark

dunan has a book that is I think not

quite out yet uh but I read in in G is

and that is going to be released in a

couple weeks I just read it as well it's

called why nothing works it's um not it

covers similar themes to your book uh

but more detail abundance coming out in

March yeah but more more detail on a

narrower set of topics um and you'll

really learn a lot about the history of

kind of big infrastructure projects uh

I've also I've been trying to reclaim my

kind of uh scrambled uh cognition uh in

the uh New Era so I'm reading old long

novels uh Middle March is by many

people's estimate uh the greatest

English language novel ever written I

read on the internet um so I read it

it's really good you know it's some the

conventional wisdom they just like they

really nailed that one um it's by George

Elliott you can get it for like 20 cents

on an ebook version public domain is

lovely um you'll learn something and

you'll you'll learn how to read long

sentences uh which is miraculous in this

day and age darland M glacius thank you

very much thank you thank you

[Music]

[Music]