[music]

Brigid Bergin: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Brigid Bergin, senior reporter in the WNYC and Gothamist newsroom. Happy Passover to our Jewish listeners. One quick note about Brian. Some of you may have heard him talking about this last week, but he'll be out this week for cataract surgery on his second. He had the first eye done a couple weeks ago and will be back next week. Brian, we're thinking of you. We hope you feel better. Coming up on today's show, we'll talk about the major impact President Trump's tariffs are already having and will have on our local economy. Between Wall Street, small businesses that are struggling to figure out their new costs, the city and state budgets and tourism, the effects of the trade war are already being felt here, here. Plus, for our centennial series, 100 years of 100 things, we'll look at the 100-year history of Catholics in the United States. It's also the centennial of the liberal Catholic magazine, Commonweal. My guest to guide us through will be the magazine's editor.

Lastly, tomorrow is tax day, so procrastinators, we're going to give you some advice on how to get it done or maybe how to file that extension. First, the US Senate and House of Representatives are both in spring recess. Given all the news coming out of the Trump administration last week, especially related to trade policy, you might have missed some of the drama over the nation's budget.

While we are far from a final spending plan, Republicans in the Senate and House both adopted blueprints that will pave the way for specific legislation that will detail tax and spending cuts. Getting to this point did not come without some drama for the majority Republican Party. Joining me now to catch us up on where things stand and what to watch for while lawmakers are in recess and when they return later this month is Catie Edmondson, congressional correspondent for The New York Times. Catie, welcome back to WNYC.

Catie Edmondson: Good morning. Thanks for having me.

Brigid Bergin: Listeners, especially listeners in districts with Republican representatives, we'd love to hear from you. What are you hearing from your member about the recent budget blueprint? How are you feeling about the direction of this Congress? We reported on proposed cuts to federal programs like Medicaid, the cuts to anti-poverty childcare programs like Head Start. What are you starting to see in your own community? What questions do you have for the role of Congress for my guest, New York Times congressional correspondent Catie Edmondson? The number, 212-433 WNYC. That's 212-433-9692. You can call or text that number.

Catie, I know there was a lot of back and forth over the budget blueprint last week, so I'd love for you to walk us through some of those negotiations. Just to set the scene, I wonder if you could talk about the stakes for this moment. We are less than 100 days into the second Trump administration. What do Republicans in the House and Senate see as their role in terms of advancing or checking in whatever way they see his agenda going forward?

Catie Edmondson: Well, the legislation that we're talking about, which is going to be based on this blueprint that the House and Senate just approved as of last week, is really the centerpiece of President Trump's domestic legislative agenda. This is the legislation that is supposed to carry the extension of the tax cuts that President Trump signed into law in 2017. It is supposed to carry a number of new tax cuts that he explicitly campaigned on in the fall, on the campaign trail, that's things like no tax on tips, no tax on overtime. It also is supposed to carry money for border security, which was obviously a huge aspect of what President Trump campaigned on.

There's enormous pressure on Republicans on Capitol Hill to deliver for President Trump. As you alluded, too, there was a lot of drama over just getting the budget resolution over the finish line, but really the hard work for them begins right now.

Brigid Bergin: Catie, I was looking back at all the stories you wrote last week. I feel like you were filing something almost every single day because there was so much happening on the Hill. I want to go all the way back to last weekend when that blueprint got through a Senate vote late, it was late at night, and Democrats introduced a series of what seemed to amount to maybe political accountability measures more than anything else. Can you explain what some of those amendments were and what this so called vote-a-rama was all about?

Catie Edmondson: That's right. The process that Republicans are using to try to push this big budget bill through is called reconciliation. It is a special measure that a party can use when they have a trifecta, when they have the House, the Senate and the White House. Democrats used this process to push through the Inflation Reduction Act under President Biden, for example.

One of the features of the reconciliation process in the Senate is that when the Senate moves to push through a budget resolution, the minority party gets to have this vote-a-rama in which they can force politically painful votes. Basically, all night, they vote on these amendments. It's a performative process, I'll be honest with you, because generally, it is assumed that none of these amendments will be adopted. That's because it would basically derail the process of actually getting the budget resolution through, but it really affords the minority party to say, "We're going to force the majority party to take some tough votes."

I think it was no surprise that we saw Democrats force votes late Saturday night last weekend on issues like DOGE, asking Republican senators to vote on if they supported some of the work that Elon Musk has been doing, particularly when it comes to trying to make reductions, staff reductions at places like the Social Security Administration. We also saw them force a number of votes on saying, "Look, here's your opportunity now to say that you don't want to vote to cut Medicaid."

Again, these were amendments that Republicans knew if they actually voted to support, which would derail the whole process. We did see a handful of Republican senators actually join with Democrats on some of these amendments not to pass them, but just as individual displays of support.

Brigid Bergin: I want to talk a little bit more about anything else that stood out to you about some of those amendments that were introduced. Just as we started talking, Catie, the phone started to light up because a lot of listeners, I think, have questions about what is happening on the Hill and want to talk about what's happening right in their district. We're taking your calls from New York Times congressional correspondent Catie Edmondson. Again, the number is 212-4433 WNYC. That's 212-433-9692. You can call or text at that number.

We're particularly interested this morning in listeners in districts with Republican representatives, since that's the party that has the most control. Let's go to Frank in Lakewood, New Jersey. Frank, thanks so much for calling.

Frank: No, thank you for taking my call. My name is Frank and I live in Lakewood, New Jersey. Our House representative is Chris Smith. Now, he's been in office-- a Republican, has been in office for 40 years. Basically he's a pretty good guy, but I've been calling his office, writing letters asking him to hold town hall meetings. It just seems like Republican House members are just not even exercising their role as a co-equal branch in government. They're just laying down and giving Trump a rubber stamp to just about everything he's proposing. We voted for him, not Trump. He should listen to his constituents and hear our concerns. I'm just surprised he has not held one town hall meeting at all.

Brigid Bergin: Frank, can I ask you, just-

Frank: Go ahead.

Brigid Bergin: -Is that a change? Is he someone who had traditionally had that kind of outreach within his district, and do you feel like that's a shift, or are you asking him to do something that he hasn't done before previously?

Frank: Well, I can only speak from my own experience. I've only lived here for six years and I can't recall him ever holding a town meeting. Now maybe he has held them. I just can't recall him ever holding any. It just seems not only him, but Republican House members in general, very few of them are even holding town hall meetings. It's almost as if they don't care about us or even want to hear what we have to say. They don't even want to address our concerns. It seems like they're beholden to Trump and Elon Musk.

Brigid Bergin: Frank, thank you so much for that. Sorry to cut you off there. Catie, I wanted to just give you a chance before-- We're going to keep unpacking some of the budget last week. What Frank is raising there is something that I think has been reported that fewer Republican members particularly are holding those kinds of town halls in their communities. We also just got a text from a listener that wrote, "I live on Staten Island. We had an empty chair town hall in New York 11 on April 5th for our absent representative, Malliotakis. The number I keep hearing is 34% of New York 11 depends, in some way, on Medicare. People from all corners of the district were at the meeting and there's a lot of anger and fear."

Of course, Staten Island and a small piece of Brooklyn is a Republican district here in New York City. Catie, what were you hearing from some of these members as they were heading out on recess? Was there plans to abstain from these town halls because of concerns from constituents?

Catie Edmondson: Well, look, something that I reported, and time is really a blur at this point on the Hill, but I think it was about a month ago, was that House Republican leadership actually explicitly advised their members not to hold in-person town halls. They said, "We certainly encourage you to hold telephone town halls. If there's some types of online forums that you can put together, that would be great."

Their rationale was that they were saying, "Look--" I think we've seen across the country now, certainly some of my colleagues have gone out into fairly reddish conservative districts where they've seen protests about proposed cuts to Medicaid, about Elon Musk and the work that DOGE is doing. Republican leadership has said, "These are obviously protests that are being staged by liberal activists. They're not representative of the voters in your district. We recommend that you do not have those in-person town halls."

What we've seen is that a lot of Republican members have listened to them. We have seen a handful of Republicans continue to have in-person town halls. In those town halls that some of my colleagues have gone to, they continue to catch hell from their constituents. I think it is not really a surprise that we are seeing a smaller and smaller number of Republican lawmakers hold these because they're acting on explicit guidance from their leaders.

Brigid Bergin: Catie, we've got more callers who are going to share some of those stories, but I want to get through a little bit more of the substance of what happened on the Senate side, because there's a lot to talk about on the House side. You were mentioning some of those amendments that were introduced by Democrats, which were not expected to pass, largely performative, as you mentioned, but some close votes on funding for Ukraine, cuts to Medicare, even an amendment that seemed to reference that group chat on the commercial messaging app signal by top defense and security officials. Did Democrats feel like they they gained anything in those measures politically, if nothing else?

Catie Edmondson: It's hard to say because in theory, what they would really try to do with those votes would be to weaponize them in campaign ads. For example, later an ad that said, "Senator so-and-so voted against protecting Medicaid," for example. The real utility of some of those votes, for me at least, was identifying which Republicans are maybe feeling more uneasy about some of the changes that we're seeing take place at the federal government, whether that is at the behest of people like Elon Musk or even if it's uncomfortableness with some of the changes that their own party is proposing.

Some of the Republicans who joined onto some of those amendments that you mentioned, for example, the one to ensure that US Aid to Ukraine is not disrupted, weren't really surprises, people like Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, who typically are seen as centrists who are more willing to buck their party. There were some Republicans that also took votes with Democrats on these amendments that were a little bit more surprising. Dan Sullivan of Alaska joined with Democrats to vote on an amendment that essentially was a rebuke of some of the DOGE initiatives to cut staffing at the Social Security Administration.

That was interesting because you started to see some of these Republicans-- again, it certainly was a symbolic rebuke, but you started to see them display or at least telegraph some unhappiness with some of those changes.

Brigid Bergin: Finally, 2:30 in the morning on Saturday, this Senate blueprint gets through and it goes to the House, but things looked far from certain as the week started in the House. We knew that there were some Republican holdouts. Who were these folks? We're talking about some folks who are pretty staunch Trump supporters, right?

Catie Edmondson: Yes, that's right. It's interesting because the two groups of holdouts here have been vastly different constituencies. We've heard from some of the frontline Republicans, more moderates who represent real purple districts. We've heard from them some unhappiness or some concern about some of the proposed cuts to federal programs that this legislation may very well end up containing.

The real holdouts, the real problems for Speaker Mike Johnson last week were, in fact, the ultra conservatives in his conference, people who view themselves as being real MAGA loyalists, real Trump diehard supporters. They were objecting to this really on classic Tea Party fiscal hawk grounds. They were saying, "This is a resolution that is going to tee up far more in federal spending than we are willing to really accept."

A large part of that is actually because of a budgetary sleight of hands that the Senate agitated for, including in this resolution. It gets wonky, but basically, they have said, rather than scoring in our own resolution when it comes to figuring out how much this is going to cost, rather than saying extending the tax cuts will cost, say, $4 trillion, which is what most nonpartisan budgetary scorekeepers have said, they've said, "Well, actually, it's going to cost us nothing because we're actually just continuing current policy. We're just maintaining the status quo, and so really we're just keeping those tax cuts going. We're not going to count that as a cost that we then have to offset."

That was very upsetting to a number of conservatives in the House who said, "That's a budgetary gimmick that I can't go for." We also had Republicans in the House saying that they wanted to see deeper spending cuts or get some sort of guarantee that there were going to be much deeper cuts to federal programs than maybe some senators signaled they were comfortable with.

Brigid Bergin: Just so people understand the stakes here and maybe people who aren't keeping score, so to speak, as closely as someone like you may be, how close is the current margin in the House? How many votes can Johnson afford to lose on any given vote if Democrats remain united?

Catie Edmondson: It's really close, and it depends on who shows up. Right now, if all Democrats show up and are present and stick together, he can only afford to lose three votes. There are two Republicans who are largely seen as being people who will never support this endeavor, so that gives him basically one more defector.

Brigid Bergin: Wow. You reported that President Trump met privately with some of the more recalcitrant members. Any sense of what the tone of that meeting was? Are we talking persuasion, coercion, a little bit of both?

Catie Edmondson: It's one of the things that was really interesting about last week, because I think it's well known at this point that President Trump is not afraid to bring the hammer down on members he views as being insufficiently supportive. In the past, he's, of course, threatened to primary Republicans, threatened to find a challenger to run against them, which is really the biggest political nightmare for a lot of these conservatives.

I'm told that that was not the tenor of this past week's meeting at the White House. I'm told that he was quite open to listening with Republicans, made the case that he really needed them to support this budget resolution because it is the centerpiece, really, it tees up the centerpiece of his legislative agenda. We did not see the full force whipping mechanism in place from President Trump himself. I think that's one of the reason why this did become a prolonged issue that Speaker Mike Johnson ultimately had to adjudicate for himself.

Brigid Bergin: Yet the President did make some comments that were pretty tough at the National Republican Congressional Committee's event. Here's a little bit of what he said.

President Trump: Stop showboating. A couple of people want to, "Sure, I got to get a little bit more." A little bit more? You know what you're going to get? You end up getting nothing. You end up getting a Democrat bill or worse.

Brigid Bergin: Of course, that's President Trump there speaking last week at a national Republican Congressional event. Catie, certainly the tone there sounds more classic President Trump. How effective was his lobbying ultimately?

Catie Edmondson: Even though he, himself, did not engage in some of the more aggressive maneuvers that we've seen, for example, in the past, he's individually called members and demanded that they vote for it, sometimes even on the House floor while a vote is being held open. I think fundamentally, the message that a lot of these Republicans got was, "Look, voters have given you a governing trifecta. This is what President Trump wants." I think a lot of them simply did not want to be the person who was seen as standing in the way of making that all happen.

Brigid Bergin: As you said, high stakes moment. Speaker Johnson really had to adjudicate it. He's had repeated challenges trying to corral this conference. How did things break down on Wednesday, and then what changed on Thursday?

Catie Edmondson: There was supposed to be a vote to adopt this budget resolution on Wednesday evening. As lawmakers were heading to the House floor to cast their votes, it seemed clear that Speaker Johnson, in fact, did not have the votes to get that resolution adopted. That wasn't that surprising, to be honest, because this is a playbook that he has used over and over to great success, frankly, is that he will call lawmakers' bluffs. He'll say, "You're a holdout. Let's have the vote. Let's see you cast your vote in opposition to President Trump's agenda or to this measure that President Trump wants." He often works over these holdouts on the House floor.

We've seen some marathon sessions where he's arm-twisting on the House floor. You can see it in public view. Ultimately, those holdouts typically end up voting yes. Wednesday was unusual because we knew that there were at least a dozen Republicans, if not more, who were saying that they would not support the budget resolution. Sometimes when you get that strength in numbers, it becomes easier for them to hold out.

We saw Speaker Johnson take the holdouts off the House floor, meet with them in an anteroom. They were discussing, negotiating for quite some time. After about an hour, Republican leadership came back and they canceled the vote, they moved on to another vote. That was a major signal, I would say, that something was amiss.

Brigid Bergin: Well, we need to take a short break. Much more with my guest, New York Times congressional correspondent Catie Edmondson, soon. Plus your calls coming up.

[music]

Brigid Bergin: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Brigid Bergin filling in for Brian today, my guest is New York Times congressional correspondent Catie Edmondson. Catie, just as we were going to a break, you left us on the cliffhanger. Speaker Johnson has taken the holdout members into the anteroom. He's giving them a talking to. He doesn't have the votes on Wednesday, and then Thursday rolls around and things change. What changed?

Catie Edmondson: Well, that's right. I think it's really a matter of who you talk to. On its face, it seems like nothing really changed. The text of the budget resolution that they approved did not change. What we were told by these conservative hardliners who were the holdout votes was that they received assurances from the White House and from Speaker Johnson and from the Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who's a Republican from South Dakota, that in the end the legislation Congress would approve would, in fact, have the deeper spending cuts that they had been agitating for.

They said that those assurances made them feel comfortable going ahead the next day to cast their vote. Again, I'm sure that those assurances did help them feel more comfortable casting these votes, but I do think the fact that there were not any changes to the actual text of the resolution does speak to that theme that we were talking about earlier, which is that no one really wants to be seen in the Republican Party right now as the impediment to President Trump getting what he wants out of his legislative agenda.

Brigid Bergin: Sure. Listeners, we are taking your calls for New York Times congressional correspondent Catie Edmondson. We're talking about the recent budget blueprints that passed the US House and Senate and your feelings about the direction of this Congress. We've reported about proposed cuts to federal programs like Medicaid, cuts to anti-poverty childcare programs like Head Start. We've heard that there may not be so many town halls, particularly in districts represented by Republicans. We want to know your experience. Let's go to Andrew in Ossining, that is in, I believe, Congressman Mike Lawler's district. Andrew, thanks for calling WNYC.

Andrew: Yes, good morning. I am a constituent of Congressman Lawler in New York 17. There have been no in-person town halls. He has said vaguely that he'll have one in Rockland in April and sometime in May for Westchester, but nothing has been specific. I really wanted to talk about his vote for the SAVE Act. He was then on Laura Ingraham show on Fox the other day where he agreed with her claims that libs just want illegals to vote, which is currently illegal anyway and statistically non-existent.

I'm very disappointed in terms of him trying to use that smoke screen where the SAVE act, as many people might know, is really an attempt to limit access to voting, especially for women, if their names do not match their birth certificate with their voter ID, because they might have a change in terms of their married name. Now, Lawler claims to be very bipartisan and he is a very important vote for Speaker Johnson, so he's really in a compromising position. He's trying to balance by saying he's very bipartisan, but so far he's really toed the line with Trump. He's also, I believe, very interested in potentially running for governor.

Brigid Bergin: Andrew, thanks so much for that call. I want Catie to give you a chance to weigh in on that. Maybe for our listeners who are not familiar with the SAVE Act, although it's getting more and more attention, if you could talk a little bit about what it is and why folks like Andrew are concerned that it might impede people's ability to vote.

Catie Edmondson: Sure. The SAVE Act is centerpiece, I would say, of, at least over in the House, the Republican agenda. It's legislation that would require people to prove that they are US citizens when they register to vote. It would order states to obtain some sort of proof of citizenship from someone who is trying to register to vote, so that would be a passport or a birth certificate, and then it would additionally require states to remove non-citizens from their voter rolls.

This is all in an effort to address what Republicans say is the issue of election fraud, which obviously was a central tenet of President Trump's campaign message, which I think, largely been debunked. I think it faces pretty long odds in the Senate because you would need to have seven Democrats join Republicans to allow it to proceed to a vote. The concern that the caller referenced is the idea that, particularly, if you are a woman who gets married, changes her name, the idea that providing some paperwork that shows that you are a US citizen, your birth certificate certainly would not have your married last name on it.

That is a concern that is not just hypothetical or theoretical, but actually was born out in a New England state. I believe it was New Hampshire, in a town where they tried to enact a provision similar to that. We heard Democrats give voice to those concerns during debate on the House floor when that legislation was voted on earlier this week.

Brigid Bergin: Let's take another caller. We'll go to John in Monmouth County, New Jersey. John, thanks for calling.

John: Thanks so much. Hey, I'm down here in Chris Smith land, one of our Republican Congress members from New Jersey. He was quoted recently saying, "We need the tax cuts." I'm just saying I don't really feel overly taxed by the federal government. I don't I think my taxes are going to go down as a result of the tax cuts in this.

I have a question for your guest. I've heard that things that aren't really related to the budget, like offshore oil drilling are going to be pushed through as part of this budget package. Is that true? If that is true, I feel like all constituents should call up Chris Smith and anybody and just say, "We don't want offshore oil drilling just so you can get this budget package through." Do you know if that's true?

Catie Edmondson: I'm really grateful for the question, actually, because it gives me a chance to step back. The budget resolution that was passed this week is really a bare bones skeletal structure. Lawmakers approved certain spending levels that they said, "We want to cut this much spending in these jurisdictions over the next 10 years." They said, "We want to be able to raise tax taxes by this amount."

The hard part now is that lawmakers have to agree on where they're going to find those spending cuts, which taxes they're actually going to cut, and for how long. Part of what you're talking about is as part of this package, they're also looking to find some spending offsets. They know that they are going to have to pay for, for example, some of the tax cuts that they want to enact.

We have heard discussion about, for example, whether or not we should try to sell off some of our federal public lands to be able to say, "Look, we're actually bringing in this revenue that will help us offset the costs of some of the tax cuts that we, as Republicans, want to enact." I would say one of the things that is so amorphous about this debate is that the legislation that they passed last week just lays out those top line spending levels. Now they really have to get down to the hard work of figuring out, "Which taxes do we cut? What federal programs do we cut?"

Brigid Bergin: What we've heard so far in response from Democrats to the overall blueprint and cuts to potential programs like Medicaid and Social Security is to blame Republicans for going after these safety net programs, to blame folks like Elon Musk and DOGE for looking at extending things like those 2017 tax cuts that you've been talking about that are set to expire this year. I heard that there was actually some talk of raising the top tax rate on the wealthiest Americans, but just yesterday on Fox Business, Speaker Johnson seemed to shoot that notion down.

Speaker Johnson: We're the Republican Party and we're for tax reduction for everyone. That's a general principle that we always try to abide by. There's lots of discussion, lots of ideas on the Hill. People have different thoughts and theories on how we can solve this perfect equation to get all of this done. I wouldn't put any money on any of that yet. I guess everybody, I would say just stay tuned. The next five to six weeks are going to be critical as all these negotiations happen in the committees of jurisdiction.

Brigid Bergin: Catie, as you said, the hard work begins really when they get back from this recess. What's the tension that you're seeing over the fight for tax cuts?

Catie Edmondson: I think this is the issue. This illustrates exactly how fraught of an endeavor this is going to be. Republicans need to get the math to work. At the same time, although I would say there's unanimity in wanting to push through some sort of reconciliation bill to get President Trump everything he wants, there are a lot of disagreements within the Republican Party between the House and the Senate.

Even internally in the House, there's certainly a lot of disagreements among lawmakers over probably most issues that we're talking about. Should taxes be raised on the highest earners? That's an idea that there's actually some support for in the White House, but as we just heard, that's something that Speaker Johnson does not like when it comes to federal spending cuts.

There are a lot of ultra conservatives, the holdouts that we heard a lot from this past week, who would love to see large cuts to Medicaid, for example, who feel that it has become a program that is just bloated with fraud and waste. At the same time, you have politically vulnerable Republicans in districts whose constituents really rely on this program. not just constituents who are poor adults, but also children with disabilities, seniors who rely on Medicaid to keep them in nursing homes to get the care they need. The list goes on and on and on.

One other issue that is going to come up is whether or not to repeal the tax credits that were passed for green energy in President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. You're hearing from some conservatives that it should be entirely repealled. Just roll it entirely up. You're hearing from other Republicans who, in fact, have clean energy companies in their districts who provide a lot of jobs, who are saying, "Well, we can repeal some parts of it, but we need to preserve others because it's creating real jobs in my district." These are going to be the central tensions that need to get resolved for this to work. They really are just starting on resolving some of them now.

Brigid Bergin: Catie, what about, we're a day before tax day here in New York, and many Democratic and Republican representatives had vowed to fight to repeal the SALT tax cap. That's the limit set on the deduction for state and local taxes. Any sense of the status of that?

Catie Edmondson: That's right. It's still very much in flux, I would say. You certainly have a number of lawmakers from New York, New Jersey, California, the states and the districts where constituents really feel the impact of this, that they're trying to work out some sort of compromise. The Ways and Means Chairman, Jason Smith of Missouri has really been the one leading point on that, in particular, trying to figure out if they can iron out some provisions that make sure that married couples, for example, aren't essentially taxed twice and don't have to bear that burden.

This is an issue, again, that seems like a hyper local one in that there are certain delegations that have said it's a red line for them. I think it's a great question in that it points to some of these tensions that they're going to have to resolve aren't even necessarily ideological, but sometimes just come down to geography. Of course, that is just another headache for Speaker Johnson.

Brigid Bergin: Well, I'm not sure I'll frame it as a headache, but it's certainly a geographical issue for New Yorkers. New York saw Representative Elise Stefanik returned to the House after President Trump withdrew her nomination to be the ambassador to the United Nations. I guess that did, at least, create a wrinkle for Speaker Johnson because both the leadership and committee seats she previously held were now taken by other people. How did he resolve that?

Catie Edmondson: They had to figure out essentially how to integrate her back into the House. I think ultimately, he would say he's relieved to be able to make sure he has her vote. Without her vote, for example, they would not have been able to push through the budget resolution this past week. Instead he has named her as-- I think that it's elected chair of the Republican leadership. That's different than the chairwoman of the Republican Conference, which is the job that she used to hold. She used to hold the number four leadership position in the House.

That is essentially-- should be viewed as an olive branch to say, "We know that you're falling on your sword here to be able to make sure the House can continue to pass legislations, so thank you for your service, essentially, here. We've created a leadership position for you."

Brigid Bergin: Of course, the same time that these budget and leadership fights are playing out, last week, the markets were just seesawing in response to President Trump's on again, off again tariff announcements. What is the role of Congress in all of this? Were you hearing any of the jitters from lawmakers that we were hearing from economists and business leaders?

Catie Edmondson: Well, it's interesting. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska actually went onto the Senate floor this past week and gave, really, a forceful speech saying that she felt that Congress over the years, not just with this administration, had really ceded far too much of its authority over trade and tariffs to the executive branch. Of course, the president in his power as the commander in chief does have tariff authority himself.

Look, this is a big disconnect, I would say, between President Trump and most congressional Republicans. President Trump loves tariffs. I have heard him several times in speech just describe the word "tariff" as one of the most beautiful words in the English language. Meanwhile, there are a number of Republicans on the Hill who count themselves as free traders and generally do not like tariffs.

We've heard some uneasiness from them, particularly senators from the farm states, representatives who represent districts with heavy agriculture communities. I think the bottom line is a lot of these Republican lawmakers, rather than springing into action to try to turn off the tariffs, have largely said that they want to give President Trump time to play this out, to maybe bring some world leaders to the negotiating table.

I will say at the same time, there is an effort in the Senate to try to turn off some of the tariffs that I want to say-- I think it's about five Republican senators have joined onto, including Murkowski, Susan Collins and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. It's hard to see that going anywhere simply because even if both chambers were to pass it, President Trump would likely veto it, which would require two thirds of Congress to vote to override it. I think that would be too tall of a challenge for them to scale. I do think the fact that you're seeing more and more Republicans in the Senate sign onto it does show, at least, how unhappy they are under the service about the whipsaw of policies we've seen.

Brigid Bergin: Even just yesterday, the reports over the weekend were that some of the tariffs were going to carve out cell phones and computers, and then President Trump made some new comments on Air Force One saying that, well, they'd be carved out temporarily and suggested that some of those tariffs would come back in place. A lot of uncertainty, a lot of concerns from both lawmakers and economists and certainly, from our listeners as we've been hearing some frustration from people in those Republican districts about not being able to have the conversations that they'd like to have with their members.

We had a listener who wrote in that lives in Suffolk County, that's Representative Nick LaLota's district, who wrote, "Lalota did a phone-in town hall and it was 'total bs.' They cherry-picked callers." Again, frustration from constituents and listeners about not being able to relay those concerns to their members. Catie, we know you're going to have, hopefully, a little bit of a break while those members are on a break. We appreciate all of your great reporting and catching us up on all the happenings on the Hill. Catie Edmondson is congressional correspondent for The New York Times. Thank you so much for joining us. It sounds like May is going to be a marathon.

Catie Edmondson: It definitely will be. Thank you so much for having me.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.