[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. We have Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg on today's show. Bragg is even more in the news than usual right now. Between the Mangione case, the Penny case, the Trump hush money conviction which the judge just recently kept alive, there was last week's indictment of Mayor Adams' top aide, and now over the weekend, have you even heard the story yet?

The highest ranking uniformed officer in the NYPD, Jeffrey Maddrey, who had the title chief of department, has resigned amid an investigation into whether he demanded sexual favors multiple times in the last year from a lieutenant who works under his command in exchange for massive amounts of overtime. According to the New York Post, the lieutenant, a woman, was the NYPD's top earner last year, getting paid around $400,000, half of that in overtime. The Post says Maddrey, who is married, by the way, would have been the one to approve the lieutenants over time. And beyond that, the new police commissioner, Jessica Tisch, removed the head of the internal affairs division on Saturday.

The Post says Commissioner Tisch has spent much of December breaking up the so-called boys' club within the NYPD and forcing out the head of the Internal Affairs Bureau for his shoddy handling, as The Post calls it, of the Maddrey case. The allegations against Maddrey, too are now being investigated by the da Alvin Bragg. We'll see how many of those things we can get to when the DA joins us later this hour. Also today are 100 years of 100 things.

WNYC Centennial Series continues with thing number 51, 100 years of the American Wellness Movement with Shayla Love from The Atlantic, who has an extensive new article about that, about the through line that goes back really to the 19th century of people like RFK Jr. Who reject parts of modern medicine and modern life in favor of what they claim are more natural preventions and cures. The history she writes indicates that these wellness gurus are often partly right, but also dangerously wrong. That's coming up and we start here.

Imagine if the most powerful person in the world told you your identity doesn't exist and he had the power to act on it. For anyone listening right now who is transgender or non-binary, you don't have to imagine it. Here's what the most powerful person in the world, President-Elect Trump, said at a conservative rally conference in Arizona yesterday.

President-Elect Trump: Under the Trump administration, it will be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female. It doesn't sound too complicated, does it?

Brian Lehrer: With the stroke of a pen, which he says he'll do on day one, the person you are and believe yourself to be will not officially exist in the United States. We'll talk about that and more now, including how the Donald Trump-Elon Musk government shutdown drama ended on Friday night, why childhood cancer research and pharmacy benefit manager reform got left out of the deal, and what all these signals for the coming Trump years and therefore for all Americans. Our guest is Jonathan Lemire, just recently named a co-host of Morning Joe on MSNBC, where he had already been a regular presence.

This will include hosting the 9:00 AM hour and miraculously, just as that hour is now ending, Jonathan is graciously extending his day and coming on live with us. Jonathan, we always appreciate when you extend your day like this, and now even more than before. Congratulations on your promotion and welcome back to WNYC.

Jonathan Lemire: Brian, thank you for the kind words. I am always happy to be here, you and your show institution. I'm glad to play a small role. Happy holidays to you and your listeners.

Brian Lehrer: And to you. Now you get to sleep in, at least by the standards of morning television because you don't have to be on the air until 6:00 AM instead of your old 5:00 AM show. I guess it's a luxury, at least in relative morning shift terms, right?

Jonathan Lemire: Yes. Hey, look, I'll take the extra hour. I wound down my three years of host of Way Too Early, which is that 5:00 AM show on MSNBC. My last show was Friday, a great run. My thanks, of course, to everyone who worked on it. Then come January, officially moved to just simply to the Morning Joe role, which, as you hinted, I had for a while, but now that's becoming official. It's certainly an important time for all of us in the media to continue to cover what's coming around the globe, and certainly with the incoming new presidential administration.

Brian Lehrer: Indeed. There's a lot to get to even now before that new administration takes office. Let's start with this Trump speech in Arizona yesterday in which he previewed various things that are in his plan, including declaring that there are only two genders as an official policy of the United States. Has he previously announced a plan to make that declaration before, or was that a new thing?

Jonathan Lemire: This was new. He, of course, made transgenderism and identity a big part of his presidential campaign. In fact, strategists we talked to on both sides of the aisle suggest that the Trump ad that he ran in heavy rotation this fall going after attacking Democrats for being too focused on woke identity politics, including transgender issues, that that was very effective for Trump. It helped him with certain communities, male voters and Latino men in particular, the research shows. He had never been this explicit and it was interesting. He's for him, been remarkably offstage since election day.

Now he's still tweeting on Truth Social up a storm, but we haven't seen him that much. He's mostly holed up at Mar a Lago, meeting with his advisors, Elon Musk among them, and I know we'll talk about him in great depth shortly, and announcing all of his cabinet nominations and other appointments. This event over the week weekend in Phoenix at the Turning Point USA, it's a group of young conservatives, Charlie Kirk's group had the markings of a return to the stage and the closest thing he's held to a rally since election day.

He previewed what his administration would look like quickly the first hundred days. He did spend some time with more specificity about this, about what he means about just two genders. Now, he didn't spell out how this would happen. Certainly, there will be many challenges. It's not quite clear at all how this would become US Policy if he has his way. Certainly to your point of a few minutes ago, before I came on, one that has led to a lot of concern and fear among people in this country who suddenly feel like their very identity, their very sense of selves, may be jeopardy, at least in the eyes of the United States government.

Brian Lehrer: Coincidentally, I was going to do a segment later in the week on this show that centered that same idea that people in the Trump administration are known to have said transgender or non-binary people don't even exist. This goes back to one of the televised Republican primary debates when Vivek Ramaswamy, who is now partners with Elon Musk as co-chair of Trump's Government Efficiency Department. Vivek Ramaswamy had said in that debate that it was an original idea of the founders of this country in 1776, that there are only two genders.

I was going to say I'm going to have to read the Declaration of Independence more carefully to find that clause, but I was going to hang it on something Vivek Ramaswamy said a year and a half ago. Now we have Trump saying the same thing going all the way there to you don't exist just yesterday. Any idea as a political analyst or in any other way, why he's going even further in that direction?

Jonathan Lemire: This is something that the Trump people have always felt like was a winner for them. That the idea of transgender athletes in high school sports, which of course, it's a very, very, very, very small number. Look, it is in certain communities, it is looked upon with no issue whatsoever. In others, it's caused some outcry. Certainly, we could point to a few examples, Pennsylvania, Ohio High School Sports, the Collegiate Athlete out west. Is something that has become an issue. This is one of those issues where, where you get your news from, your news source will vary greatly as to how big of a deal you think it actually is.

I think that it is something that has not received all that much attention on much of what you would consider the mainstream media. It receives an extraordinary amount of attention from Fox News and other outlets on the right. As Republicans and Trump in particular, lean into culture war issues, this is one that they feel like really resonated with its base. Even during the 2022 midterms, this became a significant talking point on the right. Then we saw it become that-- as Trump this year, in the second half of this year.

I remember reporting at the time after Vice President Harris jumped in the race and there was that moment of real destabilization for Trump that he thought he was going to cruise to victory against President Biden. He was significantly up in the polls. He had a fairly successful convention. Then after Harris came in the race, shook things up, and had her own good convention, her own strong launch, there was a poll suggesting a really narrowing race. In fact, Harris had slight leads both nationally in a number of the battleground states. The Trump campaign was casting about for issues to reset the race.

This is one of those they found upon that they knew resonated with their base and that they found then at least had some spillover effect to the voters' writ large and seemed to have helped at least in a few key demographics.

Brian Lehrer: Yes, but there's a difference between zeroing in on what was in that Kamala Harris clip and that Trump campaign ad that played a gazillion times where she's talking about taxpayer-funded surgeries for people who are in prison for crimes and going all the way to you don't exist, your identity doesn't exist. Here's one more clip from that stretch of the speech.

President-Elect Trump: With a stroke of my pen on day one, we are going to stop the transgender lunacy-

[cheering]

-and I will sign executive orders to end child sexual mutilation, get transgender out of the military and out of our elementary schools and middle schools, and high schools.

Brian Lehrer: I guess my last question before we go to other topics is, is there any indication how he or how Congress ends transgender in schools, gets transgender out of our schools, as he put it in that clip?

Jonathan Lemire: We have seen that he has focused on as he mentioned there, the military he's trying to bar transgender to ban of transgendered service members from serving. We will see what the Pentagon has to say about that. Let's recall he made a similar notion while he was in office the first time around. Then the Pentagon head, DoD secretary, Defense Secretary Mattis put a stop to it, didn't fall through. We will see there's a difference between what he says in front of a cheering crowd of his loyalists at a MAGA rally in Phoenix versus what will happen when he's in office and he's confronted with the practical impacts and cost of trying to do something.

Again, I'm setting aside the moral implications. They of course are humongous. That's not something that Donald Trump seems to be considering. Even just the logistics of this would seem to be very, very difficult. I think there'd be real uproar in many communities and states across this nation. Only time will tell if this is something that becomes more than just a talking point. We know Donald Trump is not exactly famed for his follow through on a number of campaign promises, but of course, it's one that many in America right now wake up today and find unsettling.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, here's a short promo for something coming up tomorrow on this. We'll have an announcement about a small way that this show plans to help acknowledge the existence of people with transgender or non-binary gender identities under the circumstances, even as the incoming government tries to officially erase you. We'll have an announcement about what that is on tomorrow's show. Listeners, your Monday morning politics calls are welcome now for Jonathan Lemire from MSNBC's Morning Joe.

Questions or comments on the Musk and Trump and Mike Johnson and Freedom Caucus budget drama of the last week, or the Trump plan to declare it official policy of the United States that there are only two genders. Anyone not in those categories want to call up and just publicly declare that you do in fact exist or anyone else. 212-433-WNYC 212-433-9692 for Jonathan Lemire our Monday morning politics guest for this week, local boy makes good, by the way. 10 years with the Daily News before moving to national politics. We'll forgive him for growing up in Massachusetts and being a Red Sox fan.

10 years on New York City politics with the Daily News before going to the national media at the Associated Press, then Politico's White House Bureau chief, now becoming an official co-host of Morning Joe on MSNBC. Your calls for Jonathan Lemire or texts 212-433-9692. Jonathan, let's go on to the three-month stopgap spending deal. The bill went from 1500 pages down to 100 and something. How much got cut out?

Jonathan Lemire: Red Sox did just sign Walker Buehler, by the way, just moments ago if you'd like to spend some time on that, but we can set that aside.

Brian Lehrer: The Yankees signed a better first baseman over the weekend. We don't have to go there.

Jonathan Lemire: The Yankees after losing Soto, have had a very strong off-season, I am sad to say, but I have to acknowledge they've done a good job filling in some of these gaps. We'll set baseball aside for now and return to politics. It's worth, of course, just briefly reflecting on the circuitous and tumultuous route it took to get this bill done before Joe Biden was able to sign it and keep the government open, that there was an agreement between Republicans and Democrats, a bipartisan deal, a significant one to fund the government. This continued resolution, keep the lights up on through March.

No one, I would say, was thrilled with it, but it was reasonable. It was, as these deals happen, you need some bipartisan support to do this kind of appropriations, this kind of funding bills. Then Donald Trump suddenly decided to oppose it, but we should note, Donald Trump decided to oppose it after Elon Musk did. I think that's instructive here is that Musk came out hard against it first, then Trump followed suit. The bill went away. A much smaller one was put in its place, but Republicans balked at that.

A 38, in fact, defied Trump as well as all Democrats who said they felt like they had been betrayed and they would not go for the smaller bill, that a compromise solution was reached, still smaller than the original proposal. Even then, it did not include lifting the debt ceiling as Trump had asked. There's a lot here that we can get into about how this foreshadows how Washington's going to work in the months ahead, the biggest being, I think this, that Donald Trump, for all the talk this past year, that at least for him, his campaign was more organized and more disciplined than the previous iterations.

That he was surrounding himself with many veterans of his first term. People now who knew how Washington worked. Trump himself, of course, has had four years of experience in the White House and armed with majorities in the House and Senate, GOP majorities, though slim. There wa's a sense that he was going to really hit the ground running and there'd be a unified show of GOP force to get things done. That clearly not the case as there are Republicans, at least on certain issues, who were willing to stand up to him. Mike Johnson continues to have a very tenuous grip on power. Donald Trump this time aided by Elon Musk, simply can't help himself in meddling and injecting some real chaos into the mix.

Brian Lehrer: Beyond the palace intrigue, though, and we will come back to what Elon Musk's role vis-a-vis Trump really is here. Who's the boss, who's the underling? On pharmacy benefit managers, which got taken out of this bill, everyone seems to hate how they've come to dominate the industry. It's become more of a public discussion since the assassination of the United Healthcare CEO and the backlash to the healthcare industry in the public that has ensued.

This bill in its original form, as reported by CNN, at least would have removed the connection between the price of drugs and the compensation of pharmacy benefit managers in Medicare Part D drug plans and shifted the payment model to flat fees. The agreement also would have required the industry to pass along all rebates to health plan sponsors, which include insurers and employers. Without getting into the weeds of what all that means, because that is fairly dense, do you know why pharmacy benefit managers, who even Trump himself as sharply criticized, escape the reforms that Speaker Mike Johnson originally agreed to? Who went to bat for them?

Jonathan Lemire: Their lobbying group certainly did and shows that there's still influence there, but you're right, this has been a thorny issue for a while. There have been years of introducing bills, holding hearings on this subject. It seemed like Congress was ready to act and there was some support on both sides of the aisle for some sort of reform. As you say, it is dense, it is complicated, but had these reforms passed, it would have injected some real transparency into the process and as well as some savings, but it's not to be.

Trump has promised people. Trump was critical of him in the past, and people around him have promised they will revisit this issue in the coming year. I think it also speaks to just the real rush that this all had to come together here after Trump detonated the process. This was done not with a scalpel, but rather with an ax in terms of just chopping out huge pieces of this legislation. As one Republican insider told me, it seemed like Musk and Ramaswamy, and by extension, Trump were more concerned simply about the number of pages in the bill rather than what was in it.

The fact that they got it down from a bill that ran over 1,000 pages to one that was, I believe, less than 200. They were really proud of that, that they just wanted to show, look, that in itself, just simply this paperwork being reduced showed that they were cutting out the bloat. Some really important programs were left aside. There's been a lot of coverage about some pediatric cancer research that also was stripped out of the bill. I think it's one of those where in the coming days, and perhaps after the holidays, when the Congress returns, they'll be left to pick up the pieces of what happened and sort out what can still be salvaged in the new Congress.

Brian Lehrer: Just on that childhood cancer research being deleted from the bill again if you know, why that one and at whose request?

Jonathan Lemire: I do not know at whose request on that one, because once it was reported, and I will give credit to my former colleague and friend Sam Stein, formerly of Politico, now at The Bulwark, he's the one who highlighted this. It really became a rallying cry among many on the left to get it restored and it eventually received some bipartisan support as well. It looks like it will at least get through. The way it was explained to me by people close to the process was simply it was just out of the bare necessity. Everything else was just stripped out with very little fear or favor.

We should note, and I don't know, others may, if Robert F. Kennedy and his team had a say in this or not. We should be clear here, we do know this, that Kennedy, as part of his proposal, if he were to be confirmed to run NIH and the nation's HHS, is that he wants to put a moratorium on federal research into various diseases and cancers. That may be part of this, even if it wasn't an explicit direction.

Brian Lehrer: On that particular kind of research in general, besides how it tugs at the heartstrings that it's childhood cancer research, pediatric cancer research, I just read recently how that's been an area where research has been really successful. A large majority of childhood cancers are now considered survivable and are being survived by those kids when that wasn't always the case. Should this all give holiday cheer or another lump of coal to Democrats? On the one hand, we now know Trump's power over Congress is not limitless.

It's the Republicans who are even further to the right than Trump, at least on the size of government, who seem to have the votes to block bills in the House that the Democrats couldn't block. Is that the right way to look at it?

Jonathan Lemire: Yes, I think you framed it well, that it's a real mixed bag here for Democrats as they still are dealing with their election loss in November, that those who defied Trump here are the Freedom Caucus, those who are so far right it's almost impossible to imagine them being primaried from the right in their home districts. That has been the threat that Trump and frankly Musk put out last week is that they said that they would fund primary challenges to anyone who stood in their way. A lot of these lawmakers felt like, "We're in such state districts, we can get away with it, at least on this."

I don't think they'll make a habit of defying Trump, but at least on this issue of spending, they think that it could resonate with their voters and they would get a pass. I do think Democrats were heartened somewhat by just the chaos, the idea that, look, wait, the talk, as I mentioned a few moments ago, that Trump would be some sort of juggernaut this time around. That seems not to be the case. They clearly enjoyed getting under Trump's skin with the needling him about the fact that perhaps he's actually Vice President Trump and it's Elon Musk who's really in charge to the point where Trump had to address it during that speech in Phoenix this weekend.

I think they felt like they landed a few blows politically. I think that the other thing they are heartened about is just the lack of margin, of error that the Republicans have in the House. It is a one-seat margin right now, one until April when there are two special elections to fill seats in Florida. Even then, a very, very narrow margin for Speaker Johnson to control if it's even Speaker Johnson because I think his future is also in doubt.

Brian Lehrer: We'll continue in a minute with Jonathan Lemire. We'll get more explicitly to what Elon Musk's role actually is in running the country as a non-government official and to your calls and texts. Then Alvin Bragg. Stay with us.

[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC as we continue with Jonathan Lemire, now officially a co host of Morning Joe on MSNBC. I had at the beginning of the segment, for those of you who didn't hear it, played the clip of Donald Trump from yesterday saying on day one he will make it the official policy of the United States that there are only two genders. We invited people who identify as trans or non-binary to call up and just say out loud that you exist. I can't believe it's come to that, but we have a few people who want to do that, so let's give them a little voice. Here's Jaden Heather in Harlem. You're on WNYC. Hello there. Thank you for calling in.

Jaden Heather: Hi, good morning, Brian. First-time caller, longtime listener. I exist. [chuckles] I'm a trans woman in New York, and I think we all saw this coming. We heard that clip you played this morning. It was not a surprise me that this is what he wants to do. I'm somebody who just recently, because of all of this prioritized getting my name and gender marker changed. Thankfully we're in New York state. They make it a relatively efficient process. Even so, we're up against the timeline. What happens if I can't get my passport updated before Trump on day one signs away my right to exist as a trans person? Half of my documents say I am a trans woman in New York and my passport says I am a male with a different name. What happens? I'm so curious.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you for putting some meat on those policy bones. That's obviously one of the questions that will have to be addressed. What happens to someone like you at the level of your passport? I have no idea of the actual answer to that question. And Jonathan Lemire, I imagine you don't either yet, right?

Jonathan Lemire: No, I do not. That's just simply because the Trump team has not spelled out any sort of policy details as to how they actually foresee this happening. Certainly, thanks to your caller for coming forward there.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you, Jaden Heather. Another one, Isabel in Manhattan. You're on WNYC. Hi, Isabel.

Isabel: Good morning. How are you?

Brian Lehrer: I'm okay, thank you. How are you? You exist, I see.

Isabel: I'm great. I do exist. [chuckles] Oh, dear, I existed for like 20 years. I'm not going to tell you too much about my story or my reasons because I don't think that's particularly relevant in this case. I changed genders when I was 40, that was like 20 years ago. I just want to say a couple of things, just two things. One is what gives them the right to decide who is allowed to exist or not. What is anyone else's right to tell me who I'm supposed to be? I'm very happy. I was very depressed before. I'm very happy for the last 20 years. I don't interfere with anyone else's lives. I just live my life happily.

The other thing I want to say is that if they're coming after me or after people like me, who are they going to come after next? Which other minority are they going to come after next?

Brian Lehrer: Isabel, those stand as two great rhetorical questions. What gives him the right, and who are they going to come after next? Thank you for calling us. One more in this chat, Louis and Jackson Heights, you're on WNYC. Hi, Louis.

Louis: Hi, Brian. I just want to really second everything that your prior callers said. I'm a non-binary person who has also chosen to medically transition, which isn't something that's discussed much in mainstream conversations or media. As your first caller, I'm also going through the process of getting my name and gender marker changed. Have the same questions that she did. Again, as Isabel said, I also wanted to say, they're targeting us because we're a minority. We're an easy scapegoat. Once they are able to take away our rights, or if they are, they have a very clear path of how to do so for other groups.

I also just wanted to say trans and non-binary people do exist. That's not really a question. I think the question is why our presence is so threatening. I think that my personal understanding of this, and I think a lot of other trans people share this, is that we have a deep and transcendent knowledge of ourselves. It transcends what society tells us to do. I think that's really terrifying for certain people because they don't want to face those things about themselves. Also, it's horrifying to imagine that millions of people could wake up in a sense, and realize deep truths about themselves having nothing to do with gender, but the fact that we show them that path is scary to some.

Brian Lehrer: Louis, thank you very much for your call. Again, listeners, we'll have an announcement on tomorrow's show about a small way that we plan to help acknowledge the existence of people with transgender or non-binary gender identities. We'll tell you about it in detail tomorrow morning, probably right at the top of the show. Jonathan, I said we were going to talk about Elon Musk and his role in the incoming Trump administration. Just as an addendum to the calls we were just taking, doesn't Elon Musk have a transgender daughter?

Jonathan Lemire: He does and has said that his child was the victim of the woke mind virus and has largely disowned that daughter. He is coming at this with his own personal animosity as well.

Brian Lehrer: There you go. That's who's incoming with so much power that people think he might be the shadow president. Everyone's talking about the Elon Musk factor. In the melodrama of last week in Congress, he tweeted 100 times not to pass the original spending bill. Trump seemed to follow him at least chronologically in the posts that he made of his own. I guess those were on Truth Social. The two of them each have their own social media platforms. What's your best take on the question Washington seems to be asking? Was Musk starting that fight as a representative of the President-Elect, or did Musk force Trump's hand on getting into that losing battle on his own?

Jonathan Lemire: The reporting we have and others, it was more the latter that Trump, though, did not love the initial deal, was willing to sign off on it, and then Musk decided that it shouldn't pass as is and that Trump saw the groundswell and followed up. Look, we should be clear here. Elon Musk, not only is he not been elected to any position, he's not just not the president, he's not been elected to any post. He's never held any post. It seems very clear he has little experience and/or knowledge of how the legislative process actually works. Some Republicans even were very frustrated with how he injected himself in the 11th hour.

Now, not all. We played sound this morning on Morning Joe about a Texas congressman who praised Elon Musk as the nation's prime minister and meant it as a compliment. We have others who have said that they think that he plays a vital role and will play a vital role in the Trump administration to have that outsider perspective. They also are very keen to be allied with his money, which is vast. He is a hugely important figure here. He invested $277 million in the Donald Trump campaign through various ads. His net worth has nearly doubled since election day per reporting.

He certainly got return on investment there. He, at least for now, seems very interested and the inner workings of Washington and cutting government spending. Reporting this morning, he thinks the Fed is the next agency that should be trimmed down. We'll see how this plays out in the months ahead because one Donald Trump truism is he doesn't like to share the spotlight. We heard him bristle a little bit this weekend already about some of the attention Musk is receiving. We'll have to see if this lasts.

Brian Lehrer: All this talk, though, to defend Musk roles here a little bit. All this talk about, oh, Musk is a shadow president, unelected and all that. Love Elon Musk or hate him, a president is allowed to have advisors inside and out of government. Is it really such a breach of democracy or precedent that Trump has someone making statements as a prominent surrogate?

Jonathan Lemire: I think first of all, broadly, you're right. Presidents can have advisors whoever they want, but I think why this is striking people and making them uncomfortable is a couple offold. It's not just that Musk is a influential advisor. He's the world's richest man. He's the world's richest man who also controls a social media platform that he clearly manipulates to spread out his message to use for his political advantage. He has extraordinary number of government contracts, defense contracts where they're plain as day, conflict of interests, possibility.

For some feel, this is like almost an oligarch-like situation where even more than we've experienced before, a rich man almost acting as puppet master to get what he wants out of the government. Now, again, there's nothing stopping Donald Trump from choosing to have Musk as an advisor and because Doge is not actually a government agency, there's no need for Musk to disclose or divest like he theoretically would if he were to become some other cabinet post, let's say. It is an unorthodox arrangement and one where Musk just comes in wielding an extraordinary amount of power for an outside advisor.

Brian Lehrer: Nick in Manhasset, you're on WNYC with Jonathan Lemire. Hi, Nick.

Nick: Hi, Brian. I'm very concerned about Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, RFK Jr, and Pete Hegseth. Is there any chance that any or all of them can be blocked from confirmation, according to what Jonathan's hearing?

Brian Lehrer: Jonathan?

Jonathan Lemire: There is a chance. The process here is taking a two-week break for the holidays, but let's do a quick recap. As of last week, Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense nominee by our reporting, is still a few votes short, as you know, it takes four Republicans. Assuming all Democrats oppose, it takes four Republicans to block Hegseth. What we were told end of last week is there were six to eight senators who were quietly saying they didn't think they could support him because of lack of experience and because of various allegations and personal demons he allegedly has been confronting.

The others seem to have better numbers, but far from a sure thing either. Tulsi Gabbard in particular, we are told her meetings on the Hill last week or so didn't go all that well. The senators left with more concerns after talking to her [unintelligible 00:36:06] going in and certainly, the situation in Syria has shined a real spotlight on her ties to that region and some of her more dubious stances. To this moment, as of December 23rd, Kash Patel and Robert FK Jr have largely been able to fly under the radar on the Hill because so much tension was focused on Hegseth and Gabbard and before then, Matt Gaetz.

As next year rolls around and these confirmation hearings begin, they too will feel real scrutiny about beliefs about, in Kennedy's case, vaccines and medical research, Kash Patel, his enemies list, and the like. I think there is a sense among those on Capitol Hill that not all of them will be stopped. There is a possibility, though, that one or two could, maybe even a third, and it would be probably a differing coalition, a different mix of senators who would oppose them, each one sparing them from one senator having to give four no votes unless a senator like say Lisa Murkowski or Susan Collins feels like it's their interest to do so.

Mitch McConnell, another one who's believed to be in opposition to at least a couple of these. Then we'd have to see if it's a rotating cast of Republicans who cast the third or fourth decisive votes. The short answer is, though, these are going to be very tough hearings for all four. Remember, Democrats get to ask questions too. They won't all be blocked, but there's a chance at least one or two will.

Brian Lehrer: I have one Pete Hegseth question, which is is it on your radar screen centrally, do you think it will be on senators' radar screens and prominent in their questioning? I guess, especially Democrats questioning, but Republicans, too. Not just his alleged personal behaviors from the past, but some of the things that he said or written in his books at a policy level that he sees himself as a crusader. Using that term with his identification apparently with the old Christian crusades of many centuries ago, or that he sees himself as preparing for civil war and not with guns yet. He wrote something to that effect in one book.

It's really about what kind of radical defense secretary he might be, not just about his personal behavior. Do you think we're going to hear a lot of that?

Jonathan Lemire: I think we will. He as you just noted, talked about both the Civil War and the Crusades. He also has said explicitly and repeatedly he doesn't believe women should be in combat roles in the military.

Brian Lehrer: He did go back on that the other day, didn't he?

Jonathan Lemire: Sort of. I was going to say, even when he was on the Hill, he suggested that women had a role in the military. He's never explicitly said he believes they should be in combat roles. That's different. We will have to see. I'm sure he's going to be held to that very specific question when it is his time to sit down for these hearings. It is hard to imagine as just one example that Senator Joni Ernst, who reporting, was very opposed to this pick.

Then she softened her tone to him, but did not commit to supporting him, but softened her tone to him after she was the target of a real harassment campaign or a bullying campaign, if you will, from those on the right suggesting that Trump and perhaps Elon Musk would support a primary challenge to her. She is up in two years. Again, if Hegseth can't commit to allowing women to be in combat roles, it's almost impossible for me and most to see Joni Ernst eventually supporting him. I think there are a number of tripwires there for him. As someone put close to the process put it to me, he is still the most vulnerable of these four picks with Tulsi Gabbard then second.

Brian Lehrer: We're almost out of time. DA Alvin Bragg is next. Let me get your take before you go on the President Biden news this morning. He has commuted the death sentences of dozens of people on federal death row. They will still serve life in prison, is my understanding, but not be put to death. He made an exception for the terrorist nature crimes of the Boston Marathon bomber, Tree of Life Synagogue, and Pittsburgh shooter, and Charleston church shooter, Dylann Roof. They can still be executed if I have the story right. Why did Biden do this for more than 30 other people, and why now?

Jonathan Lemire: You're right, those are the three exceptions. Biden has made clear he's wrestled with this for a while, but he does not believe that there should necessarily be a federal death penalty. The federal government should be less part of that. The thinking here was when I talked to his advisors is they wanted to get this stuff done now because Donald Trump, on the other hand, has talked about accelerating the federal death penalty program. Biden wanted to submarine that effort now to commute those sentences so those men cannot be put to death.

We should note a little backstory here. This was in part informed White House officials tell us, out of conversations that President Biden, a Catholic, has had with Pope Francis. Pope Francis opposed to the death penalty. They've spoken about it a number of times. Biden credits the Pope for influencing his thinking here to try to take this step. In related news, the White House has also announced that President Biden, who now of course, is in office for less than a month, will take one last international trip on office and it will be to the Vatican to have an audience with His Holiness.

Brian Lehrer: As the Democrats figure out their next move, it looks to me like the Connecticut senator, Chris Murphy, is really stepping out front as a leader. Tell me if this is your impression on saying a few things like the Democrats need to do more on the economic policy level for working Americans than neoliberal economics would allow and maybe didn't go far enough in that direction in the campaign. On MSNBC last week with your colleague Nicole Wallace, he went full-throated against Trump on the issue of democracy after Trump announced lawsuits against several news organizations and Iowa pollster Ann Selzer, who got the state's result very wrong. Here's Senator Chris Murphy on that.

Senator Chris Murphy: In countries where that happens, where the opposition fears going to jail, so they stay home and the press doesn't tell the truth because they fear consequences. Democracy dies. It just does. You still have elections, but the opposition is so weak that they can never win. Trump over the last four days is showing you that plan to suppress the opposition and to suppress the press. So far, he has had stunning success even before he gets sworn in.

Brian Lehrer: Chris Murphy from MSNBC last week, even though so far, at least in using the legal system, Trump is using it as it exists, not trying to be above it in ways that courts haven't yet allowed. Jonathan, final question. Are many Democrats talking like that about Trump as a threat to democracy already, as taking those steps to authoritarianism? He cited also in that interview, the writer who we had on the show recently on the history of tyranny over the 20th century, Tim Snyder. Is Chris Murphy talking like a lot of other Democrats or establishing himself as some kind of leader on a democracy or fascism watch?

Jonathan Lemire: It has been striking how he's jumped out ahead some of his fellow Democrats right now look at the party still really sorting through what happened in November. We know that President Biden very strong in terms of his warnings about Trump being a threat to democracy. Vice President Harris echoed it to a degree during her campaign as well. Some Democrats feel like that's not the tactic, that they spent too much time on those 30,000-foot issues, as they say, rather than meeting kitchen table issues that they believe decided the election.

I think that most Democrats feel like you have to be able to do both. Murphy here, who is someone whose national profile has been risen, he was one of the senators who got some bipartisan gun reform measures through after the Uvalde shooting of a couple years ago. He was also at the table during the border security package that was going to pass this past year until Trump submarined it. He's someone who is a young, up-and-coming, fresh Democratic face.

I think we're going to see a lot of those people, whether they're governors or senators or other lawmakers, try to make a name for themselves in this next year or so while their party is still trying to react to Trump's first 100 days, but starting to position themselves. We're still many years out, but starting to position themselves as a leader of the party and potentially one, potentially, who might even take the plunge for 2028.

Brian Lehrer: Jonathan Lemire, now officially a co-host of Morning Joe on MSNBC. Thanks as always for extending your day after that show by coming on and continuing to do that. Happy holidays to you and your family.

Jonathan Lemire: Thank you. I'm happy to come back on soon, and happy holidays to you, your family, and your listeners. Please.

 

Copyright © 2024 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.