[MUSIC]

Brigid Bergin: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Brigid Bergin, senior reporter in the WNYC and Gothamist newsroom, filling in for Brian this week. Good morning, everyone. I hope you're enjoying the slightly less humid weather. Coming up later on the show, we'll talk about the charter revision questions that will be on city voters' ballots this fall, mostly related to changing the timing of municipal elections and building housing. The mayor and the city council are at odds over the question, so we're going to hear about why.

Plus, the FDA may be changing the guidelines on hormone replacement therapy for menopause symptoms and why it's controversial. We'll wrap today's show with a conversation about why it's a good idea to have your kids do some chores like the dishes and laundry. Even especially for those on the younger side, helping can sometimes mean more work for parents, parents of little kids. I think you know what I mean. Today, we're going to start our conversation about the ways President Trump is hoping to pick up some Republican seats in the US House of Representatives. It involves redrawing the congressional map.

Now, here in New York State, lawmakers are constitutionally restricted from mid-decade redistricting, but that's not the case in other parts of the country. In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott convened a special session of the state legislature yesterday. High on lawmakers' to-do list is redrawing the state congressional map. Just how many seats are in play, and what else could happen? Joining me now to answer those questions and more is Matthew Choi, co-writer of The Washington Post's Early Brief politics newsletter and, previously, the Washington correspondent and bureau chief for The Texas Tribune. Matthew, welcome to WNYC.

Matthew Choi: Thanks so much for having me, Brigid.

Brigid Bergin: Let's start with a little context. What's the normal legislative calendar for Texas lawmakers, and how unusual is it to have a special session there?

Matthew Choi: Texas is pretty interesting in its legislative calendar. They meet only once every two years. During that normal session, it's quite a marathon to get through an entire laundry list of legislation passed. That said, the governor does have the right to call a special session when there is a pressing need for the state. Following the devastating Central Texas floods earlier this summer, there was quite that need. The special session, while a lot of the news is being occupied with the redistricting fight, there are some other pretty pressing issues that needs to be addressed as well in terms of disaster recovery.

Brigid Bergin: Yes. Certainly, Texas has been in the news a lot this summer because of those deadly and devastating floods. Before we pivot to redistricting, do you know how much the legislature will be working on these disaster response and cleanup issues? We know from incidents that have happened here in New York, recovery can take a really long time.

Matthew Choi: For sure. This is the main item for this special session. It occupies the majority of the list for the governor. There are some other issues that he wants to work on as well that he didn't get to accomplish during the previous regular session, including eliminating the STAR standardized testing for public schools. There's another effort to ban THC products for youths. Really, the thing that's really drawing a lot of attention to this special session from outside the state is definitely redistricting.

Brigid Bergin: Well, we're going to dig into that. Listeners, we want to invite you to be part of this conversation. What are your questions about this mid-decade redistricting process in Texas? Anyone from the Lone Star State may be listening and want to give us a report from the ground. What would it mean to see more competitive races in some Republican districts, or do you have another question for my guest, Matthew Choi, co-writer of The Washington Post's Early Brief politics newsletter? The number is 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692. You can call or text at that number. Matthew, I teased this in the intro, but President Trump is part of this redistricting conversation in Texas. Talk about how he fits into this conversation.

Matthew Choi: For sure. If anything, President Trump is the instigator of this discussion. He requested Texas Republicans to create five new Republican seats in the state. This is quite an extraordinary ask. From what I've heard from the actual Republican members who currently serve in the House, it was not met with a lot of enthusiasm. Currently, a lot of the Republicans have very safe seats. It wasn't too long ago that some of these seats were a lot more competitive. They remember what it was like to have to defend a competitive seat. That said, when the President asks, especially in a state like Texas where he is very, very popular, there is quite an impetus to respond to the call.

Brigid Bergin: Sure, so let's talk a little bit more than about the process there in Texas. I reported a lot last year in the multiple years it took New York to get through its redistricting process. Here, we have a so-called independent redistricting commission that comes up with maps, and then they deadlocked, and then the state legislature got involved, and then there were lawsuits, so who leads the process in Texas?

Matthew Choi: Texas is a bit of the reverse. It's really the responsibility of the state legislature. If the state legislature does feel there is a commission, that can act as a backstop. Ultimately, it really is the legislature's call. There is not really any kind of legal barriers to them doing mid-decade redistricting like in other states. This was reaffirmed by the courts back in 2003, 2004, when they tried to do a mid-century redistricting. It really is the legislature's game.

Brigid Bergin: You, I think, are starting to hit on a question that a listener just texted us. The listener writes, "Please ask your guest if this redistricting in Texas doesn't date back to when Tom DeLay did it in the mid-decade, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court and was allowed, and no one in the country had ever done it before, but the Republican Supreme Court let them do it. Is there a connection to what's happening now to what happened then?"

Matthew Choi: What happened then really broke the dam that allowed other states to at least consider this option. There's definitely some parallels to what's going on right now. Something that's quite different about this round, though, is that it's really coming from the White House. Lawmakers in the state are following the cues of the President's political team.

Brigid Bergin: Listeners, if you're just joining us, it's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Brigid Bergin, senior reporter in the WNYC and Gothamist newsroom, filling in for Brian today. My guest is Matthew Choi. He writes The Washington Post's Early Brief politics newsletter and was previously the Washington correspondent and bureau chief for The Texas Tribune. We're talking about redistricting in Texas, how that could change the balance of power in the House in the upcoming midterms, and how it might not just be Texas that is considering this option.

Matthew, the current Texas House delegation is composed of 25 Republicans and 12 Democrats. That split is really a key margin to help the GOP hold on to their narrow 220-212 majority in the House. You mentioned that they're looking at five seats in Texas. How likely is it that they're going to get a map that would draw all five of those seats?

Matthew Choi: That's really up to the legislature. We haven't really seen any concrete proposals put out there yet. The legislature has to have field hearings throughout the state in order to determine where those districts might be. Some of the impetus for this is the Justice Department wrote a letter to the state legislature, indicating that a number of districts in the Dallas and Houston areas violate the Voting Rights Act because of the way that they're set up. They accuse it of being a racial gerrymander.

There's potential that it's going to be really slicing up a lot of the urban areas that would dilute the Democratic cores in the state. The urban areas of the state are far more blue than elsewhere. We've seen this happen elsewhere in the past. For example, there is one district infamous that runs along I-35, split between San Antonio and Austin, that concentrates a lot of the Democratic parts of those cities to give more parts of the cities to Republican districts. It's likely that they're going to be slicing up a lot of the urban areas and giving them to districts that predominantly represent rural parts of the state.

Brigid Bergin: Listeners, if you are just joining us, we are taking questions about this mid-decade redistricting process in Texas. We're asking, are you from the Lone Star State? Maybe you're there now listening, and you want to give us a report from the ground. We'd love to know what you think it would mean for competitive races in some Republican districts.

Maybe you're in another state where there's some rumbles about a mid-decade redistricting. We'd love to hear from you, too, or any other question you might have for my guest, Matthew Choi. He writes The Washington Post's Early Brief politics newsletter. You can give us a call at 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692. You can call or text that number. We're going to go to Craig in Morganville, New Jersey. Craig, you're on WNYC.

Craig: Hey, guys, how are you doing? I'm not sure if this is true or not, but isn't redistricting gerrymandering, isn't that illegal? My other question is, you guys had a sound bite from a woman, and I don't know if it was a congressman or a senator who said, "Well, if the voters want to change this, all they have to do is vote and change it." Well, if that was the case, why are you doing the redistricting in the first place? Obviously, that's not the case, and voters can't always do that. There's something wrong with that. Both parties do it, by the way. The Democrats are notorious for doing it in New York a couple of years ago.

Brigid Bergin: Craig, thank you for that comment. Matthew, I think part of what Craig is getting at, and maybe you can help make the distinction between what is redistricting and what is gerrymandering and maybe how gerrymandering can become part of redistricting. I will underscore, Craig, your point that, yes, there were issues with the redistricting process here in New York, where courts said that there was partisan gerrymandering and Democrats were in control. They said that they had drawn the congressional districts to favor Democrats. That's why we had a summer with two primary elections. One in June and then another in August with redrawn congressional districts back in 2022. We hear you, Craig, on that point. Matthew, to his about gerrymandering versus redistricting, you want to take that on?

Matthew Choi: Yes, for sure. Redistricting is just changing the boundaries of the congressional map, which, in Texas, is perfectly legal to occur in the middle of the decade. Normally, it does happen after each decennial census. In this state, at least, there's a bit more leeway there. Of course, gerrymandering, which is redrawing the district so that a certain party or a certain demographic is favored to win either more seats or specific seats. It can be open up to legal challenges. Several Democrats have said that they will definitely be pursuing some legal action against this. Of course, a lot of that depends on how the districts actually end up being drawn. We still don't really know what those proposals might look like yet.

Brigid Bergin: In terms of that, what is the kind of timeline here? It seemed as though there was some imminent release of maps coming, but is this something that you're anticipating the special session lasting a week, a special session lasting a month? How soon could we potentially see these new maps?

Matthew Choi: For sure. We probably have to look after the field hearings that the legislature holds throughout the state. Many of which are scheduled to happen this weekend. Potentially, next week, we can see proposals for what the maps might look like.

Brigid Bergin: Wow, so that's still pretty quickly. To do all those presumably multiple field hearings, and then to take that input and then feed it into a process to draw new lines, there must be some people who are going to be spending a lot of time on this in a short amount of time.

Matthew Choi: Yes, and that's the pace of the legislature in Texas because Texas lawmakers are used to getting a lot done in a very short amount of time. Unlike the US Congress, where there are a lot of very strict rules about how things are debated on the floor, the Texas legislature is known for getting things done pretty quickly because they so often have to cram so much in such a short legislative session that meets once every only two years.

Brigid Bergin: Wow. We touched on this a little bit, the historical echo that we see happening here. Your colleague, Paul Kane, wrote a column about how Texas did a mid-decade redistricting back in 2004. It's notable that, at that time, the congressional delegation was working with the state legislature to redraw those maps with this similar goal. Can you talk a little bit more about what happened there?

Matthew Choi: For sure. Back then, this was back when the Republican domination of Texas was very, very new. It's important to note that throughout much of the 20th century, Democrats were the dominant party in the state. Before that redistricting, Democrats actually controlled a majority of the congressional districts in the state. The new Republican political class saw the political winds in their state that they were actually gaining much more favor. That's a very different incentive structure than from what we're seeing now.

Right now, the Republicans in the state control the majority of the congressional districts. They're actually the largest Republican delegation in the House. Many of those seats are quite safe. The only Republican district that might be a bit more competitive is one in South Texas. Republicans are actually pretty confident about that seat as well. It would be against their interest to make those seats even more competitive by sharing some of that margin to add some Republican voters into Democratic districts now.

Brigid Bergin: Let's go to Veronica in Manhattan. Veronica, you're on WNYC.

Veronica: Yes, I had a question about the Congress. If we ever get a completely sane Congress where people are not invested in just protecting their own party, how likely or how legally or however possible would it be for them to pass some kind of legislation that made only people-- sorry, brought into every state, a nonpartisan body who would draw congressional districts and do redistricting purely on locale and not creating these bizarre districts that are designed to gain a seat for a particular party. I don't think I was very eloquent, but I think you should get the idea.

Brigid Bergin: No, Veronica. Yes, I think it sounded like-- and correct me if I'm wrong, your question was related to, could there be federal policy that standardized this process across the states and made it less about partisan gerrymandering or partisan aims, and more about just dividing up people based on the population of their respective states? Did I get it right?

Veronica: Exactly. I think I read that there are some states who try to create nonpartisan congressional districts. I think this was back when I read an article in The New Yorker in Wisconsin about all this. Anyway, yes, you have it right. I think it's an idealistic goal, but I would love for that legislation to pass sometime in the future when things are less, hopefully, partisan.

Brigid Bergin: Great. Veronica, thank you for that question. Matthew, do you want to weigh in on that? I know that that might go a little beyond what you've been reporting on the Texas redistricting process.

Matthew Choi: Right. Well, Veronica, I think that's a fantastic question. At least currently, in the Congress right now, there isn't a ton of momentum behind an effort like that. I think even if there were, we would see a lot of pushback from some state legislatures who say that the drawing of the congressional districts really is their domain. In terms of nonpartisan or more neutral arbiters of what the district should look like, you're right, there are some states that do do that. Notably, one of them is California. They have an independent redistricting districts drawing a commission.

That's actually quite relevant now because Governor Gavin Newsom, in response to this effort in Texas, toyed with the idea of doing the same thing, but for Democrats in his own state, and potentially drawing even more Democratic states to counter whatever the Republicans do in Texas. That would be, legally, a bit more challenging for him because of the existence of this commission that would involve passing new laws through their own state legislature. It might be a little bit more challenging, but it is a possibility that they are considering as well.

Brigid Bergin: Listeners, we are talking Texas redistricting and the implications for the rest of the country with my guest, Matthew Choi, co-writer of The Washington Post's Early Brief politics newsletter. We have a lot more to talk about and more of your calls coming up after this short break. Stick around.

[MUSIC]

Brigid Bergin: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Brigid Bergin, filling in for Brian today. My guest is Matthew Choi, co-writer of The Washington Post's Early Brief politics newsletter and, previously, the Washington correspondent and bureau chief of The Texas Tribune. Matthew, we have several calls, and then we've touched on some of this about the difference between redistricting policies by state. I want to just make sure we really put a fine point on it, so let's go to Joan in Manhattan. Joan, thanks for calling.

Joan: Yes, I understand that the way the redistricting is done is decided state by state, but I didn't realize that when redistricting could happen, can that be decided state by state? In other words, every 10 years, we have the census. That's required by the Constitution for the purposes of apportionment of seats, but then can any state decide anytime it wants, arbitrarily, seven years, let's say, after the census, "Oh, we want to reapportion. We have a new legislature now, and we want to do redistricting now and get more of our people in"? Can they do that anytime they want?

Brigid Bergin: Joan, it's a good question. Matthew, you want to tackle that?

Matthew Choi: Yes, and that's a fantastic question. The answer is, the rules of when they can do that are themselves determined by the states. For example, in Ohio, there are complex rules about if the legislature doesn't approve, by super majority, its districts, then it goes to a commission, which draws districts for a shorter period of time. If the commission doesn't work, then it goes back to the legislature with districts that last for even a short period of time. Those are all determined at the state level. That doesn't necessarily mean that the legislatures themselves can just capriciously redraw districts whenever they want. They still have to follow the rules, but the thing is the legislatures are the ones who often write the rules, right? It really varies state by state.

Brigid Bergin: Just another note, a listener texted in. I know we have lots of lawyers and policymakers and redistricting experts who listen to the show, who call into the show. One listener wrote in, "Whether gerrymandering for partisan reasons is illegal in many red states, probably including Texas, it is not illegal, so there's no recourse against it. That is, Republicans usually can get away with it. By contrast, in many blue states, including New York, partisan gerrymandering is illegal. That's why Republicans were able to challenge and change some of the districts drawn by the Democratically-controlled New York State legislature after the 2020 census."

Just a note there from a listener, who I sense is someone who works on some of these issues, Matthew. One of the things that you also reported is, there has been pushback from Democrats in other parts of the country, including Governor Gavin Newsom in California, where Democrats control the state House. I want to play a clip of a comment that he made, I think, the week before last.

Governor Gavin Newsom: I'm not going to be the guy that said, "I coulda, woulda, should have." I'm not going to be passive at this moment. I'm not going to look at my kids in the eyes and say, "I was a little timid."

Brigid Bergin: That was actually Governor Gavin Newsom, just from last week. Can you talk a little bit about what California is considering here?

Matthew Choi: Sure, so Governor Newsom is considering trying to find a way to create more Democratic seats. California has a much more restrictive policy in terms of partisan gerrymandering than Texas. The potential to draw more safe seats for Democrats is there, just in terms of the numbers game. Legally, though, however, because they do have this independent commission to draw their districts, it would be a bit more of a challenge. Something that I do find interesting, though, is the response from Democrats outside of both California and Texas to Governor Newsom's call. Ken Martin, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, he openly endorsed the governor's proposal, and even said that other governors around the country might be following suit as well.

Brigid Bergin: To that end, we have a listener who text, "If Texas draws a bunch of Republican seats right before the midterms, couldn't Democratic states like New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, et cetera, dilute Republican districts in turn?"

Matthew Choi: That's the proposal that Governor Newsom is trying to push. Of course, not all states have the same legal protections or legal parameters for drawing new districts, so it might be a bit more challenging, what's going on in Texas. There is definitely a push from a national level in the Democratic Party to say, "If you're going to do this in Texas, then we're going to try to do this elsewhere as well."

Brigid Bergin: Listeners, we're taking your questions about mid-decade redistricting in Texas and elsewhere around the country, frankly. We're interested if you're in the Lone Star State. What are you seeing? What are you hearing on the ground? Ohio, another state we haven't talked about yet, but another state that, as I understand, needs to complete its redistricting before 2026. What would it mean to you to see some of these races and districts change? Do you have another question for my guest, Matthew Choi? He's a co-writer of The Washington Post's Early Brief politics newsletter. The number 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692. You can call or text at that number. Let's go to Brett in Brooklyn. Brett, you're on WNYC.

Brett: Hi, thank you for taking my call. I was wondering, has anyone ever seriously proposed apportioning representation in the House by lottery instead of geography, as which I believe the ancient Greeks used that method to elect representatives?

Brigid Bergin: Brett, thank you for that question. Michael, do you happen to know that?

Matthew Choi: I haven't seen any proposals for that, and I would imagine that it runs counter to a lot of the ethos for a lot of members of Congress. They're very much tied to their specific districts. You oftentimes see reason why there are intraparty conflicts is because specific district requirements might run counter to the orthodoxy of their party. I think that would be a very, very challenging and political lift.

Brigid Bergin: I want to share a text from a listener. I think some of what is being said in this text reflects some of the frustration we've seen from a lot of listeners who have texted in. With frustration over this issue and seeing what is happening in Texas, this listener writes, "Texas has been found by federal courts to have intentionally discriminated against voters of color in redistricting and every decade for the past 50 years. Please compare New York's supposed gerrymandering to Texas. Texas is 100 times worse."

"New York has constitutional protections against partisan gerrymandering. Texas does not. They gerrymander to the utmost extreme. Why are New York and California committed to fair redistricting when every other red state gerrymanders to the extreme? It's unilateral disarmament. SCOTUS has said there's no limit to partisan gerrymandering if there are no state limits. No limits in red states. Only blue. States can go crazy, and they do. SCOTUS will not get involved. Texas is colluding with the DoJ to dilute the votes of voters of color in Texas. Disgraceful."

Matthew, a lot in that very lengthy text, a lot of frustration. As that listener was noting, not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison between states that have different state constitutions and operate under different rules. One of the things that I think is interesting is, as I mentioned, there are other states that are looking at drawing their lines. Ohio, as I understand, is required to redraw lines before 2026.

In Punchbowl this morning, there were a list of states to watch. Missouri, Florida, New Hampshire, Kansas, Kentucky, Indiana, and Nebraska. They were reporting they could all potentially make changes to some districts in those states. Out of that list, it seemed Missouri, Florida, and New Hampshire were the most likely. Anything that you're going to be watching for in those particular states?

Matthew Choi: For sure. I think Ohio will be very interesting, simply because they have some very vulnerable seats for Democrats. I'm thinking the seat currently occupied by Marcy Kaptur. I want to go back to one point that a reader made earlier about the legality of partisan gerrymandering. While that is determined at the state level, something that's nationally agreed to be illegal is racial gerrymandering. I would imagine that the Democrats, when making legal challenges to whatever new map might come out of Texas, will likely come on racial grounds.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the Justice Department, when they were trying to urge the state to redraw the districts or when they were showing problems with some of the districts, they were going on racial grounds based off of the Voting Rights Act. The districts that they pointed out as problematic were all majority-minority districts that they said violated some of the racial gerrymandering laws in the state.

Brigid Bergin: Do you have a sense of which members might be Democratic members, Republican members, may be most impacted by this proposed redistricting in Texas?

Matthew Choi: Well, again, it's hard to say without a sense of what the proposal might look like. If we look at some of the maps prior to the latest redistricting after the 2020 census, we can see some of the Republicans who are quite comfortable now but had much more competitive races in the past. I'm looking at, for example, Congressman Mike McCaul, Congressman Chip Roy. Both of them represent parts of the Texas Hill Country. They won by quite comfortable margins this past cycle in 2022.

Prior to redistricting, they won by just over 50% of the vote. Those are some districts to look out for other urban areas that might get split up. Congresswoman Veronica Escobar represents a tiny, little blue island way, way, way far out in West Texas in the city of El Paso. If that gets divided up into some of the more rural areas around the city, that could make her seat considerably more competitive. I think the real areas we want to look at is the urban areas. That's probably where it's going to be the most slicing up.

Brigid Bergin: Interesting. Let's go to Pat in Apache Junction, Arizona. Pat, I hope I said that correctly. You're on WNYC.

Pat: That's correct, yes. Can the Republicans in Texas actually outsmart themselves by endangering their own incumbents by taking Republicans out of incumbent districts, especially if there is something like a blue wave?

Brigid Bergin: Pat, this is an interesting question. I think, Matthew, you reported that part of the tension here, there are Republicans who know, in order to make this happen, they may have to lose some of their margin in what have been considered safer seats, correct?

Matthew Choi: Absolutely. That's the biggest concern, really, among the members of the Republican congressional delegation. They don't want to be in more competitive races, right? A lot of them remember in 2018, when the race was very, very competitive, and the Democrats did have a blue wave, how much money, how much energy that required to defend their seats. There's not much incentive to go back to that time on a personal level, right?

Also, we're looking at just what the political landscape looks like going into these midterm elections next year. It's a midterm with a Republican in the White House. Historically, the party of the President does not so well in the midterms. Democrats are quite bullish and optimistic there. Also, we have to look at maybe some of the dynamics in the Senate race as well in Texas. Right now, there is a very bitter Republican primary where Attorney General Ken Paxton is challenging Senator John Cornyn, who has been the senator from Texas for many decades.

He is considered a much more safe candidate for Republicans, but he has been trailing and polling behind Ken Paxton, who has had numerous political scandals. If Paxton were to win the Republican primary, that gives a lot of Democrats a lot of hope that they can ride that wave down ballot and have a lot more success in races in the House. All these dynamics are contributing to this concern among Republicans that we want to make sure that our districts are as safe as humanly possible. We don't really want to invite further competition where it might not be necessary.

Brigid Bergin: Just to, a little bit, circle back to where we began, we have a question from Vicki in Tudor City. Vicki, you're on WNYC.

Vicki: Oh, good morning. Isn't the impetus on the part of the Republicans to gerrymander districts in Texas having to do with the fact that they're afraid to lose votes because of these horrible floods where children died, and Kristi Noem was so slow to respond, and lives could have been saved, so they're afraid of losing those votes?

Brigid Bergin: Vicki, thanks for that question. Matthew, you mentioned at the beginning that some of what is going to be discussed during this special session is related to response to the floods, but is the redistricting seen as a way to deal with what might be blowback for the lack of, or the less-than-timely response to the floods?

Matthew Choi: Well, a lot of the floods in Central Texas happened in districts that are pretty comfortably Republican. I'm thinking specifically in Congressman Chip Roy's district. His district is quite comfortably Republican. He represented much of the areas impacted by the floods. He's one of the districts that, historically, was a bit more competitive. If that were to be a factor, drawing voters away from the Republicans, then redistricting that district to be more competitive really wouldn't be in the Republicans' advantage. That said, a lot of the disaster response that's been led by Republicans has also been praised in the aftermath of the disaster. Governor Abbott is quite experienced with disaster recovery and response. His response in the immediate aftermath hasn't really received quite as much criticism as some of the other preparations for the disaster.

Brigid Bergin: Excuse me. Matthew, before we let you go, I just want to talk about a couple of other issues coming out of DC. So much of what happens in the House, like the passage of President Trump's domestic tax and spending bill, is made possible by Republican control of the House. Another issue roiling DC is, of course, the ongoing debate over the Epstein files. House Leader Mike Johnson had been among the highest-ranking Republicans to call for the files to be released, but it seems like he's walked that back this week. Can you tell us what's happening there?

Matthew Choi: Sure. There is still a pretty vocal contingent of the House Republican Conference who really, really wants want more information about the Epstein case released. They're really hearing a lot of this from their voters. This is a very big issue for a lot of Republican voters. That said, Speaker Johnson is in a bit of a tight spot because he needs to corral his entire conference behind one solid plan of action because their margins are so small.

President Trump has made it abundantly clear to him that he has absolutely no interest in pursuing the storyline much further. Right now, this week, the House is in a point of deadlock because the Republicans can't get their entire conference behind one plan of action here. Summer recess is coming up. Speaker Johnson doesn't appear to have much interest in addressing the Epstein case before the end of the recess, so this might be something that gets resolved in the fall.

Brigid Bergin: Well, a lot more to watch, I'm sure. We can talk to you again then when we see what's happening. Matthew Choi is co-writer of The Washington Post's Early Brief politics newsletter and, previously, the Washington correspondent and bureau chief of The Texas Tribune. Matthew, thanks so much for joining me today.

Matthew Choi: Thank you so much, Brigid.

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.