Greg Sargent: This is the Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR Network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.
So why aren’t more Democrats stepping up? And is there anything Democrats can do right now, and in coming weeks, to use their power to place constraints on Trump? Today we’re talking to Senator Murphy about all of this. Senator Murphy, thank you so much for joining us.
Sargent: Senator, let’s start here. The Office of Management and Budget Chief Russ Vought is now corruptly canceling billions of dollars in funding for projects in a number of blue states. Trump just explicitly said on Truth Social that he’s meeting with Vought to determine which “Democrat agencies” they can cancel. I just wanted to get your immediate reaction to all that.
And here’s what he thinks. He thinks that’s going to bully Democrats into submission to signing onto a budget that would be bad for our people, a budget that would throw millions of people off their health care. My approach is the exact opposite. The more corrupt and lawless he gets, the stiffer my spine gets. Because at this point, if I give in and consent to these kinds of tactics, which are blatantly corrupt, then it just normalizes it all, makes it become standard fare.
Sargent: Well, you were pushing early on for an even more aggressive strategy in this shutdown battle. On NBC in mid-September, you basically set a threshold that I liked. You said Democrats should meet this, it was two things: one, meet the crisis of the moment, and two, restrain Trump’s lawlessness. So now Democrats are demanding an extension of the ACA subsidies. They’re insisting on an end to rescissions. But are they right now, with this current strategy, clearing the bar in terms of mounting the type of opposition that you said this moment requires?
So yes, I want there to be a number of things on the table that constrain his lawlessness. Now, am I naive, am I pollyannish enough to think we’re going to write a budget that eliminates his lawlessness and his corruption? No. But I don’t think we should be shirking from a pretty simple demand, which is that if you want our votes, it can’t be for rampant lawlessness.
So yeah, I want us to be—not piggish in what we’re asking for—but realistic, asking enough to save democracy.
Senator Murphy: Well, I do think it is centered on the requirement that the president spend the money that is authorized in the budget. So—well, these words like rescissions and pocket rescissions mean nothing to people. We do need clear provisions in this bill that say the president cannot pick and choose where he spends money and where he doesn’t based upon who’s loyal to him. I think that’s an easy thing to ask for. I think there are Republicans who may end up supporting that, and I think we could explain it to the American public, as long as we don’t use that technical jargon.
Sargent: Yes, I think that really makes a lot of sense. And the lawlessness has escalated since you set that bar in mid-September. He’s illegally blowing up and murdering people in the Caribbean Sea. His FCC chair nakedly threatened state retribution to coerce a network into censoring a Trump critic. He’s expanded the militarization of cities. His agency cronies are manufacturing pretexts to launch DOJ investigations of his enemies. Now his OMB chief is explicitly using the budget process to punish Democratic areas and constituencies. A fair amount of that has happened since you laid out that set of pretty clear demands for what Democrats could oppose. Where are we in a big-picture sense in fighting this lawlessness? What’s your overall assessment? It seems a little bleak to me.
But, I mean, I think it’s hard to mistake what is occurring here. We know what’s happening in the media right now: you’re seeing a massive consolidation of key media properties into the hands of Trump allies. You’re seeing a willingness at scale for media companies to punish voices that dissent from Trump. You’re seeing the weaponization of the DOJ so that there’s a risk to anybody who stands up and protests Trump loudly, donates [against] Donald Trump, or gives to any progressive cause. The full scope of that is likely having an impact on the number of people who donate to Democrats, the number of people willing to show up at protests, the number of people willing to become candidates.
Sargent: Do you bring this up with your Democratic colleagues privately, and why aren’t more of them talking like this?
The second thing I hear about is, “Well, we ran on democracy in 2024 and we lost. And so let’s not do democracy, let’s do economics and health care.” I’m totally for a focus on economics—I’m a big believer that Bernie’s message, or some version of it, is really the secret sauce. We’ve got to be a populist economic party. But we’ll never be able to raise the minimum wage by $10 if our democracy disappears. So whether or not the polls tell us that everybody in this country believes that democracy is at risk—it is at risk. And if we don’t lead and explain to people what’s happening, then it doesn’t matter what our message is next fall. There won’t be a free and fair election to run in. Those are the two things that I hear from people that are not necessarily willing to talk like I talk.
Senator Murphy: No, that doesn’t seem too harsh. I think when you’ve been in politics, climbed the ladder, gotten to a position of authority, sometimes, for whatever reason, some of the risk-taking instincts that you might have had earlier in your career maybe disappear a little bit. So yes, I think that there are some people that just aren’t up for this fight. I get it. There are some people who say a shutdown is really bad for people. And it is. People will get hurt in a shutdown. But they’ll get hurt more if our democracy never recovers from this. They’ll get hurt more if the oligarchs take total control of our government and are able to steal without any check, with total impunity, from the people. So yeah, I think people need to understand that this is a fight worth having, and it’s still a fight we can still win.
Senator Murphy: Well, let’s not underhype the importance of preserving those subsidies. That’s 22 million Americans. In Connecticut, there are some families that are going to see a $25,000 increase in premiums. You’re talking about millions of people losing their health care. That’s not a small niche issue. So yes, I do think that would be an important victory that would help people. And the bottom line is that’s what we’re in the business of doing, is helping people.
Sargent: You’ve got Trump accomplices at agencies really corrupting the process in all kinds of ways. There may be serious illegalities here: The FCC chair censoring networks. Agency heads manufacturing pretexts for prosecutions of Trump enemies. Military officials blowing people up in the Caribbean. I want to ask you this: Couldn’t Democrats also, in addition to all the things you’ve advised, couldn’t they say more explicitly, right now—and almost in unison, in like every forum—that anyone who carries out corrupt or illegal orders for Trump should prepare to face real accountability? Say: Here’s we will do as Democrats if we gain the majority. Here’s what will happen when we have a real attorney general again. Save your papers. Is that something Democrats could be saying more?
Sargent: And then maybe what you could do to make that message broader is to say something like: If you’ve committed corrupt actions, but not illegal ones, prepare to be sitting in front of us in this chamber answering questions.
Sargent: Let’s say at the conclusion of this shutdown standoff, Democrats end up caving—or if they getting just ACA subsidies and nothing more—or, alternatively, they somehow agree to a full budget, as you said, that doesn’t draw the lines you’re talking about, that just does little piecemeal kitchen-table wins—sorry, I don’t mean to minimize the ACA subsidies, huge—but just kitchen table wins: Will you still be able to support the current Democratic leadership of the Senate in a scenario like that?
Sargent: I just wonder if more Democrats in a position like yours could be drawing a line with the leadership and saying, in the full budget, we really have to draw these lines, otherwise you can’t have our support anymore.
Sargent: Senator Murphy, thanks so much for joining us. We really appreciate it.
Senator Murphy: Thanks, man.
Hence then, the article about transcript chris murphy s dark and unnerving new warning about trump was published today ( ) and is available on The New Republic ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Transcript: Chris Murphy’s Dark and Unnerving New Warning about Trump )
Also on site :