The three broadcast networks' Sunday chat & chews all started the same. ABC's THIS WEEK:
JONATHAN KARL, ABC “THIS WEEK” CO-ANCHOR: The voters have spoken. The question now, can Democrats deliver? “THIS WEEK” starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KARL: Tidal wave.
JAMES TALARICO, (D) TEXAS SENATOR-ELECT: We just took back Texas.
AMY ACTON, (D) OHIO GOVERNOR-ELECT: Ohio has chosen unity and decency.
KARL: An overwhelming rebuke of President Trump.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I'm Margaret Brennan in Washington.
And this week on Face the Nation: In the aftermath of Tuesday's blue tsunami, Republicans regroup, President Trump makes a major staff change at the White House, and Democrats now face daunting challenges when it comes to getting stuff done.
Last week's decisive repudiation of the Trump agenda now puts Democrats on the spot. The pressure is on them to fix what voters say is wrong with the country. And that Democratic to-do list is a daunting one.
(Begin VT)
JOCELYN BENSON (D-Michigan Governor-Elect): Let's lower costs. Let's raise our wages. Let's end corruption.
SHERROD BROWN (D-Ohio Senator-Elect): We will fight to end these tariffs. We will end this war.
(CHEERING)
REP. CHRIS PAPPAS (D-NH) (Senator-Elect): It's expanding access to health care and childcare, saving Social Security.
(End VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Democrats may have won a healthy majority on Capitol Hill, but not a veto-proof margin. Can the two branches of government actually work together?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Good Sunday morning. It was a political wipeout — one of the most decisive repudiations of a president in modern American history. A Democratic landslide with echoes of 1974, in the aftermath of Watergate. Democrats seizing control of the House and the Senate and breaking decades of Republican dominance across the South. In the House, NBC News estimates Democrats could win up to 259 seats, their largest majority in decades. In the Senate, Democrats have picked up seven seats securing a 54-seat majority. and it’s not over. Democrats are leading in two uncalled races in Mississippi and Alaska where their majority could grow even larger. Democratic leaders are promising sweeping change.
[BEGIN TAPE]
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES:We promise to fight for an affordable America, and that’s exactly what we will do.
REP. ROBERT GARCIA: We should be very clear that the American people have spoken loudly and clearly. They want change, and they are tired of the destruction and the corruption of Donald Trump and this administration.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
The challenge now: delivering on those promises. And that includes a new Democratic senator from Kansas where Adam Hamilton, a pastor of the largest church in the state, made history winning a Senate seat that Republicans had held for 94 years. And Senator-elect Hamilton joins me now. Welcome to Meet The Press and congratulations on your win.
The two most important interviews this morning took place on CNN's STATE OF THE UNION where moderator Dana Bash spoke with Attorney General Toad Blanche and US House Rep Robert Garcia.
BASH: Hello. I'm Dana Bash in Washington, where the state of our union is watching a sea change. It is a new day in Washington, as the scope of the Democrats' extraordinary sweeping election win is becoming clearer and clearer. But, for Republicans, the new reality is just settling in, and there are growing signs this morning that President Trump is digging in. He elevated his most controversial aide, Stephen Miller, to be his chief of staff. And, yesterday, the president ordered his Justice Department to look into Democratic leaders for -- quote -- "threatening to investigate" his administration. You're going to hear from both sides this morning. In moments, I'm going to speak with the Democratic leader who is warning the president's whole orbit to -- quote -- "lawyer up." But, first, let's start with the Attorney General. Here with me now is Attorney General Todd Blanche. Thank you so much for being here this morning, sir. President Trump said -- quote -- "I am ordering the Department of Justice to look into this criminal act" -- end quote. Are you going to follow that order and investigate Democratic members of Congress? And what is the criminal act you think he's referring to?
TODD BLANCHE, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, what we have seen over the past several days and even over the past several weeks are outright threats, many -- many by elected members of Congress and some senators against anybody that's conservative and anybody that happens to be a Republican. They have threatened donors. They have threatened individuals who are in college and might want to work for conservative institutions or for a conservative government or for President Trump. And that is extremely troubling, and it should be troubling to everybody in this country.
And over the last several days, we have seen the rhetoric even rise up, to the point where they're already -- before they're even in power, they're already talking about investigations and impeachments, with no basis, no facts, just out there running around. That should be something that President Trump is very concerned about, and certainly I am as well.
These are not "outright threats." There are no threats of violence. This is the wining party announcing that they will exercise oversight -- something that has been missing in Congress for nearly two years now. The administration has been breaking rules -- continues to break rules -- and the incoming Congress is noting that those days are over and that there will be investigations. A threat?
A threat would be, "You do this or we're doing that." There's no threat. There is simply the announcement that this Congress intends to follow the law and, of course, nothing could trouble Toad Blanche more than someone wanting to follow the law.
BASH: Yes, well, they are they are talking about investigation as part of their oversight role that is prescribed by the Constitution, which you know is very well laid out. Is that what you're concerned about?
BLANCHE: Wait. Hold on a second. Sorry.
BASH: Or you're concerned about something else?
BLANCHE: Wait, wait, wait, wait. No, no, no, no, no. They have a very unique role in oversight. I agree. Have you been listening to the rhetoric the past couple days? You honestly think that all they're doing is talking about their oversight obligations when they're talking about going after basically every member of the Cabinet, they're talking about impeachments, they're talking about going after companies, private companies who happen to have made investments in this country over the past couple of years? That is not oversight. I welcome oversight. Oversight is exactly something they should be doing.
No, he doesn't welcome oversight. He's made that obvious in the case journalist Katie Phang has brought against him over the release of The Epstein Files. He has refused to comply repeatedly with the judge's orders in that case. Blanche does not welcome oversight, he instead attempts to elude it.
BASH: So are you saying that you are going to investigate them? And what you just described, is there a crime there?
BLANCHE: Well, what I just -- it depends on what's said. So, yes, there could be. You have free speech in this country. You are you are allowed to be critical of President Trump, of me, of this administration. But when the threats become so vile and so dangerous that you are telling people in college that they better be careful if they want to work in the Trump administration because somebody will come after them, at some point, you have to draw the line. And I'm not saying that -- necessarily that every case is going to be prosecuted, but we have a real problem at this -- in this country if a young person in college is getting threatened by a United States senator that, if they go to work for President Trump, they're going to be subjected to investigations and lawyers. You have an incoming chairman threatening without -- they're not even in charge yet -- saying "Lawyer up" to anybody in particular. So, if that doesn't bother you, if that doesn't bother your viewers, then we really need to kind of wake up in this country, because it certainly bothers me.
BASH: So what Democrats argue is the record that you have so far in the Justice Department is going after some of the president's perceived enemies in court, without success, from James Comey, to Letitia James, even a former Olympian who was accused of vandalism at the Reflecting Pool, which was dismissed. So, how is the way that the DOJ is going after, unsuccessfully, the president's perceived enemies any less sort of egregious, to use the way that you described it, than what they're doing?
BLANCHE: You selectively talked about three cases over the past two years...
BASH: Those are just examples.
BLANCHE: ... as opposed to the -- as opposed to the thousands and thousands of cases this Department of Justice has brought over the past two years. There's a reason why crime is at historic lows. And while you can spend your time on Sunday morning talking about two investigations and two cases, one of which is ongoing, by the way, and cases where, by the way, this Department of Justice dismissed the charges against that Olympian -- so after there was charges brought and new information came to light...
BASH: Yes. Yes.
BLANCHE: ... the charges were dismissed.
BASH: A judge also said that he would dismiss it also.
BLANCHE: So while it's easy for -- while it's easy for you to talk about -- while it's easy for you to talk about...
BASH: But I'm talking about the -- in terms of politics and perceived political enemies, which is what you're bringing up here. But I do want to ask you about another thing that the president said. He said that the Democratic lawmakers are extortionists and they should be imprisoned. Is that a possibility?
BLANCHE: Well, it depends on what the -- what the crime is and what they have done. But, listen, what President Trump is talking about -- and it's easy -- it's easy to sit here and talk about the president's TRUTHS without actually talking about what he's responding to -- is you have members of Congress who after Tuesday have done nothing but threaten everything that's happening in this administration.
That is not governing. That is not leading. That is not oversight. I mean, you have Stephen Miller getting promoted to chief of staff, and, within moments, within moments, the leaders of the Senate and the Congress start threatening him, OK? That's not oversight. That's not governing. That's not leading. That's actually a disappointment. And it's sad. And the president has every right...
Yes, real accountability is sad for a crook like Toad who doesn't respect the law or his position as Attorney General. He's either too stupid or too crooked to grasp what his role is supposed to be -- probably a combination of too stupid and too crooked. What he is doing is threatening Congress. It's not going to work because Congress has the law and the Constitution on their side. But he thinks he can threaten and bully and scare because that's how he and Chump and the rest of the administration have behaved for nearly two years now.
Let's skip ahead, he's getting on my nerves.
BASH: Mr. Attorney General, Calley Means, who was a top federal health official, he just resigned from the Trump administration. He's accusing Susie Wiles, the president's now former chief of staff, of blocking certain health policies because of lobbying by her former firm. And he says that she put political fund-raising over public health. Are you concerned about it? Or is this something you will look into?
BLANCHE: Something that someone says on a podcast? No, I do not listen to that, absolutely not. Susie Wiles did an extraordinary job, not only as chief of staff, but as a leader in working with President Trump for the past several years. And the fact that a disgruntled former -- former administration official comes out and says something against whether it's Chief of Staff Wiles or somebody else, that cannot be something that causes me to react in any way. She did -- as President Trump said, she did an extraordinary job.
Toad has a habit of dismissing things. Oh, The Epstein Act? That's just an Act of Congress. I don't have to follow it even though it was signed into law. That's how Toad interprets things. A former member of the administration is accusing the former chief of staff of corruption and Toad responds that he doesn't do anything based on a podcast. Toad doesn't do anything periord when it comes to the administration needing to be investigated.
BASH: Ron Johnson, your colleague, your ally on Capitol Hill, called it corruption, but you don't think so?
BLANCHE: When you say my ally, what do you mean by that?
BASH: Your fellow Republican. Your fellow Republican.
BLANCHE: My fellow Republican? I'm the -- I'm the attorney general of the United States.
BASH: Republican Senator Ron Johnson.
BLANCHE: You asked me if I was going to react to some -- to some podcast. No, wait, wait, wait.
(CROSSTALK)
BLANCHE: You tell -- you say, are you -- there was a podcaster -- there was somebody who went on a podcast and said that Susie Wiles put some other priorities over the president. I could not disagree with that more. And so, listen, I say that as the attorney general. I don't know if others have a different view. If a senator who happens to be a Republican thinks something differently, that is certainly their right. I don't share it.
BASH: Yes, it was a now former senior member of your administration going on "Joe Rogan" and other places as well.
REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): I mean, look, I think, first, we should always remember that Todd Blanche was Donald Trump's former personal lawyer, and he continues obviously to play that role.
I mean, it is ridiculous that we have the attorney general saying to the American public that somehow he's going to defend administration officials, when his job is to defend the Constitution and the Department of Justice to be the people's lawyer. And he's anything but that. And, quite frankly, what Todd Blanche is doing right now is a threat. He is threatening our committee. He's trying to stop us from doing real oversight. He is the person that should be reading the Constitution, because the Constitution makes it very clear that it's our job in the Congress to conduct oversight of the executive and the administration. And the fact that he won't recognize that, all he wants to do is protect Donald Trump, is protect Donald Trump's Cabinet and administration officials. That is not his job, I want to remind him. And he also needs to be reminded that Oversight is going to do our job, and that is to look at corruption, to pass legislation to stop further corruption, and to ensure that all those that are committing crimes against the American public need to be held accountable.
BASH: Even if you're being investigated by the DOJ?
GARCIA: Look, they can come after us however they want. We're not going to be intimidated. We're not going to -- look, the DOJ, Donald Trump's DOJ sent me a letter two years ago saying they were going to investigate me for comments I made actually on a CNN program. I mean, it's ridiculous. They have -- they have such -- they're so thin-skinned. It's like, guys, relax. We have a job to do, and we're going to do it aggressively.
BASH: Well, let me ask you about the job that you said that you had to do. You did say that Stephen Miller needs to lawyer up. Why are you going to investigate him? Do you think that he committed a crime?
GARCIA: Well, what we think is that Stephen Miller is the architect of this horrific, unjust policy happening across the country in the way that we are treating folks. Look, Stephen Miller called Alex Pretti, as we know, an assassin. The way that he is going around creating immigration policy that separates families, that is causing people harm, that's creating a detention process where a few large companies are profiting, the unconstitutional detention of people, the way that folks are losing their due process rights, that has to be investigated. And we know that Stephen Miller has been an architect of that. And so what's happening there, what's happening in Iran, Stephen Miller is at the center of the major policy decisions that are happening in the administration. And so it does deserve oversight and investigation.
BASH: Oversight and investigation. Do you think anything that he did was criminal?
GARCIA: That is -- well, what's important is, we believe that he's been at the center of actions...
BASH: Yes.
GARCIA: ... that are unconstitutional, unjust, and possibly illegal. So we're, of course, going to investigate that.
BASH: You have signaled that you intend to investigate the -- quote -- "Trump crime family." How far does that go? Do you want to include the president's son, Don Jr., his son-in-law, Jared Kushner?
GARCIA: This is the most corrupt family to ever be in the Oval Office in the White House. I mean, Donald Trump is the most corrupt person to every president of the United States. You have Don Jr. getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Russian oligarch for his wedding, sitting on boards of companies that are getting contracts from the Pentagon. You have Jared Kushner getting $2 billion from the Saudis after leaving the White House.
BASH: So, yes, you're going to investigate that.
GARCIA: Absolutely. The family...
BASH: Are you going to call them in to testify?
GARCIA: They should be expected to answer questions. And this is -- the grift that is happening on the American public, as the Trumps are billions of dollars richer, the American public can't pay the gas and the groceries. What happened on Tuesday is -- it directly impacts our work. People are tired and sick of the grift of the Trump family, and they want relief on affordability.
BASH: I want to show something to our viewers, and I'm hoping you can explain. So you were going back and forth yesterday and Friday with the attorney general on social media. You posted a picture of what you said was yourself as a clown. Can you explain what you were trying to say here?
GARCIA: Yes, I mean, this is a fun -- this is a joke. I mean, basically, what I'm saying is, when folks go -- when Republicans go low, what we're not going to do anymore is just take the high road and turn the other cheek. We're going to get down and be in that fight. And it's important for us in this moment to be fighting every single step of the way. And so Republicans want to play games, they want to play rough-and- tumble, they want -- they're coming in with all of their arsenal, we have got to do the same thing as Democrats. The days of us not fighting back are over. This idea that we're every single time not going to actually take on that fight is over. We have got to be in the fight and be aggressive.
BASH: I want to ask you something that I also asked the attorney general about, allegations against the now former Chief of Staff Susie Wiles by Calley Means, who just left the administration. He was a federal health official. The attorney general just dismissed the allegations, said that he's just a disgruntled employee. What Calley Means is saying is that Susie Wiles didn't make some changes in health policy because of concerns about political donations. Is that something -- and it's just an allegation. This is something that he clearly at least says he's not going to look into. Are you?
GARCIA: We're actually -- we're looking at this very case and what's that being said here. The fact that the attorney general just dismissed it as some person that was in the administration and that that shouldn't be investigated is exactly why Todd Blanche shouldn't be the attorney general. I mean, there is real corruption that people are reporting. This report with Susie Wiles, the fact that political donations could have had an impact here is serious and should be investigated. So whether it's Oversight, Judiciary, or other committees in the Congress, this is exactly the type of allegations that we in Congress should be investigating.
BASH: I want to ask you about the corporation side of this, because if the Trump administration does stonewall, or maybe even if they don't, you could -- and I think you have said you could pursue inquiries with companies and executives who have donated things like the White House ballroom or are aligned with the administration. Elon Musk, for example, is that the kind of investigation that you're also going to pursue?
GARCIA: Look, there are so many, as you know, allegations and reports of real pay-to-play, whether it's the pardons that have gone out to billionaires and donors, whether it's been companies that have been giving to the ballroom. In exchange for what? We need to find out. And it's not just those issues. We look at issues around the Iran war or what's happened in Venezuela, the oil companies that oftentimes are making record profits. We're also now rebuilding infrastructure so that they can be more successful.
And so what are the -- what are the conversations that are happening that are leading to corporations continuing, in my opinion, to rip off the American public? There is real investigative work that's got to be done, whether that's Elon Musk, whether that's what's happening with the surveillance pricing.
BASH: Could you see yourself calling Elon Musk before your committee?
GARCIA: I think there's a lot of interest, not just from our committee, but from committees across the Congress, to speak to Mr. Musk. What happened with DOGE in particular and with federal employees losing the jobs the way they did and people's data likely being compromised, I think is very serious.
BASH: Congressman Garcia, the incoming chair of the House Oversight Committee, thank you so much for being here.
GARCIA: Thank you.
Calley Means is not to be believed per AG Toad because he made the accusations against Susie Wiles on a podcast? Okay, well this morning he made the accusations again FACE THE NATION:
MARGARET BRENNAN: President Trump has announced that Chief of Staff Susie Wiles has left the White House. The departure coincides with this resounding Republican loss in the midterms. But, also, you went public with some very specific allegations of corruption and a call to clean house.
Was it your intention to get her removed?
CALLEY MEANS (Former White House Senior Adviser): Yes.
I think President Trump has been subverted by people that are beholden to special interests and not what President Trump ran on and what voters voted for. I led the MAHA initiative at the White House. And Stephen Miller said it recently in a speech. The heart of MAHA is that we are the only primate, humans, that deal with pediatric cancer and rampant cancer rates.
And it's obviously because of our environment. It's because of pesticides. It's because of that 70 percent of a child's diet is ultra-processed food. It's because we're not out in the sun. It's basic, basic stuff.
And that, I think, was really the heart of the MAHA movement and I think a heart of what President Trump ran on.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-hmm.
CALLEY MEANS: And there's very simple things. And Americans voted to change those things.
And I think, underneath Trump's nose, in many cases, you had a group of former lobbyists catering to the vaping industry, catering to the ultra- processed food industry, catering to the pharmaceutical industry, catering to the pesticide industry, and doing their bidding with an excuse that we need their money for the midterms and really need to actually go against what voters said, but we need their money.
Explicitly, that's what they said. And I think that…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-hmm. Who's they?
CALLEY MEANS: Susie and her cohort, Susie and Richard Walters, who is actually not someone most people know, but was one of the most powerful people in the country, was the de facto chief of staff when Susie was getting cancer treatment, Walker Barrett and James Blair, a very close-knit crew, who explicitly catered to special interests, against the will of the voters.
I think a lot of this happened without Trump's full knowledge. I don't think President Trump fully knew that some of these advisers were taking money from the industries we ran on fighting against at the time they're giving explicit policy advice.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Directly taking money?
CALLEY MEANS: Directly, of course, yes.
Tony Fabrizio…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is a pollster.
CALLEY MEANS: … is one of the most powerful people in the country, and every single Cabinet secretary was conniving on how to convince Tony Fabrizio of their policy positions, because any policy went through Tony Fabrizio for a political check.
He was in the White House all the time, every single week. And…
MARGARET BRENNAN: He runs an outside polling firm that the White House relies on.
CALLEY MEANS: Yes, but that's a name. I mean, he was a – he was one of the most impactful players in White House policymaking, one of the most powerful people in the country.
He had a huge say in any policy that got done. And as he is opining on the political relevance of doing healthy food and healthy school lunches, or taking on the pesticide industry or taking on big pharma, which President Trump ran on, he was getting paid by Pfizer, by Pepsi, to this day. It's on his Web site right now.
You can see it on the Joe Rogan podcast I just did. We pulled up his Web site. It's advertised right now. He solicits clients right now and lists those people as his clients.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you think all of his polling is compromised?
CALLEY MEANS: I'm just stating facts. I'm just stating…
On the topic of oversight, Kristen Welker discussed that with Governor Josh Shapiro on MEET THE PRESS:
GOV. JOSH SHAPIRO: I think there was absolutely a repudiation of Trump and Vance, but there was absolutely a core group of Democrats, let me just focus on governors for a moment, who went out and were very specific about what they were going to do, the change they wanted to bring about, the things that we could do as governors to bring down costs and increase opportunities. I think it’s interesting that of the ten biggest states in America, nine of them are now led by Democratic governors, and 75% of the American population is led by a Democratic governor. So, yes, there was absolutely a repudiation of Donald Trump but there was also an acknowledgment the Democrats had better ideas who were on the ballot and a better approach to governing and getting stuff done.
KRISTEN WELKER: As you have said and Democrats have said, part of the agenda includes oversight and investigations. How should Democrats make sure that oversight doesn’t come at the expense of taking action on the economy?
GOV. JOSH SHAPIRO: We’ve got to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. I don’t think just because you’re pursuing oversight it means you don’t care about cutting costs. I think we can do both. And, y’know, I think Hakeem Jeffries has made very clear that both are going to be on the agenda for the first 100 days and for these next two years. And I think there are leaders in place, who can both ensure that there is actual accountability and to make sure that costs are being cut and policies are being passed or at least put on the president’s desk. I would just say one more thing about accountability. It is very important that it is real accountability that informs the American people and changes some of these corrupt practices, not just accountability and I mean this with the most respect, that gets headlines on your news program. I think it has to be about real accountability. I’ll just give you one example, and there are, sadly there are hundreds of examples. The Defense Secretary at the president’s direction are blowing up fishing boats in the middle of oceans. There has been no accountability for that. There have been no oversight hearings about that. There’s been no real questioning about why that’s happening. It is critically important that Secretary Hegseth answer those questions. That anyone in the White House that was part of the chain command who ordered those strikes answers for it, and that ultimately, it’s not just about the headlines that come out of it but real accountability for how our military is conducting itself. Again, I don’t want to suggest that’s the most or the only thing, most important or the only thing we need to do when it comes to accountability but it’s one example of the serious approach we’ve got to take to ensuring accountability.
KRISTEN WELKER: Do you think Secretary Hegseth should be impeached? Is that accountability?
GOV. JOSH SHAPIRO: I mean, look, that’s a question for Congress to determine, but there has to be real questions asked. There has to be real accountability. I would just tell you from my perspective he is completely incompetent. He’s like an eight-year-old playing with toy soldiers every day. He is someone who I think is making America less safe and there has to be real accountability. If the Congress determines that the best approach is impeachment, then they’ll do that. It does seem, you’re closer to this than I am, it does seem that there is a growing consensus amongst not just Democrats but Republicans as well in the current Congress, not even the new Congress, that his time as defense secretary should be up.
KRISTEN WELKER: Well, there’s of course a robust discussion within the Democratic Party about potentially impeaching President Trump. Do you believe that President Trump has committed impeachable offenses in his second term?
GOV. JOSH SHAPIRO: So, again, I think there has to be real accountability. We’ve just spent a few moments talking about that, and it will be up to the Congress to determine, since that is a political tool of Congress, whether they want to go down that path. Here’s what I will say. Over the last hundred years, one of the worst decisions ever by the Supreme Court of the United States has been to grant to the president absolute and total immunity for any crimes he may commit. It is clear that this president is corrupt. Kristen, he’s put $2 billion in his pocket during his time as president. That’s $2 billion that has come out of our pockets. It’s $2 billion that has led him to not regulating AI. It’s $2 billion that has led him to making decisions that are against America’s national security interests, selling chips to China as an example, which undermines our national security but probably indirectly enriches the president or his children. And so I think there has to be accountability for that. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has taken away legal accountability. The Congress has to hold him accountable. They’ll determine what the best approach is.
ABC's THIS WEEK's best moment was an interview with incoming Speaker of the House Hakeem Jeffries:
JEFFRIES: The good news is, Jonathan, that we’ve got a robust majority in a -- in a Democratic House and a robust majority in a Democratic Senate to be able to get to work.
KARL: So, what is the goal? There’s kind of -- there are two approaches you can take, oversimplifying a bit here, but you can -- you can pass legislation that you think the president might sign, or you can pass a whole series of bills that you know he’s going to veto. What’s the approach?
JEFFRIES: Well, the American people clearly want change that’s bold, change that’s transformational, and change that is dramatic. They also want results because relief needs to come to the fact that so many people are struggling throughout this nation. And that’s everywhere. That’s in urban America, in rural America, in small-town America, in the heartland of America, and in black and brown communities all throughout America. So, from our standpoint, we want to do things like end this reckless and costly war of choice in Iran, which has made life way to expensive. We need to stop the Trump tariffs. We need to reverse the Medicaid cuts that put the health insurance of millions of Americans at risk and threatens to close hospitals all over the place. We certainly need to reverse the SNAP cuts, and we need to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits. And hopefully we’ll see some courage by a few of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work on these issues to get things done.
KARL: And the only way ultimately you get things done is if either he signs them or you get enough -- I mean a lot of colleagues on the other side of the aisle to overturn his vetoes. There are a couple of things that I see where you could potentially get him to sign. I mean, President Trump asked Congress back in January to cap credit card interest rates at 10 percent. He also pushed for most favored nation status, pricing on prescription drugs. And Republicans, Republicans never acted on either one of those. So, will you? Is that -- are those two areas where you could see passing bills in those two areas and saying, go ahead, Mr. President, sign it?
JEFFRIES: Well, we certainly need to provide credit card relief to the American people. And we need to lower the high cost of health care across the board. And we look forward to working on those issues. There have been a lot of Democratic bills that have been put into the public domain. A lot of Democratic ideas to try to drive down health insurance costs and the cost of being able to just live and live an affordable life, a comfortable life and a good life. So, we’ll see what the opportunities are. But we’re committed to moving aggressively during the first 100 days of the new Congress and beyond to keep our word, to fight for an affordable America, to bring about accountability because we’ve seen unprecedented corruption that has been visited upon the American people. And we are committed to holding the crooks accountable and making sure that Congress functions like a separate and co-equal branch of government and a check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch. And we also have to restore American values, like liberty and justice for all, equal protection under the law, our commitment to the unfettered right to vote, and to lift up our glorious history as a nation of immigrants.
KARL: You had some choice words for Stephen Miller’s elevation to chief of staff. You called him a dangerous xenophobe and reckless extremist. Said he had blood, American blood on his hands. How does that -- what does that mean for your ability to work with that White House, with that chief of staff, this president?
JEFFRIES: It’s an awful choice. Stephen Miller is the architect of Donald Trump’s violent mass deportation machine. And has unleashed billions of taxpayer dollars to brutalize and kill American citizens, like Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good. And at the same period of time, to violently target law-abiding, immigrant families and communities all across the country. So, you know, it was an irresponsible decision in my view. There’s not going to be an opportunity, certainly, to work with Stephen Miller and what he represents. And we’re committed to forcefully pushing back against the extremism that they may try to continue to unleash on the American people. And we’ve got a firewall in the House and a firewall in the Senate thanks to the American people.
KARL: Because that’s my understanding, you used to -- you talked on occasion or had some communication with Susie Wiles in your role as Democratic leader for her role as chief of staff, which is natural in any White House, any Congress. But you’re saying that’s -- that can’t happen with this new chief of staff?
JEFFRIES: It’s not going to happen with the new chief of staff to the extent that he lacks, because he clearly represents, along with Pete Hegseth and a few others, a really toxic brand of political engagement, of politics and of governance. And the American people just voted for that kind of MAGA extremism to be eradicated, which is why they’ve been defeated up and down the ballot all across the country, in the House, in the Senate, in governor’s races, in other statewide races and certainly in state legislative bodies.
KARL: Well, let me ask you about Pete Hegseth because Thomas Massie, of course a Republican, tells me that he intends to introduce a resolution of impeachment of Hegseth, as defense secretary, as soon as tomorrow? Are you going to support that? Will Democrats vote in favor of that impeachment resolution?
JEFFRIES: I'm a hard yes on the Hegseth resolution. The so-called secretary of defense has abused his power, undermined our national security, and engineered this reckless and costly war of choice in Iran, which has skyrocketed prices on the American people and made the country less safe. Pete Hegseth has got to go.
KARL: And you’re confident -- all of the Democrats are going to join you on that?
JEFFRIES: We’ll certainly have that conversation on Tuesday morning when we reconvene for the first time in Washington, D.C. But I believe there will be incredibly strong support for that resolution.
Let's wind down with this from Senator Adam Schiff's office:
Senators write: “…The definitions proposed by the SNPRM [Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] would remove federal protections for 80 percent of streams in the United States and 95 percent of individual wetlands, which makes a mockery of the congressional intent behind the Clean Water Act.”
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works’ Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife Subcommittee, and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) are calling on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to abandon their new proposal that threatens to harm public health and leave communities vulnerable to flooding and loss of access to clean drinking water.
The EPA’s new proposal to revise the definition of the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule replaces the proposed November 2025 standard with an even more extreme one, defining “relatively permanent” to mean “perennial” waters, stripping federal protections for hundreds of bodies of waters. Previously, in January 2026, the Senators urged the agencies to reverse this proposal.
“As we explained then, excluding these waters from federal protection threatens drinking water, increases downstream pollution and flood risk, and shifts substantial costs onto states, communities, and ratepayers. We are disappointed that your agencies have not only chosen to disregard all of these concerns, but have put out a second, more extreme proposal that does even more harm. We urge you to abandon this effort altogether and remember your statutory responsibilities to protect drinking water, public health, and the environment,” the Senators wrote in a letter to the EPA.
EPA’s latest proposal goes further to eliminate safeguards on bodies of waters that were already reduced by the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA. Additionally, the Senators raise concern with the subsequent harms this proposal will have on state and tribes’ capacity to manage waters, as well as on American households, who will bear the financial costs.
“…Pollution does not respect the arbitrary boundaries laid out in these proposals. When upstream waters lose federal protection, downstream communities do not cease experiencing their effects of that loss…the costs of additional pollution, degraded drinking water sources and the associated health risks, diminished flood protection, and lost aquatic habitat are shifted to states, Tribes, municipalities, water utilities, and ultimately the American taxpayer,” the Senators wrote.
“The Clean Water Act was enacted to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Proposing to systematically exclude waters known to be critical to that integrity ignores science and defeats the purpose of the Act…We urge you to abandon this disastrous SNPRM as well as the 2025 proposal and leave the 2023 conforming rule in place,” the Senators concluded.
The EPW Committee’s Ranking Member, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), also signed the letter.
The full text of the letter can be found here and below.
Dear Administrator Zeldin and Mr. Forsgren:
We write to express our serious concern regarding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ September 9, 2026 Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) that proposes to further narrow which waters would receive federal protections under the Clean Water Act. On January 28, 2026, we urged the agencies to abandon the proposed 2025 waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. As we explained then, excluding these waters from federal protection threatens drinking water, increases downstream pollution and flood risk, and shifts substantial costs onto states, communities, and ratepayers. We are disappointed that your agencies have not only chosen to disregard all of these concerns, but have put out a second, more extreme proposal that does even more harm. We urge you to abandon this effort altogether and remember your statutory responsibilities to protect drinking water, public health, and the environment.
The core proposal of the SNPRM is to define “relatively permanent” waters to include only perennial waters, which the proposal suggests defining as “having standing or continuously flowing water every day of the year during ordinary conditions.” The SNPRM includes limited exceptions for drought, dry spells, and low tides, and allows only a single interruption of no more than 30 consecutive days annually. The SNPRM also considers a definition of “continuous surface connection” that would require even perennial surface water within a wetland to be continuously connected to a jurisdictional water in order to merit protection as WOTUS.
Limiting “relatively permanent” waters to perennial and interconnected waters would be scientifically indefensible and would put downstream water quality at risk. EPA’s own scientific record demonstrates why. EPA’s review of more than 1,200 peer-reviewed studies concluded that streams are connected to downstream waters regardless of their size or frequency of flow and strongly influence downstream physical, chemical, and biological conditions. That review, and numerous other independent scientific studies, found that perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral tributaries transport water, sediment, nutrients, contaminants, organic material, and organisms through river networks and collectively affect larger downstream waters. Further, the definitions proposed by the SNPRM would remove federal protections for 80 percent of streams in the United States and 95 percent of individual wetlands, which makes a mockery of the congressional intent behind the Clean Water Act.
Your agencies acknowledge these concerns in the SNPRM and recognize the functions served by ephemeral streams. The agencies also acknowledge that the majority of wetlands would not satisfy the supplemental definition of “continuous surface connection,” because most wetlands do not contain perennial surface water. Even more, your agencies concede that the 30-day threshold is not “scientifically-grounded” and is proposed only because it is “easy to administer.” Given these acknowledgements, it appears the entirety of the SNPRM is contradictory— proposing changes that go against the very scientific findings cited in the notice. “Easy to administer” does not justify the neglect of waterways that contribute on average 55% of the water found in larger rivers – the protection of which is the mission of your agencies and the Clean Water Act.
The SNPRM also includes an arbitrary five-year cutoff for waters impacted by drought conditions, a policy that would cause particular harm to more arid regions like the West. After five years of dry conditions, such drought conditions would be treated as the new baseline. As American Rivers explains in its public comment, this would “convert a growing share of currently ‘relatively permanent’ waters to non-jurisdictional status over time, particularly in the West, as droughts lengthen and recur more frequently.”
The agencies justify these contradictions and known harms in part by claiming that the proposal allegedly provides regulatory clarity, giving landowners clearer notice of Clean Water Act obligations. But administrative simplicity cannot provide cover for a scientifically and legally indefensible interpretation of the Clean Water Act, as its primary purpose is to protect waters from pollution. Moreover, this SNPRM would not provide clarity, as it would inevitably lead to litigation and overwhelm state and tribal capacity to manage waters. The agencies acknowledge in the supplemental proposal that “Tribes may disproportionately rely on the Federal Government for water program implementation and enforcement of water quality violations” and “many Tribes are still building capacity and may lack resources to create a Tribal water program.” This SNPRM will remove federal protections for many waters Tribes may care about, thus pulling the rug out from under them.
As we emphasized in January, pollution does not respect the arbitrary boundaries laid out in these proposals. When upstream waters lose federal protection, downstream communities do not cease experiencing their effects of that loss. And states are not going to be able to fill the gaps left by the SNPRM. One state’s hypothetical capacity to regulate their own waters, absent federal law, does not mean as much when an under-resourced, upstream state exports the cost of their water quality remediation downstream. Instead, the costs of additional pollution, degraded drinking water sources and the associated health risks, diminished flood protection, and lost aquatic habitat are shifted to states, Tribes, municipalities, water utilities, and ultimately the American taxpayer. Our previous letter warned that narrowing WOTUS in this manner would transfer responsibility and costs downstream rather than eliminate them. The recent supplemental proposal fails to heed that warning and would multiply these costs to the American people.
The Clean Water Act was enacted to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Proposing to systematically exclude waters known to be critical to that integrity ignores science and defeats the purpose of the Act. Although we do not agree with its reasoning, the Supreme Court spoke in Sackett v. EPA, and EPA and the Corps conformed to that decision in 2023. There is no need for a further rulemaking, especially when that rulemaking envisions slashing federal water protections even further than the Supreme Court already has. The SNPRM your agencies have published includes a litany of contradictions and acknowledged significant harm to human health and the environment. We urge you to abandon this disastrous SNPRM as well as the 2025 proposal and leave the 2023 conforming rule in place.
###
The following sites updated:
-
-
-
-
-
After the Bubble Bursts16 hours ago
-
POTUS’s History Lessons17 hours ago
-
-
-
-
Idiot of the Week1 day ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
5 great Billy Idol tracks1 day ago
-
-
-
