--:-- [Theme music fades out]
--:-- Noel King: In just a few weeks, the federal government is going to run out of money. And per the filibuster, unless seven Democrats vote with Republicans, the government will shut down.
--:-- Noel King: Now, many Democrats don't want to do anything to aid President Trump's agenda. And some have said maybe the Dems should just shut it down. Don't make demands. Don't ask for concessions. Just refuse to play ball.
--:-- Noel King: But then Charlie Kirk was killed. And all of a sudden, this position became much higher stakes. Because if the Democrats force a shutdown, they open themselves up to Republicans deciding to end the filibuster.
--:-- Noel King: And without the filibuster, Republicans can do whatever they want. At this very moment, for Democrats to stoke a confrontation that could very well end with one of the last remaining guardrails on Trump's power in Congress being demolished seems very short-sighted.
--:-- Noel King: Coming up on Today Explained from Vox, the case for treading very carefully.
--:-- Noel King: Support for this show comes from strawberry.me. Be honest. Are you happy with your job? Or are you stuck in one you've outgrown? Or never wanted in the first place?
--:-- Noel King: Let a career coach from strawberry.me help you get unstuck. Discover the benefits of having a dedicated career coach in your corner. Go to strawberry.me slash unstuck to claim a special offer.
--:-- Noel King: Why shop at Burlington? Maybe it's the deals that are new each time you drop by. Maybe it's the brand names you'll be shocked Burlington has in store. Or maybe it's the quality of the items, the amazing selection, and the newest trends.
--:-- Noel King: If you like to save but also like to stay in style, Burlington is your answer. And the question you'll be asking yourself is, why go anywhere else? Burlington. Deals. Brands. Wow.
--:-- Noel King: This is Today Explained. I'm Andrew Prokop, senior correspondent, Vox.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: So you've been writing about what the Democrats should do next. Democrats had been considering shutting the government down even before Charlie Kirk was killed in Utah. Why was that?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: When this question first came up about the government has to be funded or else there's going to be a government shutdown, This was back in March. And Senate Democratic leaders at first looked like they were going to make a big fight over it.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: But in the end, they kind of let it go through. And the Democratic base was apoplectic about this.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Since then, the pressure has been building. Commentators like my former colleague Ezra Klein has been making the case that, like, Trump is consolidating power. He is making an authoritarian push.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And it would be complicity to continue to fund the federal government while he is doing this. A shutdown is an intentional event. It's an effort to turn the diffuse crisis of Trump's corrupting the government into an acute crisis that the media, that the public will pay attention to.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Democrats do not control either the House or the Senate, but since a government funding bill requires 60 votes to get past a Senate filibuster and Republicans only have 53 Senate seats, Democrats can use the filibuster to shut the government down.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Ezra's argument went far and wide, as you know. What do you think about it?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Well, it made me a little uneasy and that unease continued to mount in the days since Charlie Kirk's killing.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: I think it's important to try to game out how a government shutdown would likely play out. The arguments are overwhelmingly focused right now on, well, Democrats have to fight. They have to do something.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And so they should try this. But let's assume for a moment that Democrats actually succeed in shutting the government down via filibuster.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And big assumption, they hold true to their demands. They don't cave. They keep the government shut down indefinitely. They are going to keep filibustering anything until their demands they're making on Donald Trump are met.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: I think we have to think about what happens next in this situation. And what happens next, in my view, will not be Donald Trump surrenders, meekly caves to Democrats and says, OK, fine, you win. I'll give you whatever you want. Please just let the government reopen, please.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Instead, what will happen is that Republican senators will face increasing pressure from Trump and from their base to use what is known as the nuclear option to change Senate rules to get rid of the filibuster entirely.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: So I think if there is a government shutdown that Democrats actually stick to, the way that shutdown ends is not going to be Democrats' win policy concessions from Donald Trump.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: It's Republicans eliminate the filibuster and gain the power now to pass whatever they want with their votes alone.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Why would getting rid of the filibuster entirely be so bad?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: So a lot of progressives would say it wouldn't be bad. Progressives have hated the filibuster for many years.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Ezra made these arguments back during the Obama years. Hello and welcome to Ezra Klein Show on the Vox Media Podcast Network.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Really helped popularize them, which was that the filibuster was undemocratic, is bad for the health of democracy.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: There are various versions of this argument. The context at the time was that it was something that was preventing Obama from passing more liberal or more progressive versions of what he wanted to do.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: This is a context that reappeared under Biden when there was a renewed push from Democrats to get rid of the filibuster.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Good evening, everybody, and welcome to tonight's End the Filibuster National Town Hall.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: My name is Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, and I'm so proud to be the chair of the Congressional Progressive House.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: There also a kind of high argument that it important for the health of democracy that the president and Congress get the power to enact their agenda.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Because what needs to happen is that they should get to do what they want and then the voters get to decide in the next election whether they like it.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And finally there is a third kind of ideologically self argument which is that the filibuster is better for conservatives than it is for progressives because conservatives, they just want to stop government from doing things.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: They don't need to pass new things. All they want to do is cut taxes. And they can already do that with a special procedure called budget reconciliation that goes around the filibuster.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: But it's progressives who want to do big, bold things. And the filibuster keeps stopping them from doing it.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: I think all of these arguments need to be revisited for the specific dangers that this administration poses and what we've seen transpire in the opening months of this administration so far.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Tell me what you mean by those specific dangers.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: With this administration. The connection that people are not making is that if you start a government shutdown fight and it ends with Republicans being provoked into taking away the filibuster, that's just another guardrail on Donald Trump's power gone.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And suddenly he and Republicans now have the true ability, which they don't have right now, to pass whatever they want into law.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: People don't realize, because it's kind of invisible. But the filibuster has really constrained what the Trump administration's agenda has been so far.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: They've been overwhelmingly focused on what they can do through executive power or existing legal authority.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And they often try to stretch those authorities, which makes them vulnerable to legal challenge and threat.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: They're not even trying right now to think of new laws they would like to make.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: But if the filibuster went away, you better believe they would start taking advantage of that new power if they could suddenly pass whatever they want into law.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: The reason that this is dangerous is that new laws can be passed to lock in new authoritarian policies that could cement Trump and Republicans' power in place.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: They could crack down on the political opposition. They could make it more difficult for Democrats to win the next election.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And the Charlie Kirk killing and specifically the reaction on the right to that killing is what really crystallized this in my mind.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Because we started seeing immediately calls from conservative activists like Christopher Ruffo and the president himself for some sort of an effort to hold the left accountable.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: They're already under investigation. You know, they're already under major investigation. A lot of the people that you would traditionally say are on the left.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: This is something that has historically happened in many other countries after a killing or a national tragedy or something like this.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: The government uses it as kind of a pretext to pass authoritarian laws, crack down on the opposition and so on.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: But that can't happen right now because of the filibuster.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Then there is the question of the next elections. A few months ago, Trump basically tried to bully states into getting rid of mail voting by threatening to pull certain funding from those states.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Mail-in ballots are corrupt. And it's not really clear how impactful that will be in the end, whether states can have different opportunities to get that funding, whether they actually need that funding.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: But again, it would be much more impactful if he and Senate Republicans could actually pass a law that says, hey, no more mail-in voting in federal elections.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: We're not going to allow that anymore. Anything they do would be challenged in court in some way.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: But if they justify it in a way that can appeal to the conservative justices, it has a good shot at surviving.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And this gets to the core flaw in the high-minded argument that it's okay if the filibuster gets away.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: It relies on the idea that the president and Congress should be able to pass whatever they want and then voters in the next election will get to render their verdict on it.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: But what if passing whatever they want includes interference with the next election? What if it includes repression that makes that election unfair?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: These are the sorts of possibilities that, you know, they still sound a little far-fetched, but I don't think they're totally out of the bounds.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: All right, the Democrats can't win for losing at this point. But isn't there a risk that if they forfeit their leverage with the shutdown, President Trump still pushes for emergency laws that strip civil liberties, civil rights?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Well, he could do something like that. And right now, it would just run straight into the filibuster.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And maybe he would argue, hey, get rid of the filibuster. But for eight years, Senate Republicans have kept the filibuster.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: They want to keep it. The filibuster is kind of like a handy excuse for Republicans to take a lot of things off the table and just say to Trump, sorry, we just can't do this. It's out of our hands.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And if that excuse goes away, then the pressure on them will be far stronger.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: There's reportedly a belief that the optics of the last cave were very bad and that it's going to be hard for Chuck Schumer and other Democratic leaders to sell another cave.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: But, I mean, again, what is the exit strategy here? If you resolve, OK, I can't, I can't cave again. And you shut down the government.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And then the next step is, OK, Republicans are facing increasing pressure to go nuclear and get rid of the filibuster. And then at the end of the story, you've proved you were tough to the base. And you've given Donald Trump more power than he's ever had before.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Vox's Andrew Prokop.
--:-- Noel King: Coming up, Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen on high stakes for the Democrats and why he's endorsing Zoran Mamdani.
--:-- Noel King: Support for the show today comes from Three Day Blinds With summer on the way out your relationship with the sun is probably evolving More like the sun's relationship with me is evolving.
--:-- Noel King: One thing you might be getting tired of is having the glare of the sun in your eyes. All relationships need boundaries and lines are literal boundaries.
--:-- Noel King: You know what? I can't argue with that, 3 Day Blinds. Right now, you can get quality window treatments that fit your budget with 3-Day Blinds.
--:-- Noel King: You can head to 3dayblinds.com slash explained for their buy one, get one 50% off deal on custom blinds, shades, shutters, and even drapery.
--:-- Noel King: For a free, no charge, no obligation consultation, you can head to 3dayblinds.com slash explained one last time.
--:-- Noel King: That's buy one, get one, 50% off when you head to the number three, D-A-Y, blinds.com, slash explained.
--:-- Noel King: Mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless. And if you haven't made the switch yet, here are 15 reasons why you should.
--:-- Noel King: One, it's $15 a month. Two, seriously, it's $15 a month. Three, no big contracts. Four, I use it. Five, my mom uses it.
--:-- Noel King: Are you playing me off? That's what's happening, right? Okay. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch.
--:-- Noel King: Upfront payment of $45 for three-month plan, $15 per month equivalent required. New customer offer first three months only. Then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com.
--:-- Noel King: Support for the show today comes from LifeKit, the podcast from NPR. What's in your LifeKit? I'm asking.
--:-- Noel King: They didn't ask that. Every day you have to make choices that might shape the direction of your life.
--:-- Noel King: But you can't flip to the back of the book to find an answer key. Instead, you can listen to the Life Kit podcast from NPR.
--:-- Noel King: Life Kit offers real stories about common issues like relationships, finances, parenting, and your career.
--:-- Noel King: If you're looking to move with more intention or just need thoughtful guidance on living better, Life Kit delivers strategies to help you make meaningful, sustainable change.
--:-- Noel King: From fitness routines to mental resilience, navigating personal goals to tackling burnout, Each episode is full of relevant insights and clear takeaways about things we all could use a little help with.
--:-- Noel King: LifeKit wants to help you approach your own life with confidence and clarity and walk away with a game plan you can implement right away.
--:-- Noel King: Enough from me. Go listen to the show, LifeKit. It's a podcast from NPR.
--:-- Noel King: This is Today Explained. I'm Noelle King.
--:-- Noel King: Back in March, Congress was in the same position it's in today, and Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland voted to shut the government down.
--:-- Noel King: So we invited him on to talk about where he stands now.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: Senator Chuck Schumer and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have set their terms for avoiding a government shutdown. They want Republicans to reverse Medicaid cuts and to extend the Obamacare subsidies.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: What's your position on a shutdown?
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: Well, first and foremost, we should not be giving President Trump a blank check to continue his lawless activities, including his illegal withholding of funds from, for example, NIH, where people are undergoing clinical trials for cancer, and he's withholding funds that could literally mean a death sentence for them.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: And the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, has found that he is illegally impounding withholding these funds.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: And so we can't give him a blank check without guardrails and safeguards to make sure that that won't happen.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: What do guardrails and safeguards look like? What specifically are you after here?
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: So, for example, the Republicans in the Senate and the House voted for this so-called rescission package, meaning that they voted to undo resources, appropriations that they previously voted for.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: You can make that much harder to do by requiring, for example, a 60-vote margin to pass it.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: You can also do other things, Noel. So, for example, if the president were to engage in an illegal rescission, you could have an across-the-board immediate cut in White House appropriations.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: So there are things you can do if Republicans were willing to join us, but so far they're not willing to take on President Trump in any way.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: The country was in a very similar position back in March of this year.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: And the concern back then was that if Democrats shut down the government, they would end up taking the blame. They would end up alienating voters.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: Is that a concern this time around?
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: Well, this would be the Trump administration and Republicans in the Congress shutting down the government because they decide to go it alone.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: They decide to have a one-way street. They decide to give President Trump a blank check for his lawless activity.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: And I don't think the American people want to see President Trump get a total blank check because they've seen that he's withholding monies from things like FEMA and places that have been hit by disasters and refuse to provide funding for disaster relief.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: He's withholding funds from the National Institutes of Health. In fact, by our calculation right now, they're withholding about $400 billion of funds for important priorities for the current fiscal year we're in, which ends in just a few weeks.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: So if they're doing that now, he will do it again unless we stop it.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: In the first half of the show, our colleague Andrew Prokop proposed this as one possible scenario. An extended shutdown leads Republicans to believe that Democrats are abusing the filibuster. And so they end the filibuster. And so that means that Republicans no longer need any Democrats to vote with them and they can do whatever they want.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: He's painting the shutdown as quite a dangerous possibility for Democrats.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: What do you think about that?
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: There are always risks. But again it Republicans and the Trump White House that will be taking this risk because they will clearly be seen to be going it alone trying to essentially impose total one rule on the country Trump sort of authoritarian impulses would have no checks and no balances on them.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: With respect to Republicans getting rid of the filibuster, I think they recognize that more democracy in the Senate and the House does not favor them in the long run.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: I mean, I've been an advocate for ending what's called the super majority requirement to end a filibuster. You would still have ample debate weeks or months, but at the end of the day, you would bring debate to a close with 51 votes.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: Republicans have been able to do what they want without doing that. So, for example, they use the reconciliation process to pass big tax cuts for the very rich and cut programs for working Americans.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: We saw them do this in the so-called Big Beautiful Bill, which is beautiful if you're a billionaire, but stinks for everybody else.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: So the big things Republicans like to do, like tax cuts, they get to do even with the filibuster in place.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: I don't think the Republicans will go down that road because the supermajority requirement to end a filibuster favors their agenda, not the people's agenda.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: Let's talk about what you describe as the president's authoritarian impulses and what they might mean now.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: Okay. So after the conservative influencer Charlie Kirk was killed by a shooter last week, President Trump in a speech from the Oval Office blamed, quote, the radical left, he vowed to, quote, find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: This strikes people as a potentially very concerning threat to free speech, civil liberties.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: Have the events of the past week changed your mind at all about how you approach the Trump administration? Like, what do you think the president is saying here?
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: Well, I'm very, very alarmed by what the president's saying. There's no room for political violence in our discourse.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: We can have robust debates without it veering into violence, and there should be no vengeance.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: President Trump had a chance to bring the country together to say that political violence is unacceptable regardless of its source.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: But instead, he's decided to engage in finger pointing. Instead, he is weaponizing this awful tragedy, this murder, to advance his political goals, which include going after what he calls folks on the left, which in Trump world means anybody who disagrees with Donald Trump.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: So, yes, it's very concerning that he would threaten to use the full power and instruments of the federal government to literally go after people who disagree with him.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: There is a lot at stake for Democrats here, as you've been saying. Polling shows that Americans are really displeased with the party and not just the general public.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: Democrats themselves are not happy with the party. So in August, an AP poll of Democrats saw people using words like weak, tepid, ineffective and broken to describe their own party.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: What do you think is going on here?
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: Well, I don't think the Democrats have done enough to stand up to Donald Trump's lawlessness, nor do I think Democrats have done enough to put forward our own positive vision of what we would do, including, you know, taking on very powerful special interests and fighting instead for the common good.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: And the public interest.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: I was invited just over the weekend to speak to the Polk County Iowa Democratic Party, and I laid out exactly that argument, that more needs to be done to stand up to Donald Trump in this moment.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: But clearly in 2024, the American people, the majority of the American people, did not trust us to take on the status quo and take on these special interests.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: And so I believe we need to be much more clear, not only about what we're fighting against, but what we are fighting for.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: At that event on Saturday, you also endorsed Zoran Mamdani. You criticized other Democratic leaders for delaying on endorsing him. You referred to something that you called spineless politics.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: What's going on? What's Mamdani doing that you like?
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: Well, what I said was, as we prepare to try to win majorities in the House and the Senate in 2026, we need to first win the 2025 races.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: We have big races in Virginia and New Jersey for the governor seats, great candidates. And we also need to win the mayoral race in New York City.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: I pointed out that Donald Trump has spent a huge amount of time and resources trying to defeat Mamdani.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: Mamdani's platform was people who work in New York should be able to afford to live in New York, which would be good for people in New York City, in Des Moines, Iowa, and in Maryland and throughout the country.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: And yet you have these very, you know, powerful, big money, special interests, financial interests, combining with Donald Trump to try to defeat Mamdani.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: And so I do think this is a moment where Democrats need to stand up for the person who is fighting to reduce costs and make sure that people can afford to live where they work.
--:-- Noel King: Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, thank you so much for taking the time.
--:-- Senator Chris Van Hollen: Thank you.
--:-- [Theme music fades in]
