Former Rep. Steve Israel & Former Rep. Charlie Dent

Welcome to Ceasefire, where we look to bridge the divide in American politics. I'm Dasha Burns, Politico White House Bureau Chief, and joining me now, two guests who have agreed to keep the conversation civil, even when they disagree. former New York Democratic Congressman Steve Israel and former Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Charlie Dent. Thank you both so much for joining me. And this is great because I hear that you two are actually friends in real life, which might surprise some people, but not those who were around during your tenure. You overlapped in the House despite being from different political parties. You formed a friendship. Charlie, why don't you start and tell us a little bit about how you and Steve got together? Well, we served, much of my time I was in Congress, I served with Steve, so I think we served together about 10 years. And, well, I just got to know Steve. He was a thoughtful member of Congress, as a fellow appropriator. We were able to develop a relationship and just make common cause on various issues from time to time, and that's how we got to know one another. You could always tell he was kind of a center, maybe a center-left kind of guy, more of a center-right kind of guy, And I just thought we just had a lot of natural chemistry and synergies. And it was just great to be able to call him a friend and work with him as much as I did in Congress. Yeah, Steve, can you recall some of the times when you and Charlie met in the middle? Yeah, quite a few, actually. You know, Charlie was a leader on school safety, and so I supported him on those issues. We were on the Appropriations Committee together, State Foreign Operations Committee together. We agreed that the U.S. does best when it builds alliances and engages in robust diplomacy as well as having a strong defense. So we worked on that and on veterans issues. But, Dasha, here's the kind of strange thing. I chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for four years. My job was to beat people like Charlie Dent, Republicans in fairly purple districts. Bastards. But back then, and I failed. I failed completely, miserably. But the thing is that back then, Charlie and I knew that there was a time to campaign and he knew that I was recruiting against him and trying to find somebody who could beat him. But after the election, we put all that aside and figured out how we were going to work together, fulfilling our fundamental responsibility as representatives in the Congress. I mean, what you guys are talking about right now sounds like it's from a quaint time of old. I mean, I wonder how you see the challenges of bipartisanship being different now in 2026. Charlie? Yeah, things are certainly different now because I think the country has just become so tribalized and so polarized. You know, it seems that now even just seeking dialogue with somebody across the aisle at times, you know, can almost be seen as an act of treason by some. I mean, I remember I went to a White House Super Bowl party with Barack Obama, and I had people call me and say, how dare I show up at the White House and sit with the enemy? I mean, it was just a—and you can only imagine it's gotten that much worse. That was in 2009. But today, it's infinitely worse, where I think many people expect you to stay on your team, and they see any type of consensus building or compromise as capitulation. and they don't want to reward a lot of members of Congress for that these days. And consequently, you know, we have less of it. And truthfully, most members these days really do represent districts that are solidly Democrat or solidly Republican. And their political safety is by tacking hard to their bases. Yes. Steve, you know, Charlie mentioned an incident in 2009. I mean, what are you seeing now and how different are the dynamics of partisanship and polarization today than they were when you were both serving together? Oh, it's like night and day. So I was elected in 2000, took office in 2001. And back then, there were about 100, maybe just 115 fairly moderate districts, districts like Charlie's, district like mine on Long Island, just a bit right of center, just a bit left of center. And so when you campaigned, you campaigned on the basis of crossing the aisle, of working with the other side, of engaging in bipartisanship. Those were campaign imperatives in those districts. When I left Congress in 2016, the number of moderate districts had shrunk to about 25, 30, now arguably 20 to 25 true toss-up districts. And so it's not just that members of Congress have become more polarized, it's that their districts have become more polarized. You get punished by your base when you work together. I created something called the Center Isle Caucus with a former colleague of Charlie's in mind, Tim Johnson, who was a Republican from Springfield, Illinois. We'd meet for dinner, and then we started that in 2009. By 2010, we were out of business because members would say that their opponents were using their participation in the Center Isle Caucus against them. Wow. So it's social media. It's more tribalization. It's residential sorting patterns. Americans are choosing to live in areas where they're ideologically more compatible. It's the effect of bias confirmation and algorithms and gerrymandering has resulted in a very tribalized Congress and a very tribalized America where these kinds of friendships are harder than ever. Well, and guess what? It might surprise you, maybe not, to know that Americans are actually not thrilled with Congress right now. There's always frustration with the government, of course. But a January YouGov poll found that 65 percent of voters disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. Is this normal or is there something seriously wrong here, Charlie? I think we're living in a real moment of deep political and social turmoil. It is frightening. We're watching the world order disintegrate before our very eyes. And we just as a country, I think, are just kind of headed in a place that we haven't been for a long time. And so we're experiencing some type of changes that are really probably going to be considered historic at some point, maybe not in a good way. And I think we're in this moment of real disruption. And just to kind of double back to what Steve said, you know, there was a time when I thought politics in the United States was played between the 40-yard lines. That's how I looked at it, that, you know, that I was, you know, you always were worried about your base, but I was more worried about the people who were kind of somewhere between center right and center left. You know, these were the people who were going to elect me at the end of the day. And I'm finding that in both parties now, since so many districts are so safe, that they really don't need to talk to the center. You know, they feel they don't need to. I think they should, but they don't. Except for those members in those handful of districts, you know, it's maybe as few as 20, maybe as many as 40, who actually have to speak to people who are independents or of the other party in order to get elected. But because we have such a small subset of members who do that, it's not as normalized as it should be. So this is the time we live in, and these members are just playing base politics because it's very safe for them to do so, and they don't need to appeal to the center. Steve, to Charlie's point, I mean, those are some fundamental problems. Is there hope? Is there a way forward to restore some trust in Congress? There are ways of restoring trust in Congress and getting members some incentive to develop friendships and to compromise. But just to build on Charlie's point, you know, it used to be that if you were a member of Congress, you worried about being defeated by the other party in a general election. Now most members of Congress wake up worried about being defeated in a primary by somebody further to the left or the right of them. And a lot of that has to do with gerrymandering, the fact that districts are drawn bright blue, bright red. You've got to kind of cleave to those extremes. and you worry about somebody who is more extreme. There are lots of different solutions. For me, I believe that if we truly had a methodology of nonpartisan redistricting where we drew districts not based on how many base voters you can generate in an election, but just based on population the way it's supposed to be done, you would have more moderate districts. I also support things like open primaries and ranked choice voting, ways of bringing more voters into the process where you are putting more value in getting things done and less into ideological purity. Charlie, what do you think of some of Steve's solutions? Well, I certainly support open primaries. I think that's long past that time. I've supported creating independent commissions in my state to do redistricting. I think it's past time. And by the way, I have to say, I have to make a confession here. I was in the state legislature. I dealt through two redistrictings and one's in Congress. So my hands aren't clean here. Stinks probably aren't either. But this is the thing I keep hearing. I hear this from both parties, right? That like they hate gerrymandering. It's anti-democratic. It's bad for the country. But we got to do it because the other guys are doing it. Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know, the truth is, you know, no matter how they drew my district, it was always pretty competitive. So I, you know, I wasn't really one of the huge beneficiaries of redistricting, although I went from a D plus two district to an R plus two, and that was the difference between moving a rock uphill versus downhill. But all I can say is that I think Steve's onto something here. I think we have to reform the primary system. I'm not sure the best way to do that. Some states like Alaska, I think they're a ranked choice state. But there are others that Maybe first across the post, maybe if everybody runs on a nonpartisan basis, then you go to everybody runs in the top two. I'm not sure the best way to do this, but there has to be a better way to nominate candidates because in a closed primary, crowded field, I think often the most extreme candidate has a real advantage because they can win with a relatively small plurality of the vote. Yeah, the primary problem seems to be a problem for both parties, the primary problem. Now, you guys are both formers, right? You've retired from Congress. How do you see your role in politics, in our democracy now, Steve? So, look, I think Charlie and I both have come upon ways to continue to move our country in the right direction, to support democratic norms. It's just that we're not elected members of Congress. I've chosen to do it in two ways. One is I happen to own an independent bookstore on Long Island. I left Congress. My passion was books and reading. I opened up a bookstore. And the premise of our bookstore is that, you know, you come in not to point a finger, but to kind of drag your fingers along 300 pages. If we get back to more readership, greater literacy, expanding our curiosities, and get off of social media to the extent possible, I think that makes a contribution to civic engagement, critical inquiry, and a stronger democracy. So that's the way I chose. And then Charlie and I were together just last week in Washington, D.C., at a conference with members of Congress exploring whether experiences in the nature help elevate civic discourse. So we've chosen our own path. Just because we've left Congress doesn't mean that we've left our commitment to contributing to democracy in America. And Charlie, I know you're still pretty active, too. I'm going to see you overseas in Munich at the Munich Security Conference this weekend, right? Yeah, I plan to be there. And what I've done, too, and by the way, read books. Go to Steve's store. It's called Ted's or Teddy's. Get up to Steve's bookstore in Long Island. There's a good friend. Theodore's. There you go. Theodore's. There you go. Commercial. But no, but I agree with Steve that, you know, at least my role post-Congress, I lead the Aspen Institute Congressional Program, where I actually try to convene bipartisan gatherings of members of Congress on a bipartisan, bicameral basis and provide week-long educational seminars, graduate-level educational seminars for members on specific policy issues, from artificial intelligence to great power competition to energy security to global health and development assistance. And so that's what I've been trying to do and try to help members, give them a safe space to talk to each other, to develop relationships, and hopefully come up with proposals that can advance the interests of our country. And I'm not advocating for any specific policy. Just want to get them into the room at least to become better, more informed members. And the only thing I would further add is that there's a lot of garbage information out there, that a lot of people are getting information from some really bad sites and sources. And unfortunately, those sites and sources can reinforce existing opinions or biases, and too many folks don't change the channel or go to a different site. Now, you guys left Congress before it was trendy. Right now, people are fleeing their roles. Look at this NBC News headline. Members of Congress are fleeing the job at a historically high rate. 51 House members and nine senators have decided not to run for re-election, the most retirements from Congress this century. Steve, what do you think is going on here? I think that the institution has deteriorated for many members of Congress. I think that the kind of the empowerment of the flanks on both sides, the inability to get things done, this is not to say that nothing gets done but it more difficult than ever The pressure of Congress now very very difficult takes a toll on personal lives And then also we are in a historic midterm election If you're a Republican, in the back of your mind is the very real possibility that you will be in the minority if the Democrats take the House. And so that kind of incentivizes you to consider kind of post-retirement. And I will tell you that one of the Democratic leaders admonished me to stop looking so happy in the presence of Charlie's nine former colleagues. So for those of you who are serving in Congress, we're miserable. It's horrible. I mean, Charlie, if you were just starting your political career now, do you think you'd be as enthusiastic about running for Congress now as you were back in the day? No. No, I don't think I would be. Would you do it? Frankly, I don't know. I don't you know, I tell you what, when you're a young person, you're you're excited. You you you're a little bit naive, but you've got a lot of energy and enthusiasm and you're willing to go for it. But today, I don't know that I would have jumped into politics, you know, given how, you know, how how polarized and tribalized we've become as a as a country. I don't know that I would have jumped in. You know, it was nice when I ran for the first time. I was a little naive, too. You know, I knocked on 20,000 doors for the statehouse. I ran in a district in the city of Allentown that was more Democratic than Republican. But I had ties to the community. People were friendly. You know, they weren't going to—most people didn't care if you're a Republican or Democrat. And I found it so refreshing when I would go knocking on doors. I just introduced myself. And, you know, people were almost overwhelmingly, hey, thanks for showing up. No one ever does that. You know, it's kind of just have normal conversations with people, regardless of their political affiliation. And today, people seem to be more defined by their politics than as they are as just a normal human being. And often potentially defined by who is in the White House, too. I think as we look toward the midterm elections, Democrats are looking to make this a referendum on President Trump, which puts some Republicans in a tricky position. I'm looking at Maine, for example. Republican Susan Collins announced her re-election bid this week, and she's often at odds with the White House, but is often referred to as the only Republican that can win in Maine. She told Punchbowl this week, quote, I don't underestimate this is going to be a very tough race. Can I get my constituents, who I've worked so hard for, to focus on my record and my accomplishments for them? Democrats are trying very hard to make this a referendum on Donald Trump. Charlie, how do Republicans manage in this environment? Well, you're right. By the way, anytime there's a midterm election like this, the election is always seems to be a referendum on the president and his party. That's that's just the fact of life. And I sympathize with Susan Collins. I'm very friendly with her and I think she's tried very hard over the years to try to bridge divides. And, you know, but but that's that's been her modus operandi for years to, you know, to basically, you know, work across the aisle. And that's how she's been able to be successful in Maine. But even up in Maine, it's much harder, though, to win crossover voters today than it was back when Steve and I were in. I would serve from 2004, 2005 to 2018. I did seven terms. Steve did eight. And I found it was much easier to win crossover voters earlier in my career than later in my career. And I suspect that's what Susan Collins is suggesting in her statement, you know, that she wants people to focus on her record and not necessarily the president, because obviously the president's probably not real popular up in Maine right now, and so she needs to draw attention more to herself than to him. I mean, I think both parties right now are at a bit of an inflection point of figuring out what their identities are going to be. And for Republicans, you know, Trump is still in the White House, but there is going to be a future after Trump. There's like what you might hope the Republican Party will become, And then there's where you actually see from a distance, because you do have some room right now, some space to take a bird's eye view, Charlie. Where do you see the party headed in this moment? Well, the party right now, it's a, let's face it, it's a very Trumpian party. And then how do you define Trumpism? I used to have some definitions for it, although they've changed in recent months a little bit. I always thought it was about protectionism, isolationism, nativism. Some will say nihilism at times and populism for sure, unilateralism. But lately there's a lot more interventionism and imperialism and maybe a little less isolationism. But that's kind of how I've defined the movement. But really the MAGA movement is really whatever Trump says it is. And so the Republican Party has become a pro-Trump party. And so when Donald Trump eventually gets off the stage at some point, there is going to be a real fight about the future of the party, because there are a lot of Republicans who are going along with this whole, you know, MAGA, America First movement, but aren't real enthusiastic about it on on issues like tariffs or walking away from allies and cozying up to Putin. And I go on to a network, you know, you know, questioning the independence of the Federal Reserve. I go on a long list of issues where a lot of Republicans are very uncomfortable with this stuff. And then the question is, you know, what kind of a fight are we going to have? We're not going to go back to where we were pre-Trump. I don't think you can really go backwards, but we can get to a better place moving forward. And it's an open question and what that future looks like. And I suspect, and I'll let Steve address the Democrats, but they're also going through a bit of a transition, too. You know, they're often seen as an anti-Trump party, and they've got to figure out, you know, what they want to be going forward as well. So, yeah, right now, Democrats and Republicans have Trump. Democrats, though, don't necessarily have their own version of President Trump, for better or for worse. There's not a clear leader of the Democratic Party. Steve, what do you make right now? You ran the DCCC. What do you make of the direction of the party or lack thereof in this moment? Well, first of all, yeah, we don't have a Donald Trump right now because we don't have a presidential candidate, a presidential nominee. presidential nominees top of the ballot define the rest of the party and right now the definition of the Republican Party is President Trump he's in the White House we will have what I suspect will be a very robust and active primary that will help define who we are but in my view Dasha I think what Democrats need to do is understand one fundamental lesson and that is we have won all the blue districts we can win there isn't a single blue district that's up for grabs we have them The path to a durable and strong and resilient majority is winning purple districts, is winning right of center districts. And to do that, we need messengers, candidates who connect with their local constituencies. A message that works in Brooklyn, New York is not going to work in Brooklyn, Iowa. And so we need to recruit and cultivate and support Democratic candidates who can compete effectively in those districts, win those districts and resonate with their individual electorates without being held to an ideological purity test. I want to win. I don't want to have a 100 percent score on a purity test. Do you think Democrats have learned that lesson from 2024? Have they learned it enough? I think so. I think if you take a look at the candidates who the Democrats have recruited through the DCCC, the DSCC, if you take a look at where a lot of focus and attention is, it's with kind of centrist candidates, left of center to center, veterans, small business people, sheriffs and others in those purple districts. That's how we won in 2006 and 2008. That's how we won in 2018 to a great extent. That's a recipe. I want to talk about the president's push to federalize elections. He's been making a major push on this. The Wall Street Journal reported last week the president doubled down on his view that Republicans should nationalize voting in the U.S., questioning whether certain states should continue running their own elections as spelled out in the Constitution. Charlie, what are the risks here, and could this be a liability at all for Republican candidates? Well, I thought that was an absurd statement. Well, it's blatantly unconstitutional for the federal government to take over elections. The Constitution is pretty clear that the states and their political subdivisions are in charge of elections, and so there's that. And then there's the practical matter of I just don't see Republican governors or Republican state legislators around the country seating that authority willingly. Frankly, I don't see Republican members of the United States Congress, House and Senate voting to nationalize elections. So I think it was an ill-informed and a reckless statement. And I just don't think it has any chance of becoming law. Maybe Steve has a different view on that. I just don't see it. I thought it was way out of bounds. I like the fact that we have decentralized elections in this country, particularly in an era when we have to worry about people meddling or foreign intervention. It's hard to do that in this decentralized system that we have. Yeah, Steve, how should Democrats be responding to this? Well, Democrats need to be supporting guardrails and Democratic norms. And I pray that Charlie is right. And Democrats need to be planning for the worst. But I also believe that if you're talking in a competitive district, if you're talking about democracy, which is vitally important, and what may happen in the next election, and you're not focusing on affordability and the fact that too many young people cannot buy a house, and you're not talking about gas prices and tariffs, then you may be missing the message. There is room for both of those things. And Democrats are going to need to be prepared for a worst case scenario. And I wouldn't put it past President Trump to try and execute the worst case scenario. But we need to be talking about a broader range of issues that resonate with people at their kitchen tables. To that point, I am surprised, Steve, to see how much Democrats have taken on the issue of immigration recently. I mean, this has historically been something that Republicans campaign on. Certainly, President Trump went hard on immigration during the 2024 campaign. It's the reason a lot of people supported him. He shut down the border, but now the narrative has really shifted as the deportation campaign has caused a lot of controversy, and especially given what happened in Minneapolis. How are you seeing the sort of Democratic push on the immigration issue? Are they navigating it the right way? Are there risks? Talk to the Democrats on immigration. No, I think they're navigating as you would expect. Now, remember what Charlie said, that a midterm election is always a referendum on the president. Only three times in history since the 1930s has the president's party picked up seats. And so this is a referendum on Donald Trump. His strong point in polls going into his presidency was on immigration. He's now bordering on toxic. He's hemorrhaging independence. He's down to mid-20s in some recent polls. And most of that hemorrhaging of independent crossover voters, the voters that lived in Charlie's district and my district, is because people don't feel that the immigration policy and ISIS behavior makes sense. It actually makes them feel less dangerous. They feel it's unjust and unfair. They have common sense. Federal agents who are masked should not be going around doing harm to citizens, even if they're suspected of not being citizens. And so his numbers are very, very low on immigration. The economy's not picked up. That's people's perception. And so Democrats have a narrative that focuses on those liabilities. But the narrative has to also include what are we going to do about it? What are we going to do to have a sane, normal, smart and safe immigration policy? Charlie, you live and breathe swing voters. What do you think is ultimately going to push them to one side or the other for the midterms? I think ultimately it's always about the economy. Most people wake up every day worrying about paying the mortgage, paying the rent. Can they afford their health insurance? Can they afford tuition? Their electric bills have been very high. They're feeling the pain there, of course, the cost of groceries. I think that's what motivates most people. I think most of those swing voters don't live on social media and are obsessed with politics. But these are the people who probably voted for Trump. A lot of these swing voters, at least in the presidential election, who voted for Trump, not because they necessarily liked him. I like to call a lot of folks double haters. They didn't really like Donald Trump. They probably didn't like Kamala Harris either. So they voted for what they thought was the lesser of two evils, largely on the economy. I think to a certain extent on immigration. But at the end of the day, it's about the economy and jobs and the cost of living. But I would also say, too, I think there's a lot of frustration out there, too, with a lot of swing voters about the chaos, about the disruption, about taking over Greenland and is Canada really an enemy? I mean, all these kind of bizarre things that happen every day. I think that's weighing on a lot of people's minds, this never-ending chaos and disruption. I mean, I can't even count all the things that happened last week that were just bizarre. You know, the tweets, you know, the Obamas, you know, as apes, it was very racist and offensive. And, you know, the Rob Reiner reaction, these kinds of things that the president does, I think, are also having an impact on swing voters. Well, Charlie, thank you for summing up the week for us. Gentlemen, that is all the time we have. Really appreciate you being here with us. former New York Democratic Congressman Steve Israel and former Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Charlie Dent. Thank you both so much for joining me. Thank you. Thank you. All right, let's turn now to this week's C-SPAN flashback, where we dig deep into the video archives to bring you a moment from political history that's relatable to today. We're taking you back to February 1995, days before Valentine's Day, when House business was mixed with a little lighthearted poetry. Indiana Democrat Tim Romer took to the floor with a rhyming request, pressing then Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey on whether lawmakers could finish their work in time for Valentine Day dinner Take a look We have a resolution that we put forward Roses are red violets are blue If we not home by seven we in deep stew We would encourage the gentleman to give us a more definitive time on Tuesday night. Well, I appreciate the sentiment. And let me just say, I believe that we work, We will probably work hard and late Monday night. And I think with good cooperation, we can all have a high confidence that we will be able to make what I'm sure for all of us will be a lovely dinner on Tuesday night. So we still don't have an assurance of 7 o'clock yet. This gentleman just needs to see how deep it will be, to which you earlier referred. I don't want to be in anything. I assure the gentleman I appreciate your point of view. I have high hopes and great expectations that we will accommodate to an early enough evening on Tuesday so that we can all have a lovely dinner with a lovely person. And if we don't, you're buying the roses for all of us to get us out of that deep stew? I'm sure I understand the point. The House ultimately did adjourn just in time for dinner on Valentine's Day that year. Now, to the portion of our show where we focus on the strategy behind the policy. To do that, let's bring in two pros from both sides of the aisle. Republican strategist Ashley Davis, she's a former special assistant to the Homeland Security Director and former Deputy Director of Management and Administration, both during the George W. Bush administration. And Democratic strategist Dan Kennanin, he's a former Harris-Walls campaign battleground director and has worked on several Democratic presidential campaigns. Thank you both so much for being here. Now, you've both done the surrogate game. Let's remember here you are strategists. You're going to peel back the curtain for why each of your parties is doing what they're doing. Sounds great. Hopefully you two will not be battling it out on the floor for Valentine's Day. No, but that was actually pleasant. I kind of was like, those are the good old days of they were nice to each other at least. And some negotiation with some collegiality built in. I like that a lot. And a little poetry. Who couldn't use more of that? Speaking of things happening on the floor, remember when we were talking about health care? What happened to that? It is amazing. And that was what Democrats were standing on for the previous shutdown. Now the conversation has been all about immigration. Which party do you guys think is winning the messaging war right now on immigration? I'll throw up the ball, you two. Why don't you start and I'll counter there, Diane. Well, it's interesting because traditionally, I think this is turf that's very favorable for Republicans. I mean, Trump clearly did well in 2024 when Democrats did not have a coherent answer on the border or on immigration. And it killed us in many respects. The way that they have handled ICE in particular, and specifically ICE, because I think the border politics are distinct and separate from what's happening with deportation raids in American cities, has totally upended that political calculus. And now you've got upwards of 60, 65% of the American public in poll after poll saying ICE has gone too far. And seeing is believing in politics. You know, it's hard to cut through. We talk about it all the time, the fragmented media environment. But a couple of surveys showed that something like 80% or more of Americans saw the Alex Preddy video. When you see it that clearly and that starkly, that wasn't just told to you or transcribed to you by some influencer, it's different. And I think because of that, the politics have shifted. Republicans are starting to see that a little bit. But some of these demands that I think to Chuck Schumer and Akeem Jeffers have put forth are very reasonable. And I think that they'd be right to take some of them and maybe de-escalate their own political problems at this point. Ashley? Yeah, so I, listen, I was a big supporter of closing the border. Obviously, my background in Homeland Security, and Dan knows this, that it was something that the American people were ready for. I agree 100% that the conversation did change after some of the issues in Minnesota. I always said from the beginning, we're one video away from the conversation changing because there's a combination of not only the two shootings, but also the little boy with the hat that really changed that conversation for Republicans. Obviously, you've seeing the president take a step back. But I feel strategically that the Republicans have changed their messaging over the last seven to eight days, which has been helpful in regards to us kind of taking back the conversation, or at least taking it away from the ICE conversation, which is the SAVE Act, which is the legislation that makes people have to register to vote. So you have to CIDs. You have to, and it's really something that the American people do believe in, that American citizens should be the ones voting for our elections. And I feel it's the first time in weeks. And as we were saying earlier, there's a new news, something new every day to talk about. But this is something that has really been positive for Republicans to talk about again, because it's really hard not to agree with it, just from a pure messaging standpoint. The thing for Republicans, though, the immigration issue is not going away so long as the Trump administration is still pressing forward with its mass deportations. How much should Democrats try to keep a focus on this? Is there a risk of potentially going too far and veering into sort of the abolished ICE territory, flashbacks to, you know, to defund the police movements of 2020? Yeah, we've talked about this some. I mean, I do think there's a place Democrats could veer into that would be dangerous. But ICE is also viewed distinctly from every other law enforcement agency in this country right now because they're behaving so differently. No other agency is wearing masks, not the FBI, not local police, not state police. It's very unique to ICE. How they operate with impunity, without warrants in most cases, is distinct to ICE. And so I do think there's more latitude for Democrats to be tough here. Andy Beshear was asked this question earlier this week about the abolish ICE rhetoric versus something else. And I think he got to a really good point, which is it's not really about the nomenclature and the verbiage we're using here, but this version of the agency from top down has to be reformed and changed entirely, including firing Secretary Noem. That was his recommendation. That doesn't mean you don't have immigration enforcement. It's not saying we don't need this capability in this country. It's saying this version of it, this particular agency, has got to stop operating the way they're operating. Actually, given the frustration with Noam, some bipartisan frustration, do you think the president should consider letting her go? So I say this about all cabinet secretaries, whichever one Democrats want to resign. And by the way, Republicans do it all the time, too, when Democrats are in the president's in the White House. But one person can fire this person, let's remember. And the more public pressure that is put on the president to fire one of his cabinet members, the less he's going to do it. So I'm watching this right now with some of the Epstein issues and certain people. We'll get into that. But I mean, I think the more Democrats call for him to fire somebody. He did a story in Brett Kavanaugh. Remember when the pressure when Brett was getting in front of the Supreme Court? that makes him dig in more. So I don't, I don't, I think is, I think that Secretary Noem is fine right now. I think what happened though, is she was taken out of this role. And now when you see that, that Hellman, you know, with CBP is now the one that is in charge of this and he's like a gruff guy, right? He's not warm and fuzzy, but he has deescalated the situation, which the president realized that it needed to be de-escalated. But just to answer your one thing on ICE, the masks and the warrants, I think Republicans are never going to agree on. And so the body cameras, yes, I think there's some other things that they can agree on. But right now, we're right here on both sides. And until we get a little bit closer, we won't have real reforms. I mean, on the messaging front, I hear you in sort of changing the conversation or trying to change the conversation with the SAVE Act. But immigration is something Republicans love talking about. It should be one of their, historically, is one of their strongest issues. So what is the strategy for Republicans now? Is it riskier to sort of stand firm with the status quo and support how the administration is doing things, or is it riskier to push for some sort of change and a de-escalation of tactics? Well, I think what Dan said, which is exactly right, if we could separate ICE from shutting the border and making sure that we have a process in place that we don't have potential terrorists coming over our border is something that would be really great to separate. Right now, I think the Democrats are going to try really hard to keep those two things together, which if I was a Democrat, I would do the same. And so besides this registering to vote save act, I think it's going to be really hard for Republicans to separate it. However, if you look at different polling, most of the country agrees that closing our board of the president did a really good job at. We've just gone, we've just, we meaning Republicans, have gone a step too far that we've lost the control of the messaging. Let's talk about, you brought this up, the Epstein files. That was another major headline of the week. Lawmakers were given limited access to some unredacted files. During a deposition, House lawmakers this week convicted Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell pleaded her Fifth Amendment rights and her attorney indicated what it will take for her to talk. Washington Examiner summed it up. Ghislaine Maxwell hints she'd help Clinton and Trump in exchange for clemency. Ashley, do you think the White House is or should even consider clemency for Maxwell? all? No. So I believe a completely different and have reasons to believe this, that one, the Epstein-Faust should make sure that whoever was involved, Republicans, Democrats, and, you know, she was very, very involved and so she should be held accountable for it. But anybody that was involved should be, their names should be given to the public. And you see this, what's happening. The people that have come out over the last several, say, six weeks are mainly business people more than politicians, except for a few, which has been kind of shocking in the business world. You've seen a lot of business folks lose their jobs, senior people. A lot of crisis PR firms get a whole lot of business. There's a good job going on right now with that. But here's what I 100% believe in and know. There are also national security implications that are part of these Epstein files. And so it's really great that, and nor should the general public know, or 99.9% of the country know, what is actually redacted. But some of that stuff for the reasons of security for the United States of America, things that Epstein was involved in, that our services, our agencies knew about, are something that we can't show the general public. So I feel there is a, And listen, let's remember the president ran on this. The Republicans were the ones that say under President Biden that there's all these conspiracy theories. Yes, there are a lot of people that have been called out on this. But I think unless you're sitting in the White House and understand what else is in there from a national security perspective, which is why I think the president backed down on it. I don't think that the president's any more in the Epstein files than we already know. And I think that ship has sailed. I don't think there's any smoking gun there. I think Biden would have put it out if there was a smoking gun. But I think that we need to make sure of this national security issue. Dan, can you explain your view of how Democrats have been handling this, both from a policy perspective but also politically? Well, Ash said a couple things I really agree with, which is if you're in the files and you're a political leader or a person of power, unless it is a national security interest, it's legitimate, then you should be released, Democrat, Republican, business leader, or otherwise. And Democrats should say that forcefully and have, I think, very forcefully. We shouldn't be protecting our own. If they've done something improper, you should release it. If there's investigations, you should investigate, follow that where the facts go, and prosecutions, if that's necessary. But I do want to say there's a massive credibility problem with this administration. I mean, this week, Pam Bondi was testifying again. Not the first time this has happened. Kristi Noem's done this as well, where they go to the Senate or they go to the House, and instead of answering basic bipartisan questions on serious topics, they yell and they scream and protect the president. Yeah, actually, let's take a quick listen to just one exchange from the Bondi testimony. If you are willing, please raise your hands if you have still not been able to meet with this Department of Justice. Please know for the record that every single survivor has raised their hand. Will you turn to them now and apologize for what your Department of Justice has put them through with the absolutely unacceptable release of the Epstein files and their information? Merrick Garland sat in this chair twice. Attorney General Bondi. Can I finish my answer? No, I'm going to reclaim my time because I asked you a specific question that I would like you to answer. Members get to ask the questions. The witness gets to answer in the way they want to answer. The attorney general can respond. That's not accurate, Mr. Chairman. Because she doesn't like the answer. So, Mr. Chairman, I have asked a question. Why didn't she ask Merrick Garland this? Twice. I am reclaiming my time and when I reclaim my time, it is mine. I not going to get in the gutter for her theatrics That just one slice of quite a long and dramatic hearing I mean is this good for either party this kind of performance No, but the problem is the trap that exists, and I don't know how Democrats deal with this candidly, is that these cabinet members who show up and should be testifying and providing actual facts instead come in with a filibuster and an assault mentality, refuse to answer questions of Congress, refused to adhere to timelines and deadlines. Even the law itself on the release of the files was just blown by. And then beyond just the performance there, Todd Blanche at Justice, who is handling a lot of this, it seems, was the president's personal attorney, is also dealing with Ghislaine Maxwell. And she was convicted and put in a maximum security prison by the Biden DOJ. He's moved her to a sweetheart facility that's club fed. She's clearly angling for some sort of clemency. And then, Ashley, your point about what the White House may see or may not see in all of this, this is not for the White House to decide. It's the Department of Justice which should be independent in this situation. Donald Trump is all over these files. And I agree with you. There's powerful businessmen all over these files. And the fundamental nature of the 2024 election, from my standpoint, was that it was a top-down election, not a left versus right election. And when Donald Trump went to McDonald's and Kamala Harris went to the Wall Street Journal, that wasn't about left and right. That was about elites versus the common man. Did you make that decision, Dan? Boy, I did not. But I do understand. What we're trying to do, I understood, right? We don't want to paint it into a left-flank corner. But the old version of 90s politics of let's go court some business leaders to be a little more moderate as a Democrat doesn't work any longer, and Trump understood that. But my point about that is what you're seeing in the Epstein files or you're seeing in this protection of business people or people like Howard Lutnick or the president himself is protecting the powerful, and those victims are the ones who are getting the shaft. Ashley, what do you think? Well, that whole clip that you just showed, to me, is what's wrong with our country at the moment in regards to the political isolation of each party, because both of them were playing to the bases of each party. Well, Pambani's playing to an audience of one, really. And that's kind of the base. That's the base, yeah. base. So I just think that arguing that the respect for whether it's cabinet secretaries or members of Congress on both sides have gone away because everyone's talking to the next soundbite as well. I mean, the fact that that both of them are going to go viral over this is probably a good thing for both in regards to their each side. And I just don't like that this is what politics have turned into. But listen, I think that the country is getting very I would like this administration to continue to talk about affordability in regards to what they're doing to bring prices down of groceries and everything else. But they keep getting distracted, it seems, whether it's immigration or Epstein files or, you know, all of the foreign policy that, of course, is important. But there's frustration from members of the base, too, that there isn't enough talk about. Absolutely. I mean, obviously, we know that Susie Wiles has said that she wants the president on the road every week talking about affordability. but because of, I mean, Epstein is like the gift that keeps on giving to Democrats right now. It used to be the gift that kept on giving to Republicans because we were kind of saying about the conspiracy theory. But when do the American people are just finally like, you know what, I'm tired of hearing about Epstein. Well, the way that this administration has been releasing the information has dragged out the news cycle even longer to their detriment, right? Yes, it has. And I'll go back to the elites versus everybody else thing here. I mean, you know, Lutnick, for example, who is in the files, lied about it, then got caught seven years after he said he never talked to Jeffrey Epstein. Turns out he went to the island by boat seven years later and has business deals with this man, which is one example of the dozens and dozens, if not thousands of entanglements that exist here with powerful people. I think for why it matters the American public beyond the salaciousness of it, which obviously it's very salacious, is this power dynamic. And so you've got Howard Letnick who does that in the same breath, in the same week. There's a bridge, the Gordie Howe Bridge in Michigan, which will go into Canada. They'll transport goods to and from. That's an economic engine for the area that is set to be opened. And now the president, under Letnick's recommendation, is going to delay that because the billionaire owner of the other bridge met with Howard and said, I want you to stop this. I connect those two things because the American people sees that. They see these powerful folks in this club that is impossible to penetrate, that will not hold each other to account. And that's where the independence is important. Actually, you mentioned this earlier. Trump is not going to fire Howard Lutnick because of any sort of media coverage or public outrage. But could this compound to become a problem for Lutnik and or the whole administration? The Epstein issue or the bridge issue? Because I want to clarify the bridge issue real quick because the bridge issue is beyond the one other wealthy owner. That is all tied to kind of these negotiations that are not going very well in regards to tariffs and then what happens with USMCA and does the president blow up the trade deal between Canada and Mexico? So I think there's a lot more there. I know there's a lot more there than just of why the bridge is being shut, because you're right, it is crippling on both sides. But going back to Epstein, I just really think that, do I think Epstein brings Howard Lutnik down in general? know. Do I think that if he's doing things that maybe the president doesn't agree with on policy or doing things that way, that's when the president would do it? I also don't think anyone's getting fired until after the midterms. He does not want chaos. Susie does not want chaos. And after the first administration and people getting fired after, you know, two days, I think they're trying really hard to make sure that doesn't happen. I mean, Kristi Noem was a liability a month ago. Is she a liability anymore or is she just kind of not being talked about anymore? It brought me to my next topic, which is the midterms. I do wonder what you guys think about Elon Musk getting back into the fold. He broke up with Trump. They got back together. He broke up with politics. He's getting back together with politics. He's going to be making some big midterm donations. Given his history in this White House and all of the drama around Elon Musk, I know people want his money, but is this a good thing or could this become a liability? Well, let's talk about why I think that he is doing this. One, he realizes that if the House flips, he is definitely going to be caught up in front of every oversight committee that would have jurisdiction over Doge, which is pretty much all of them, right, in regards to the committee. So from him himself and his companies, he probably does not want the House to flip and him being caught up. And number two, I think he does believe in the populist libertarian message that Trump does run on. And I think that this administration is very helpful to what his businesses do. And it's much better for him to be in the tent than outside the tent. But does he hurt in races? I don't think so. Is this something Democrats, to your point about the elite, right, is this something Democrats could take advantage of on the messaging front? Yeah, there's two ways to look at this engagement that Musk has, I think, politically. There's the optics and the messaging part of this and what Ashley is alluding to, and there's a technical side of it. On the technical side of it, it's a big advantage for Republicans because Musk can give hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, into these efforts in unregulated dark money. He did that last time. Almost certainly he'll do it again. And Democrats have a money disadvantage of the national committees. So that's a problem. The other part of the problem that's worth tracking this time around is the Supreme Court is likely to change the rules on what is considered candidate rate television versus non-candidate rate television, which can blow apart the advantage that sort of the hard money, the dollars are tracked and recorded by the FEC, what that can do versus what the dark side money can do. And the dark side money can do everything that the hard side money can do. All of a sudden, that money is even more important for Republicans. So that is a big problem the Democrats have to tackle with, and they should take it seriously. But on the optics piece, I do think that hurts Republicans and Musk. He did this in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, you may remember, last year. Oh, that's right. When he put tens of millions in there, I think 50 or 60 million maybe, and then went there himself. And it was the best gift to the Democrats in Wisconsin they could possibly get because people were so upset with how he's done doge. And they see, I'm not going to describe what I think Musk, I could try. But I'm not going to describe what I think Musk's motivations really are. And perhaps it is exactly what Ashley said, that there is this libertarian populist alignment with Trump. And that is sort of what's really driving him there. But whatever his motivations are or are not, what people can see is that his companies benefit massively. He's the richest man in the world. He behaves pretty abhorrently, you know, in general, and then tries to buy whatever he wants. That's going to play very badly at a time when we have negative job growth, high prices, affordable health care being decimated by this Congress. and a host of other issues, that will hurt them, I think, in the midterms. I'm going to take a hard pivot here and bring in our weekly segment, Not on My Bingo Card, where we highlight a funny, offbeat, or unexpected political or cultural moment. I'm going to talk about George Soros. Next up. We're going to talk about Momdani instead. Don't worry, you'll have fun with this. New York City's new mayor, Zoran Momdani, is still early in his first term, navigating the demands of leading the country's largest city. but one of his most recent challenges isn't policy it's pets mom donnie is allergic to cats but his wife is keen on bringing one into gracie mansion the mayor's official residence the wall street journal summed up the conundrum with this headline mom donnie's toughest mayoral transition moving a cat into gracie mansion mayor mom donnie is now undergoing months of weekly allergy shots to build up a tolerance watch i i just got my shot again yesterday i'm getting my shots once a week Okay. Seven months, one in each side. And then is it after the seven months that you'll then be able to get a cat? Yes. Are you already eyeing what kind? Not as yet. Okay. I can tell you what I'm eyeing is a Zyrtec, which I take before each of the shots just to keep going. Donnie says without the treatment, even a short visit with a cat can trigger a serious allergic reaction. Not ideal for a candidate who's constantly, for a mayor who's constantly in the spotlight. How far would you go for a cat, you guys? I'm a cat person and so is Dan. We just had this conversation. You have dogs too. Well, dogs too, yes. But we both like cats. But I, just from a pure messaging point of view, I think that it makes him so likable. Like he's doing this for his wife. Like it's kind of like, why isn't she a dog? Weekly allergy. I mean, okay, I'm a huge dog lover. I have a five-month-old puppy at home. So I would do anything. I would cut off my, well, maybe not my arm, but at least like a pinky or something. I have to tell you, I really relate to this content because we got a cat, my wife and I, a diabetic cat from the clinic that we take our dogs to, who would have been given up for euthanasia otherwise. And we took that cat in right before the Biden campaign in 2024. And so I was back and forth from Wilmington, Delaware with this cat all the time that screams in the car. And so every conference call I was on had this cat punctuating the call, which is sort of my aunt's done for the campaign. It was singing, but that cat gets a couple shots from me, not the other way around, every day. Is she okay now? The cat's great. The cat just needs, just like the mayor, just needs a couple shots to be solid, and then we're good. Cat's name is Panda. It's a tuxedo cat. Panda. Okay, the things we do for our pets, it's a beautiful thing. Can I tell you why I can't get a dog? It sets me up for, like, sadness, because I know it would die at some point, and I just would get too attached. Ours are going to live forever, so we're good. I'm going to start crying right now. You can't talk about that. My dog will live forever. That's all the time we have. Thank you, Republican strategist Ashley Davis and Democratic strategist Dan Cannon. Thank you both so much. And we'll close this week with our ceasefire moment of the week, spotlighting what can happen when lawmakers come together as Americans, not just partisans. As the country approaches its 250th birthday, this week members of the House approved a creation of a congressional time capsule as a long-term tribute to the nation's history. This non-partisan legislation would authorize the burial of a time capsule in the Capitol Visitor Center to mark the 250th anniversary of our nation's independence. The items in the capsule will be determined by bipartisan, bicameral congressional leaders and include written materials relating to the anniversary representations of notable legislative and institutional milestones and a message from this Congress to our future colleagues in the 244th Congress. Congress has a responsibility to reflect honestly on where we've been and what we will choose to pass on. This will be something that we all can agree on, and it's great to be working at a time where we can all work together and celebrate our nation's birthday for this 250th celebration. The House passed the bill by voice vote on Monday. It was previously passed by the Senate. It calls for the capsule to be buried by July 4th and sealed until the nation's 300th anniversary in 2276. A small but symbolic reminder that some moments in Congress are built to last. That's all the time we have for this episode. A reminder, Ceasefire is also available as a podcast. Find us in all the usual places. I'm Dasha Burns, and remember whether or not you agree, keep talking and keep listening.