The New Realist Podcast

On Air Force One last night, Trump was asked by reporters about recent calls from Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to release his MRI results. This came after the President took to Truth Social on Thanksgiving night and used a slur widely regarded as derogatory towards people with intellectual disabilities to describe the Governor.

When he was asked about the exchange on NBC’s Meet the Press Walz said:

Here we got a guy on Thanksgiving where we spent time with our families, we ate, we played Yahtzee, we cheered for football or whatever. This guy is apparently in a room ranting about everything else. This is not normal behavior. It’s not healthy.

On the way back from Mar-a-Lago last night, Trump said his MRI results were “perfect, like my phone call where I got impeached. Absolutely perfect.” He then added, “If you want to have it released, I’ll release it.”

A female reporter followed up asking Trump if he could “tell us what they were looking at… what part of the body was the MRI looking at?“

As he has done numerous times when it comes to female reporters - most recently in a White House back and forth with ABC’s Mary Bruce and on Air Force One a few days earlier when he tried to shut down a respected reporter with the phrase “Quiet. Quiet. Piggy” - the president responded with an insult:

I have no idea. It was just an MRI. It wasn’t the brain because I took a cognitive test and aced it. I got a perfect mark, which you would be incapable of doing.

In accordance with the presidents promise, this afternoon the White House released information about the October test, arguing the results were “perfectly normal.”

What is not normal, however, is the use of language of this kind by the leader of the free world. The attacks on reporters who are doing their jobs and the use of damaging, hateful and hurtful language that even children know is inappropriate.

Two responses to Trump’s use of the ‘r-word’ to describe Walz are worth noting.

First, Dr. Timothy Shriver, Special Olympics Chairman, who said the term has

a long, painful and humiliating history, and it reinforces unfair and wrong stereotypes that people with intellectual disabilities are incompetent or worse. Words matter. It’s never OK to use the r-word.

Second, Republican state Senator from Indiana, Michael Bohacek, who in the wake of Trump’s post took to Facebook writing:

Many of you have asked my position on redistricting. I have been an unapologetic advocate for people with intellectual disabilities since the birth of my second daughter. This is not the first time our president has used these insulting and derogatory references and his choices of words have consequences. I will be voting NO on redistricting, perhaps he can use the next 10 months to convince voters that his policies and behavior deserve a congressional majority.

Bohacek, whose daughter has Down Syndrome, included a photo of an article about Trump’s comments about Walz in his statement.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

The White House announced today that its much anticipated plan to combat rising healthcare prices has been delayed.

Less than a week ago, President Trump said he opposed extension of Affordable Care Act [ACA/Obamacare] subsidies, writing on Truth Social that he would only support a plan that sends money back to the people:

“THE ONLY HEALTHCARE I WILL SUPPORT OR APPROVE IS SENDING THE MONEY DIRECTLY BACK TO THE PEOPLE, WITH NOTHING GOING TO THE BIG, FAT, RICH INSURANCE COMPANIES, WHO HAVE MADE $TRILLIONS, AND RIPPED OFF AMERICA LONG ENOUGH,” Trump wrote. “THE PEOPLE WILL BE ALLOWED TO NEGOTIATE AND BUY THEIR OWN, MUCH BETTER, INSURANCE. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!”

Since then, however, the White House has announced that the administration intends to try to push through a new bill through congress that will help avert the massive increase in premiums that is expected to occur at the end of the year when the ACA subsidies expire. According to reports, in addition to a temporary, 2-year extension of the subsidies, the bill could include income caps for enrollees to qualify for the ACA tax credits and minimum premium payments, among other things.

This move to address rising costs is coming in the wake of a government shutdown over health care costs, damning election results, and a bevy of polls, all of which have shown that affordability in general and health care costs in particular are areas where the President and GOP are vulnerable.

Yet the White House seems to have stumbled in putting together its plan. By all accounts the plan was conceived without full consultation of Republicans in Congress whose support is needed to pass it and without the recognition of how perilous it would be for members of the GOP who have been fighting to repeal the ACA for 15 years to suddenly vote to extend it.

In addition to the problematic politics of asking them to prop up Obamacare, there is also a good deal of criticism coming from various groups within the party concerning the fact that the White House plan to extend the subsidies is very expensive ($350b+ over a decade) and that it fails to address the underlying reasons for high health care costs.

I spoke with Bloomberg’s Joe Mathieu about this, as well as the fact that Democrats hands are not clean when it comes to this issue either. While Democrats were successful in making this an issue during the shutdown and putting the White House and GOP in this difficult political corner, from a policy-perspective and proper-governance perspective, the Democratic Party under Joe Biden should not have allowed the subsidies to sunset after 5 years. Instead, when they controlled congress and the White House in 2021, they should have been honest with the American public about why the subsidies needed to be permanent, what they cost, and why it is in our collective interest to make healthcare both affordable and accessible to all Americans.

The New Realist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

It is a tradition for the Mayor-elect of New York City to meet with the President. There is a lot more at stake than usual, however, in today’s White House meeting between incoming NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani and President Trump.

This first face to face meeting between these two men from Queens comes after months of trading jabs. Trump and the GOP have been open about hoping to make Mamdani, who Trump regularly refers to incorrectly as a ‘communist,’ the post-child for next year’s midterm Election; a foil that they can run against.

While during his acceptance speech a few weeks ago, Mamdani spoke directly to Trump, saying:

“If anyone can show a nation betrayed by Donald Trump how to defeat him, it is the city that gave rise to him… Donald Trump, since I know you’re watching, I have four words for you: Turn the volume up… hear me, President Trump, when I say this: To get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us.”

During the campaign, Mamdani proved to be a masterful politician and very popular amongst people across the city, including some who supported Trump in 2024. He did that in part by meeting people where they are and focusing intently on the most important issue for New Yorkers and Americans more broadly, affordability and the cost of living.

This is also the issue that has also proven to be the most difficult for Trump in his second term. Today the Realclearpolitics average of polls shows the president is -17 points underwater on his handling of the economy, consumer sentiment is - according to the University of Michigan rating - at record lows, and even Vice President JD Vance broke with Trump last night, acknowledging that costs are too high and pleading with supporters to give the administration more time.

This is the context for Mamdani’s visit. So far it is closed to the press, but many expect (or are hoping) the White House press pool will be invited in. It is a setting that has proven to be challenging for leaders around the world, including Governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, and the President of South Africa Cyril Ramaphosa, just to name a few.

There are also those who have proven more adept at managing a meeting with Trump, without being obsequious. Primary among them is another Trump nemesis, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

In a Fox News interview earlier today, Trump predicted he would “get along fine” with Mamdani, adding, “I was hitting him a little hard.” For his part, Mamdani has downplayed any conflict between the two, arguing instead the meeting is “customary” and there are many New Yorkers who supported both men for the same reason “they wanted a leader who would take on the cost-of-living crisis that makes it impossible for working people to afford living in the city.”

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

President Trump signed The Epstein Transparency Act late last night in private. In doing so, he missed an opportunity to focus attention where it should be, on the survivors; many of whom spoke publicly about wanting to be present to witness the historic signing of a bill they worked for years to become law.

Trump then took to Truth Social to once again politicize the bill and focus attention, not on the survivors, but rather a bevy of famous, elite Democrats whom he claims were “Epstein associates” – no mention, again, of the survivors.

As Jennifer Weiner argues, there has been “one glaring omission” in the Epstein saga and that is the stories of the trauma endured by the survivors – many of whom were children and young women when they met Epstein. Some of whom took the very difficult step of reporting the crimes to law enforcement and the FBI as early as the 1990s, only to have their reports largely swept under the rug and the perpetrators protected for years.

The exact number of victims is still unknown, but by many accounts it is a thousand or more.

Each one of their stories is heart wrenching. Weiner’s piece is worth reading in full, among the stories she reiterates is that of Virginia Guiffre who, before her death wrote about being

‘lent out’ to “scores of wealthy, powerful people” being “habitually used and humiliated — and in some instances, choked, beaten and bloodied,” including by “a well-known prime minister,” who she writes tortured her so badly “for days, it hurt to breathe and to swallow.”

Likewise, Chauntae Davies who, speaking at a hearing about said:

“Every day, every week I’ve spent in the hospital since, I’ve suffered and he has won. Every job offer that’s been offered to me and then retracted because of my connection to this case, I have suffered and he has won. Every public humiliation I have endured, I have suffered and he has won. Every relationship that I’ve had to end because of the abuse that I have endured by the hands of this man, I have suffered and he has won.”

These are just fragments of the stories of two of the more than one thousand children who survived these crimes. One mark of real leadership is the ability to put your own interests aside, and instead, to both seek justice for and honor the lived experiences of survivors like these.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

Cracks are starting to show in Trump’s coalition.

For the first time since he assumed office in January, we are seeing signs that those on the right are willing to break with the president (i.e., the almost unanimous vote in Congress to release the Epstein files, the pushback from Indiana Republicans on redistricting, the criticism coming from one of his closest MAGA confidants Marjorie Taylor-Greene, etc.).

Moreover, it is becoming clear that the President is well aware he is in danger of losing control of both the party and the movement he credits himself with creating. We saw this most recently in his stunning reversal on release of the Epstein files. After months of using every tactic at his disposal to pressure Republicans to vote against the discharge petition, he suddenly reversed course. It was stunning because it was one of the rare times we have seen this president recognize his slipping power and take steps to avert the loss.

We also saw this in Trump’s response to Tucker Carlson’s interview with white nationalist provocateur Nick Fuentes. When asked by reporters on Air Force One his view of Carlson’s interview the President bowed to the far right of the MAGA coalition. After months of criticizing Universities as being ‘bastions of antisemitism’, the president himself was unwilling to denounce the normalizing of an anti-semite by Carlson.

Instead, when asked about the interview, he said

“You can’t tell him who to interview,” Trump said, before adding he “didn’t know much about” Mr. Fuentes (of course, Trump had dinner with Fuentes at Mar-a-Lago in 2022).

As the president is aware, no one is trying to tell Carlson who to interview or suggesting he does not have the right to interview Fuentes. Instead the criticism concerns his coddling and mainstreaming of someone who has professed everything from white nationalism and antisemitism to great replacement theory, Christian nationalism and admiration for Hitler.

Some have speculated that what we have witnessed since the shellacking Republican’s took in the election is the start of Trumps ‘lame-duckery’; its still too early to say for certain but what is clear, is that members of the GOP are willing to break with the president, his control over the MAGA base is slipping and he knows it.

After the president’s comments on the Carlson interview, Fuentes took to social media writing simply “thank you Mr. President.”

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

Yesterday President Trump defied all sage political advice and, instead of trying to distract from the Epstein story, he doubled-down on it. Taking to Truth Social he ordered his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to order a new investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s connections with Democrats.

It is hard to make sense of the strategy, but speaking to Bloomberg’s Tyler Kendall, I floated a theory that might help explain it.

As Trump’s subsequent posts on Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie, as well as his attempts to intimidate and coerce other members of the GOP caucus into not supporting the petition suggest, the president understands that this petition is likely to pass the House with even more GOP support than previously imagined. It also has a chance now of passing the Senate and landing on his lap. Given how politically charged this issue is and how passionate his base is about it, not to mention his frequent promises to them, he would have a heck of a time making this the first veto of his administration.

An active investigation, however, allows him to sign it, knowing that his always faithful AG will use the ‘active investigation’ as a pretense for refusing to release the files.

This is not a new tactic, it is one Trump has used before, most famously when for years he refused to make his tax filings public, arguing he could not while they were being audited by the IRS.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

The deal Congress made to reopen the government gave us a two-tier system of justice, one Senators and one for the rest of us.

While not noticed right away, there was a small provision tucked into the 394-page bill which the Senate sent to the House to reopen the government. The provision allows eight Republican Senators who had their phone records seized during Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 2020 election investigation to sue the federal government and recoup potentially half a million dollars from tax payers.

The idea is as ludicrous as it sounds from multiple perspectives and House members on both sides of the aisle were right to express their collective outrage. Rep. Chip Roy called for the provision to “get fixed as soon as possible,” describing it as “self-serving and “self-dealing.” While Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took to the floor to denounce the provision:

It is unconscionable that what we are debating right now is legislation that will give eight members of the United States Senate over a million dollars apiece. And we are robbing people of their food assistance and of their health care to pay for it. How is this even on the floor? How can we, as members of Congress, Republican or Democrat, vote to enrich ourselves by stealing from the American people? That is what this legislation does.

There is no evidence that either the Department of Justice or FBI acted unconstitutionally in the 2020 election investigation. If they did, however, until the passage of this law, there is nothing the ‘victims’ could do about it. That is the same situation any of us would find ourselves in if, for instance, we were detained by federal officials and denied due process.

It is fair to argue in both cases, those victimized, should be able to seek recourse in court. That is not currently the law, however, for any of us. If the Senate wanted to change the law and make it possible for all of us to be able to pursue legal action when our constitutional rights were violated by federal officials, that would make sense.

This is not, however, what the Senate did. Instead of changing the law to allow ALL Americans, the powerless and powerful, lay-people and elected officials alike, to sue the federal government, it gave this option to only eight GOP Senators.

Those who make the laws should never create two sets of rules (or in this case, remedies) one for themselves and one for the rest of us. That is what this bill does and it should, as Speaker Johnson has promised, be repealed immediately.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

President Donald Trump has finally made good on his promise to let Americans in on his plans regarding health care.

Remember, it wasn’t that long ago that he slammed “Obamacare” and promised that under the Trump administration, “better Healthcare” would “be a priority.”

When a month after being reelected, Kristen Welker asked Trump for more specifics regarding his healthcare plan, he famously responded that he has “concepts of a plan.”

Almost a year later, eleven months into his administration, and forty+ days after the government was shut down over healthcare, Trump was once again asked about his healthcare plan – this time by Fox News’ Laura Ingraham.

He responded with the most detail we have gotten so far – which while not a lot, is nevertheless telling. The President focused on two elements, first the plan would be called “Trumpcare” and second, it would involve giving money to consumers and allowing them to negotiate directly with insurance companies themselves.

TRUMP: ...what I want, and probably what you’re alluding to, is the fact that I want — instead of going to the insurance companies, I want the money to go into an account for people where the people buy their own health insurance. It’s so good! The insurance will be better. It’ll cost less. Everybody’s going to be happy. They’re going to feel like entrepreneurs. They’re actually able to go out and negotiate their own insurance. And they can use it only for that reason. That’s the beauty — only for the purpose. And if we did that, that would be so exciting. Call it Trumpcare!

The idea, which he also floated on Truth Social, along with the notion of sending out $2,000 tariff “dividend” to all Americans, has been met with a good deal of skepticism, even among those from his own administration. When asked about the tariff rebate, for instance, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said it had not been discussed and there was no specific proposal in the works. Likewise, Kevin Hassett, Director of the National Economic Council said the president was merely “brainstorming.”

As I told Joe Mathieu on Bloomberg’s Balance of Power, ‘riffing’ or not, the idea of direct payments to Americans who then have the “freedom” to “negotiate their own insurance” is reminiscent of the early 20thCentury largely discredited legal doctrine of “liberty of contract.” In that case, conservatives argued that governments (state and federal) should not be allowed to pass regulations setting things like a minimum wage, maximum working hours, etc. because it is a violation of the Constitution’s protection of the ‘freedom to contract.’

The Supreme Court case of Lochner v NY (1905) is the most infamous example of the doctrine in action. In that case, New York set limits on the number of hours bakers could work, arguing that it was in the interest of the health, safety, and well-being of New Yorkers who, at the time, were being forced to work under harsh and often unhealthy conditions for long periods of time. When a bakery owner was fined for violating the law, he sued and the Court sided with him arguing the law violated the freedom of both the owner and his workers to negotiate their contract. In doing so, they completely ignored the inequity in the situation, not to mention the police powers of the states, and the fact that the Constitution says nothing about liberty to contract.

During the mid-late 1930s, the Court began reversing itself, allowing states to exercise their police powers in the interest of protecting the health, safety, welfare, and morals of its citizens. The first case of this type came in 1937 with West Coast v. Parrish when the Court allowed Washington state to establish a minimum wage for women (sexism of that regulation aside).

Trumpcare, at least as far as the President laid out this week, has shades of the ideology that animated the liberty to contract doctrine and the decision in Lochner to the extent that ignores the inequities between large insurance corporations and individuals. Like liberty of contract itself, it is based on the patently false idea that with a minimal payout, citizens would be in a position to negotiate against the insurance behemoths and reach a fair deal for themselves and their families.

The plan, even in its ‘conceptual phase,’ is yet another reminder of where the Trump administrations interests lie – with big corporations and interests. Just like the workers in the early 20thCentury, under this approach individuals would be left to fend for themselves. Of course, this does not even begin to address other non-starters about this ‘plan,’ including the economic realities of the idea which, as many economists have noted, would raise prices and undermine the insurance marketplaces.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

Why cave and why now?

These are the questions many people are asking about the Democratic shutdown that was (or is soon to have been). After all, just one week ago Democrats were riding high for the first time in a long time after an election night that even Steve Bannon described as an “absolute disaster” for Republicans.

Democrats across the country are livid at the 8 “Folders” and their decision to cross the aisle and work with the GOP to reopen the government has re-opened a long simmering wound in the Democratic Party; even though a history of shutdowns tells us that (a) not much more was going to be achieved and (b) shutdowns seldom result in policy victories.

What shutdowns can achieve is a framing victory that sets the pro-shutdown party up well for the next election. In short, you lose the battle, but can win the war.

This is what Republicans did in 1995 and 1996 with their back to back shutdowns; they lost the battle of achieving a balanced budget, but won the war because they went on to control Congress for a decade (see table below, left column is party control of the House and right, Senate, 1995-2007). These wins were in large part a result of the Republicans ability to message that they were the party of fiscal and budgetary responsibility.

From any perspective, the Democrats have done the same as it pertains to being seen as the party of affordability, the party concerned about health care costs and the cost of living for average Americans.

They have been helped along the way by the reality of who Donald Trump is and where he has focused his energy and time while in office. Consider that in just the last week, in addition to the stunning election results, polls have showed that Americans are giving Trump historically low numbers when it comes to the economy.

A recent Bloomberg/Harris poll, for instance, shows Trump is 18 points underwater on the economy, with 59% of Americans saying they disapprove of how he is handling the economy and just 41% saying they approve. In the same poll, only 1/3 of Americans said they think the economy is on the right track.

These devastating numbers are backed up by the RealClearPolitics polling average which shows Trump’s approval on the economy overall at -14%.

Couple that with the fact in the last few days, two critical members of Trumps economic team, Scott Bessent and Kevin Hassett, both acknowledged parts of the eco are in recession and preliminary numbers from the University of Michigan’s measure of consumer sentiment finds that it is the second lowest on record.

In the face of all of this, the administration did NOT focus on the economy, instead they spent days fighting to ensure 42 m food insecure Americans, including 16m children, 8m elderly Americans and 1m Veterans do NOT receive SNAP benefits. All the while the president was hosting a lavish Great Gatsby themed party, hosting foreign leaders, tearing down the East Wing of the White House to build a gold-plated ballroom, describing the affordability crisis as a con-job and a hoax, and attempting to push additional cut taxes for the ultra wealthy and large corporations.

As frustrated as Democrats are - and they have reason to be - they did succeed in underscoring who Republicans are for. Could they have held out longer to make this case? Yes, although the odds of achieving a different policy end were nil, but that was never really the point.

Despite this, anger at the ‘Folders’ is real. Part of it stems from the fact that the fact that the shutdown, coupled with what happened on Tuesday, raised expectations of a policy win. Historically, however, that was not how this was ever going to end and the Folders, recognizing that from the beginning and being members of a party that is ‘pro-’ government, not surprisingly, pulled the plug, insulated as they all are from the ballot box for at least one or more cycles.

One lesson for the next party who engages in this tactic is they need to articulate an end strategy early on, they also need to prepare their supporters for end and be united in it when it comes, as it inevitably will. That didn’t happen in this case and as a result, leadership is paying the price. We are already hearing calls for Chuck Schumer to be replaced (whether fair or not). Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) was just one of several Democrats to express anger in this regard: “Senator Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced. If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?”

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

If affordability is a “con job” someone forgot to tell Elise Stefanik.

Just hours after the presidents close ally released a video announcing her run for Governor of NY, a video in which she mentioned affordability multiple times, Donald Trump threw cold water on the idea that it is even a real issue. The suggestion Americans are concerned about the economy, prices, inflation, or affordability, he told reporters, is nothing more than a “con job by the Democrats.”

The claim not only stands in stark contrast to what Stefanik said, but what Americans have been telling pollsters, the results of Tuesday night’s election, the exit polls, and the recently released Michigan consumer sentiment survey.

The University of Michigan survey shows that “consumer sentiment” is at its “lowest in more than three years and just off its worst level ever.”

This tracks with almost every recent poll, including the RealClearPolitics polling average, which shows that Trump is -13 points underwater on the economy.

After Trump made these comments, I spoke with Bloomberg’s Joe Mathieu & Tyler Kendall about the president’s denialism, the political danger his ‘tone-deafness’ is putting his party in and whether the White House is preparing to cede the issue of affordability entirely. Case in point: James Blair, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, announced the administration is pushing off its focus on lowering costs for groceries, housing, and energy until 2026, choosing instead to prioritize border security and foreign policy.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe