Subscribe right here: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube
On this week’s episode of The David Frum Present, The Atlantic’s David Frum opens along with his ideas on the absurd Peace Prize awarded to Donald Trump by FIFA. David discusses how the invented prize displays what FIFA understands about our president—that he’s the type of chief who might be received over with shiny trinkets and fancy ceremonies.
Then, David is joined by Michael Waldman from the Brennan Heart for Justice to debate how the Trump administration would possibly attempt to undermine and even outright steal the 2026 elections. David and Michael talk about the doable actions Trump may take, together with the programs in place to cease him and what reforms must occur to the American electoral system. Michael additionally discusses the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and what Republicans are doing to undermine it.
Lastly, David closes the episode with a dialogue of an article titled “How Accountability Shapes Profession Success for Leaders,” and what a lesson in administration tells us about Protection Secretary Pete Hegseth’s management and accountability (or lack thereof) within the controversy over the strikes in Caribbean Sea.
The next is a transcript of the episode:
Frum: Hi there and welcome to The David Frum Present. I’m David Frum, a workers author at The Atlantic. My visitor this week can be Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Heart [for Justice] on the New York College Faculty of Regulation. We’ll be discussing on the finish of the present not a e book this week, however an article: “How Accountability Shapes Profession Success for Leaders,” printed in 2024.
However first, earlier than the dialogue and earlier than the article, some ideas on occasions of the week. Lots of the issues the Trump administration does are simply horrifying, horrible, harmful. A few of them are foolish and peculiar, and I wanna speak this week about one of many foolish and peculiar ones. As you might have noticed, President [Donald] Trump was simply awarded the first-ever Peace Prize by the soccer affiliation FIFA. Now, these of you who comply with sports activities extra carefully than I do know that FIFA will not be precisely a paragon of ethical integrity, so any award from FIFA appears type of doubtful; a peace prize appears much more doubtful. However there they have been on the Kennedy Heart right here in Washington, D.C.—or, as President Trump stated throughout one of many ceremonies, the soon-to-be-called Kennedy-Trump Heart, as a result of he does have a fantasy of renaming it for himself, but it surely’s nonetheless, for the second, the Kennedy Heart. On the Kennedy Heart, there was an enormous ceremony, and President Trump was awarded this FIFA Peace Prize.
Now, this can be a prize that was created in November of this current 12 months, 2025—by no means been awarded earlier than. In contrast to the Nobel [Peace] Prize, it’s an actual doorstopper: It’s a large desktop trophy, and it comes with a disc, a medal, that may be worn across the neck. The precise Nobel Prize comes with a disc too, but it surely doesn’t have the little attachment that permits you to dangle it round your neck like a prizefighter. However because the FIFA president stated to President Trump, Now you can put on this with you wherever you go, and it’ll not be shocking if he does. President Trump does dearly, dearly love a prize.
Now, why did FIFA do that? We don’t precisely know, however it’s noteworthy that, alongside the best way, President Trump has performed many, many issues that may be thought-about a menace to FIFA plans. FIFA awarded the 2026 World Cup to a joint bid from North America: from the US, Canada, and Mexico. To not the US alone, however to the three NAFTA—or because it was once; at this time, USMCA—the three buying and selling companions within the USMCA.
And President Trump has been making lots of noises that he’s on the brink of blow up the USMCA altogether. And even when he doesn’t fairly try this, he’s performed different issues that FIFA would possibly take into account threatening. He’s imposed limits on visas from many nations, together with most of the nations which are huge traders in FIFA within the Center East. And he was lobbied efficiently in June of this 12 months to say, okay, that any visa restrictions won’t apply to folks [who] are touring to play within the World Cup or their speedy household or their coaches, in order that was excellent news for FIFA. And he was lastly persuaded to make a greater than $1 billion dedication of taxpayer funds to help and supply safety for the FIFA occasions in the US. This announcement was made by the White Home coordinator for [the] World Cup, a real benefit appointee, son of Rudy Giuliani, Andrew Giuliani, who’s—you didn’t know this, however he’s the White Home coordinator for the World Cup. However at each step of the best way, there have been issues, they’ve been overcome, however FIFA has been anxious about them. So what higher approach of locking in President Trump’s help than to announce that he’s going to be given a prize, a peace prize, each a trophy and an around-the-neck medal?
Now, it won’t have occurred to Donald Trump that he even needed a peace prize if President Obama hadn’t received one first. And that appears to have actually caught with him. And all people on this planet has seen it. President Trump has talked so usually about his starvation for a peace prize, and it’s turn into a speaking level, that if you need President Trump’s favor and also you’re on tv, you need to say he ought to get a peace prize. Now he’s received one—not the Nobel unique however the FIFA, and as I stated, greater, gaudier, and you’ll put on it across the neck.
It’s absurd, however what it is also a warning of is the president of the US is somebody who could be very susceptible, vulnerable to those sorts of infantile, imbecile blandishments. And if you already know that and I do know that and the FIFA folks know that, all people is aware of it, you can manipulate the president of the US with appeals to his self-importance and with little geegaws that no republican chief ought to need—lowercase-r republican.
There have been a sequence of occasions that point out that Donald Trump doesn’t perceive the function of president in the best way that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln understood it. You drive round downtown Washington, you will notice hanging from the Division of Labor, close to the Capitol Hill, a large banner with President Trump’s image on it. Nicely, that’s simply not performed. Presidents, dwelling presidents, are usually not honored in that type of approach in the US—or they by no means have been earlier than. Or the Nationwide Park Service simply introduced that they are going to not have free entry to the parks on Martin Luther King Day and Juneteenth, federal holidays, however they are going to have free entry on June 14, President Trump’s birthday.
After I first heard this story, that the Nationwide Park Service was going to supply free admission on President Trump’s birthday, I assumed, I guess this story is being exaggerated, as a result of June 14, President Trump’s birthday, can be Flag Day. So possibly that’s why June 14 is free: It’s as a result of it’s Flag Day, they usually’ve changed Martin Luther King Day with Flag Day. That’s somewhat tradition fear, but it surely’s not fairly monarchical. However if you go to the Nationwide Park Service web site and see, they really describe June 14 as “Flag Day/President Trump’s birthday.” That’s, the Park Service is itself saying at the very least 50 p.c of the rationale you get a free ticket is as a result of it’s President Trump’s birthday. The USA has by no means earlier than marked in any approach the birthday of a dwelling president. And it leaves many of the presidents’ birthdays simply gathered collectively in a single President[s’] Day that began as George Washington and Lincoln’s birthday, and has now been grouped collectively to be a catchall for everyone, however solely the previous presidents—these out of workplace, and ideally, those that are handed away—as a result of democracies, republics, don’t honor dwelling leaders of their lifetime.
However that’s what we’ve performed. And that’s what FIFA understands about us, that [we’re] simply type of a joke nation with a type of joke chief, and you may get issues out of him by giving him a geegaw. It’s shameful, it’s embarrassing, and it’s not the worst scandal, however possibly it’s a part of the sequence of explanations that lets you perceive why the worst scandals preserve occurring and why no person is stopping them.
And now my dialogue with Michael Waldman.
[Music]
Frum: My visitor at this time is Michael Waldman. Michael Waldman has been president of the Brennan Heart [for Justice] at New York College since 2005. The middle’s named for the famed liberal Supreme Courtroom Justice William Brennan, and the Brennan Heart is an educational establishment to check the state of American democracy and the U.S. Structure whereas upholding the values of the late justice. Michael is the writer of the e book The Supermajority: How the Supreme Courtroom Divided America, printed in 2023. He beforehand served as director of presidential speechwriting within the Clinton administration.
I ought to point out two private connections to Michael. Within the Nineties, our kids attended the identical preschool. There was an interval of, I feel—or I recall—half-hour between the beginning time for the marginally older and the marginally youthful youngsters, and Michael and I generally chatted in these intervals. With out him being indiscreet in any approach, I look again on it and understand I owe lots of my understanding of what occurred within the [Bill] Clinton years to these temporary conversations in a faculty play yard. Later, the youngest of my daughters labored for considered one of her faculty summers as a paid intern on the Brennan Heart.
I requested Michael right here at this time as a result of we file this to start with of December of 2025. The political outlook seems to be fairly bleak for Republicans and for President Trump, but it surely doesn’t appear like they’re keen to just accept that political outlook with out doing one thing about it, and that’s somewhat outdoors the bounds of regular guidelines in American politics. So given Michael’s deep experience in American democracy and American courts, I’ve requested him to speak about how a nefarious actor would possibly attempt to twist, distort, and even outright steal the 2026 elections.
Michael Waldman, thanks a lot for becoming a member of me at this time.
Michael Waldman: It’s nice to be with you, David, and we have now the key decoder ring, additionally, of getting been presidential speechwriters to totally different presidents, and there’s lots at stake proper now within the values of our nation and our Structure that all of us care lots about.
When you consider it, in any democracy, the voters must have the last word say, and the last word examine on authoritarianism is the voice of the voters, if correctly heard. And we had, lately on this nation, lots of strain on the election system: COVID, threats of violence, precise violence, rampant disinformation. However encouragingly, the system hardened itself. Voting-rights teams labored with legislation enforcement, labored with companies, and labored with these bipartisan election officers, who’re actual heroes, and the system held, and the elections have been fairly free and honest and finally uneventful.
Frum: Which elections are you speaking about that have been—
Waldman: 2020, 2022, 2024. The distinction now, in fact, is for the primary time, I feel, in American historical past, the federal authorities and the Trump administration are actively waging an effort to undermine the 2026 elections.
Frum: We did have the unpleasantness of 2021 and the try and overturn an election, however the election-casting system was trustworthy and honest in ’20, 2022, and ’24.
Waldman: It was the best voter turnout, regardless of the pandemic, in over a century, and it was free and honest.
Frum: So let’s speak in regards to the election forward. The issue that President Trump has—let’s put ourselves in his sneakers for a second: He’s performed lots of issues which are both, if not unlawful, actually more likely to expose him to unhealthy publicity and adverse implications in the event that they ever come out—the best way he’s made apparently $1 billion from the crypto business simply since changing into president, accepting items from international potentates in violation of the Structure, the slew of pardons of people that appear to not deserve them and who appear like they’ve mounted strain campaigns and lobbying campaigns in President Trump’s interior circle, the unusual thriller across the outreach to Russian companies by American companies that is sort of a aspect protocol to Trump’s strain on Ukraine. So there are lots of issues he doesn’t need folks to find out about, and if he have been to lose management of both or each homes of Congress, these issues would come to mild, and possibly there can be penalties. So now, from his standpoint, give it some thought as he would: What can a president and a celebration that’s nonetheless in command of Congress do to bend issues their approach?
Waldman: Nicely, there’s a lot they’ll do to attempt to undermine the best way the system works, however there are limits as properly. And I wanna stress that, in every of those areas, there are issues that may be tried, and there are doubtlessly efficient pushbacks that may ensure that the election really does occur as we’d hope it occurs, the place the voters, nonetheless they select, get the final phrase.
One factor that President Trump has tried to do already is to take private management of the election system. He issued an govt order in March purporting to just do that. It presupposed to require that you simply needed to produce a passport, not even a beginning certificates however a passport, to register to vote on the federal kind, to order states to show over their delicate voter information to DOGE as a result of what may go incorrect with that, and different issues of that nature. However that has been blocked by the courts as a result of the Structure is sort of clear that states run our elections; Congress has an necessary supervisory function in passing laws, however the president has no function. And that key reality—the president has no function in a lot of this—is de facto the factor that offers the best hope to blocking this sort of exercise.
Additionally they tried to go laws that embodied lots of these similar concepts; it’s known as the SAVE Act. After all, the suitable approach to do issues is to go laws. This invoice would’ve been, I feel, a reasonably egregious, restrictive invoice by way of voting in that it might require folks to supply a passport or a beginning certificates to register to vote, and that’s one thing we all know for positive that at the very least 21 million People don’t have prepared entry to—and, really, many greater than that if you consider girls who’ve modified their names as a result of they received married. That invoice handed the Home, but it surely’s really been blocked and stalled within the Senate. So lots of these sorts of issues, the traditional push and pull of politics is having its approach.
They’re doing lots of different issues too, and once more, there’s lots of causes for it, but it surely’s actually in keeping with an effort to undermine the election and its integrity. They purged, fired, the election-security consultants within the federal authorities, who had performed lots to guard towards Russia and Iran and different doubtlessly malevolent actors, and home actors as properly, and who play a very necessary function with state and native election officers, who are usually not essentially all that technologically subtle. They purged these folks. What’s occurred is lots of people on the skin, together with the Brennan Heart, have labored to verify these of us have someplace to land to allow them to really do lots of this similar skilled safety outdoors the federal government. It’s not fairly pretty much as good, but it surely really is the type of factor that may make a distinction.
They’re threatening to make use of the instruments of legislation enforcement to scare off folks within the election equipment. Take into consideration the notorious telephone name in 2021 with [Georgia Secretary of State] Brad Raffensperger, the place Trump, at that time, stated, We have to discover 11,000 votes. Now consider that very same name with a much more potent menace of prosecution, of the sort we noticed with [former FBI Director] James Comey and with [New York State Attorney General] Letitia James and others. And so the struggle to cease the weaponization of the Justice Division can be a part of the struggle over this.
After which there’s a threat that troops or ICE or different forces like that can go into communities to mess issues up across the election, which can be unlawful.
Frum: Nicely, you haven’t talked about gerrymandering; we’ll get to that. However the troops are one thing that worries me lots, particularly when you consider this in reference to the permission to briefly detain U.S. residents. So, supposing the native Nationwide Guard commander who’s deployed to the swing district—Charlotte, North Carolina, some place like that—takes it in his thoughts that possibly there are a bunch of unlawful immigrants standing on this voting line, they usually transform U.S. residents. Nicely, he can’t detain them eternally, however he might be able to detain them for just a few hours, at the very least ’til after the polls shut. The Supreme Courtroom appears to have green-lit that.
Waldman: These are often known as Kavanaugh stops, which I think will not be one thing Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh is happy with having his title connected to it.
Frum: This can be pushing the courts farther than even the courts would go, however should you say, We’re on this one district. We expect lots of these persons are unlawful immigrants. We have to detain them, examine their papers. That clearly takes time. Is that one thing that you simply fear about, or is that on the outer rim of possibilities?
Waldman: Nicely, we fear about it as a result of we’ve seen that type of misuse of home legislation enforcement earlier than, in latest months. One of many issues that startled me essentially the most over the previous 12 months was when Governor Gavin Newsom and different Democratic political leaders held a press occasion to announce the poll initiative that they have been doing on redistricting—the one which finally handed—by some means, armed and masked immigration brokers confirmed up en masse outdoors the occasion, they usually stated it was a coincidence. However that type of factor does give fear.
Right here’s the underside line. It didn’t occur, for instance, in New Jersey, Virginia, or New York, or California this previous election. It’s actually not a given, and I wanna stress once more: It’s unlawful. There are quite a few legal guidelines—federal and state and the Structure—that say you can’t intervene with an election, together with components of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Courtroom has not seen match to the touch. That is the type of factor the place we, on the Brennan Heart, and others as properly, we have now the briefs written up and able to go; the toner’s within the printer. And that is the type of the factor that the courts have been robust in stepping as much as, however we actually hope it received’t come to that.
Frum: Now, the courts have given broad permission to gerrymandering, and we have now seen some efforts in some states to do this. As you say, that’s one thing that additionally could include among the seeds of its personal undoing, that gerrymandering—and also you’ll clarify how this works—can really generally rebound on its authors in the event that they’re unfortunate or in the event that they’re overconfident. However that’s, I feel, a part of the story that persons are paying lots of consideration to: the Texas gerrymander, an tried gerrymander in Indiana, different states as properly.
Waldman: No query. And as you already know, gerrymandering has been with us for the reason that starting of the nation. I at all times prefer to level out that, within the very first congressional election, Patrick Henry drew a district to attempt to preserve James Madison from being elected to Congress. That was earlier than they’d invented the phrase gerrymandering. It’s gotten lots worse over time, thanks—amongst different issues—to expertise. Each events do it once they can.
And what has occurred is the Supreme Courtroom in 2019 in a case known as Rucho [v. Common Cause] stated, We won’t police partisan gerrymandering. We received’t enable federal courts to even hear these circumstances. And so Texas, which, like the opposite states, does its redistricting each 10 years—that’s what the census is definitely for; it was a type of an enormous innovation to have a census within the Structure. It was for the drawing of congressional maps, amongst different issues. Texas, in the midst of the last decade, was urged by President Trump to do one thing it was not planning on doing, which was a brand new redistricting, a brand new gerrymander. It was explicitly to create 5 seats, they hoped, for the Republicans, performed on the expense of communities of colour, on the behest of somebody who doesn’t stay in Texas: President Trump.
What I don’t assume they counted on was two issues. One is, the Democrats received fired up. And as we all know, California, which has a nonpartisan redistricting fee, which had been handed into legislation by Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was governor, Democrats there went to the voters and stated, That is to counter the Texas gerrymander. They usually created, they hoped, 5 new Democratic districts. And also you’re beginning to see this partisan arms race all around the nation.
In partisan phrases, it could transform one thing of a draw. However even past that, as you stated, the best way these gerrymanders work assumes that they’ll create extra slim districts, however that it’ll nonetheless work out to their profit—that’s true for any political social gathering. And generally, if the voters have a wave election, the place persons are all speeding to the polls to vote their opposition to the present social gathering in energy, it could actually really not solely not have the specified affect, it could actually really create extra victories for the opposite social gathering. That’s, in technical phrases, known as a “dummymander.”
Frum: Yeah.
Waldman: So it might be—
Frum: Let’s go somewhat sluggish and clarify to folks how this works. the analogy I exploit—possibly you have got a greater one—it’s like you have got a chunk of toast, and also you’ve received some jelly, however not fairly sufficient for the entire toast. So you place the jelly on the toast, and the jelly’s all heaped up on one piece of the toast. These are your protected seats. You then take your knife, and also you begin spreading the jelly thinner over the toast, and you’ll kind of attain farther alongside the piece of toast. However the issue is, little bald spots start to seem the place you had piles of jelly earlier than. And should you’re not cautious, fairly quickly, the bald spots are greater than the jelly itself, and it’d as properly have had no jelly as attempting to place the jelly all around the entire piece of toast.
Waldman: I’m getting hungry listening to this, however I feel that’s proper. And in Texas specifically, for instance, what they aimed to do was transfer some extra Democratic voters out of Democratic districts,and, actually, to attempt to flip among the southern Texas districts which have been, to many individuals’s shock, transferring towards the Republicans although they’re closely Hispanic. However that type of assumed that the voting patterns in that group would keep the identical as they have been in 2024, when Donald Trump received a really substantial share of the Latino vote all around the nation. The ICE raids, the brutality, and all these different issues we’ve seen appear to be pushing that group again towards a, in a way, extra conventional partisan touchdown spot within the Democratic Celebration.
Frum: And in South Texas, the impact of tariffs—these are low-income districts; the tariffs are designed to land most closely on them, to switch the burden of taxation from high-income folks to lower-income folks by making on a regular basis life costlier. And individuals who know precisely what each merchandise within the grocery basket prices at this time, what it value six months in the past, these persons are people who find themselves changing into tariff voters.
Waldman: It’s a really fascinating factor to see this concern play out in that folks actually preserve monitor of what the worth of meals is, preserve monitor of what the worth of fuel is in ways in which they don’t preserve monitor of many different issues, the place the {dollars} and cents are sometimes buried in bigger units of numbers.
Frum: Yeah, I didn’t wanna get too hopeful too early, however there are some indicators of hope right here, and one of many stuff you point out is that the Trump administration appears to not perceive its personal previous political successes and the origins of their failures. And one of many issues I’m struck by is if you point out, properly, they wanna have passports as the one type of ID. So this disadvantages individuals who don’t journey internationally. This disadvantages, as you say, girls who’ve modified their title, who could not have up to date their passport. Who does it not drawback? Individuals who journey lots, and girls who haven’t modified their title. And traditionally, the individuals who journey lots can be more likely to be Republicans as a result of that means larger ranges of earnings. However in at this time’s citizens, the individuals who journey lots might not be Republicans anymore.
Waldman: It’s true that the diploma divide is one thing neither social gathering actually have wrapped their minds round, and I feel most likely each of them are considerably uncomfortable with the implications. About half of all People don’t have a passport. How do they summer season in France?, you would possibly ask.
Frum: (Laughs.)
Waldman: Nicely, that’s actuality. And extra folks have a beginning certificates, however they don’t really essentially know the place it’s: I feel it’s in a shoebox in my mom’s closet. So that you’ll hear folks speak about “documentary proof of citizenship,” and naturally, solely eligible residents ought to vote. Certainly, solely eligible residents overwhelmingly do vote. However really demanding this sort of paperwork seems to be one thing that lots of people wouldn’t have, and it’s not the case that it essentially impacts solely Democrats or solely Republicans.
Frum: The identical factor with voter-rolls purges. In case you say, We’re gonna make it somewhat bit troublesome for individuals who don’t personal their properties to vote and somewhat harder for renters, versus owners, and particularly long-established owners, once more, in 2005, it was premise that individuals who had lived of their home for quite a few years have been most likely Republican leaners. I’m unsure that that’s nonetheless true in 2025.
Waldman: I don’t assume that, in some senses, that the type of cautious parsing of political demographics is what’s behind all of this. It’s type of extra of a muscle reminiscence, an emotional impulse that we see enjoying out, and generally, it has really triggered quiet ruptures contained in the president’s personal coalition.
When his govt order on requiring a passport was blocked, when Congress blocked the SAVE Act, the president put out one other submit on social media saying, I’m going to do an govt order ending vote-by-mail, and, by the best way, the state election officers are merely brokers who work for the president, and their job is merely to depend the votes as brokers for the president. Once more, James Madison and the opposite boys who wrote the Structure had a special concept. However there by no means was an govt order, they usually backed down in a short time. And I don’t assume it’s an excessive amount of of a leap to surmise that the Republican Celebration operatives and state chairs, who’ve stated, Look, we lastly crawled out of the outlet the place you instructed all people voting by mail and voting early was a horrible, corrupt factor—that’s how Republicans usually voted. Earlier than this was politicized, it was the snowbirds in Florida; older voters have been extra more likely to benefit from these—
Frum: Army voters.
Waldman: Army voters. These are conveniences that aren’t unsafe; they’re really completely safe, and folks like them. And so I feel there was, from what I perceive, pushback inside the Republican Celebration, saying, Don’t do that factor.
Frum: Yeah. And amongst older voters, it’s not simply snowbirders, who’re comparatively prosperous, who vote by mail; it’s additionally people who find themselves fairly a bit older and who could also be extra housebound, so folks over 80. They could have lots of explanation why they don’t wanna go mobilize all of the paraphernalia they must be cell on a selected day chosen by different folks if they’ll do it from their residence, and people folks could be Trump voters or Republican voters.
Waldman: One in three voters on this nation proper now vote apart from in particular person on Election Day, and that’s shopper selection.
Frum: Let me ask you about essentially the most ominous and fraught risk, which is—this can be a precedent that’s a lot cited on the Republican aspect, and I’ll simply jog your reminiscence as a result of I’m positive you already know this story higher than I do, however in 1984, there was a really contested race within the state of Indiana, got here down to a couple dozen ballots’ distinction between the Republican and the Democrat. American voting establishments, simply as all of us found within the 12 months 2000, are usually not that correct. And it turned very a lot a type of metaphysical query about whether or not the Republican or the Democrat had actually received this race in 1984 in Indiana. And the query was, on condition that the reply was: Ultimately you’ll be able to’t finally know right down to the one, precise vote what precisely the intention of each final voter was, so if there’s a separation of, I feel, just a few dozen, who decides?
So the Democrats then had a majority within the Home, they usually stated, You realize what? We’re gonna have a committee of two Democrats and one [Republican], they usually’re going to look at—if I’m remembering this proper. Turned an enormous hullabaloo. And at last, the Democrats simply asserted, Look, the Structure says the Home determines its personal {qualifications}. Which means, finally, the speaker of the Home decides who will get seated. The courts don’t have any function. No person has any function. The speaker decides. And the Democrats took the seat. And the Republicans all vowed, There can be payback for this sometime if we ever get a speakership in a tightly contested race. And that’s, I feel, one thing that lots of Republicans take into account or are serious about in 2026: that, if it actually comes right down to it, if it’s on a knife edge, that Speaker [Mike] Johnson says, You might be seated, and you aren’t.
Waldman: Nicely, you’re proper that it’s—the counting of the votes and the choices about who will get seated, it’s kind of like a congressional analog to January 6. And these are among the sorts of issues that occur very hardly ever that preserve election legislation nerds up at night time.
I feel there can be a reasonably vital distinction between one seat many years in the past the place that may have occurred and the concept, if voters actually converse in a loud voice in an election, however then, the social gathering that misplaced merely says, Nicely, we’re simply not going to depend these. We’re simply not gonna depend these wins. Sorry, Calvin Ball, we received, I feel that the response from the general public and the courts can be very robust. I feel, on that type of situation, I don’t assume that that may simply slip by, and the Democrats and the courts and others wouldn’t simply kind of say, Nicely, higher luck subsequent time. If the voters have spoken, and for some cause, there was an try and squelch what they’d stated—
Frum: Nicely, let me pause you. If the ’26 final result is that there are thousands and thousands extra ballots solid for Democrats than Republicans throughout the nation and the Democrats decide up 37 seats, this plan received’t work. But when the Republicans can present some energy, if the stability comes right down to 5 – 6 seats, the place the separation is just a few hundred or few thousand votes, then this plan does work—or work higher.
Waldman: Nicely, it really works if there’s not pushback; it really works if the courts don’t step up. And I feel the courts have understood greater than that they had again then the type of political shenanigans and the political chicanery that may occur with the equipment of elections. It’s the twenty fifth anniversary, developing, of Bush v. Gore. And to me, essentially the most vital takeaway from that intense recount after which the Supreme Courtroom and different courtroom battles is that each events got here to understand, Hey, the equipment of elections as of 2000 and earlier than, as you have been describing, was fairly rickety, and there have been lots of issues. And there really was lots of effort to scrub up the voter rolls, to make voting safer, to make the machines higher, and lots of these different issues in order that, actually, we’re in a lot better form than we have been 1 / 4 century in the past, at the same time as each political events mobilized extra round these points.
So I feel that the reply to one thing like that may be that Democrats, within the likelihood that that have been to happen, that every one management would come down to at least one or two seats, Democrats have appreciable energy to tie up the Congress; the courts would get entangled, I feel, in that occasion, and voters too. I feel the last word reply, although, is ensuring that folks have their capability to vote, that there’s confidence within the system working, that there’s belief in the best way votes are solid. That’s why, if you take a look at all these items that President Trump and his administration are doing, it’s at all times type of a query of, like, Nicely, why are they doing this? What are they doing with all this? And the reply to me appears, finally, that they’re attempting to stir doubt and create a cloud of suspicion to make it simpler, ought to there be the chance to push election officers and others to cave. And in 2020, it didn’t occur. However I feel that they assume, if they’ll solid sufficient doubt, make sufficient folks assume that their voter rolls are clogged with noncitizens or unlawful voters or ghosts or no matter, then they’ll confuse issues sufficient.
Frum: In case you wanna be anxious, that’s the place the politicization of Nationwide Guard turns into such a problem. One of many issues that has been, I feel, very painful to observe right here in Washington, D.C., the place I’m speaking to you, is the Nationwide Guard will get deployed in Washington, D.C., very often: for presidential inaugurations each 4 years; there are sometimes varied sorts of emergencies the place the Nationwide Guard comes out. They usually come from all around the nation, and by and huge, in my expertise—and, in fact, the 9/11 expertise—folks settle for them and are sometimes fairly joyful to see them. They’ve received a job to do, and Washington is a metropolis that thrives on guests from throughout the nation, uniformed and never. This time, it’s been totally different. There’s been no, I feel, or little or no, hostility to the Nationwide Guard, however there’s lots of quizzical glances, like, Why are you right here, and what are you doing? And we don’t just like the imputation that President Trump is making that the town can’t govern and police itself in regular occasions. But when they’re out in lots of locations, particularly in swing districts, in 2026, that places the Nationwide Guard in a false place, and it modifications the best way People take into consideration needing the face of their Military, when the Military is paid for to defend them.
Waldman: And if you speak to folks with expertise within the Nationwide Guard, they are going to say, This isn’t what these of us signed as much as do. They signed as much as do catastrophe aid and the opposite issues that we do depend on for the Nationwide Guard. I feel that what President Trump has performed with the usage of the troops—the Nationwide Guard and, in restricted situations, the active-duty navy—is he’s performed it to point out that he can do it. He hasn’t actually despatched tens of hundreds of troops in to occupy Portland or the rest of that nature. (Laughs.) It’s extra to make the purpose that he’s utilizing the navy, and it’s necessary to notice, as you’ve written and others as properly, that is totally illegitimate, to make use of the navy domestically as a present of intimidation or power or for regular, common, on a regular basis law-enforcement issues or different issues like that.
Once you go to a spot like Chicago—I used to be there just a few weeks in the past speaking to folks there—they weren’t joyful in regards to the Nationwide Guard getting used on this approach. However the Nationwide Guard was not there in such massive numbers; they have been type of going round taking snapshots of the tall buildings. However what was actually harmful and actually disruptive has been ICE and CBP and the best way they’ve swooped into neighborhoods and performed the mass deportation with minimal regard for civil liberties and most willingness to tear-gas folks and all these different issues. And once more, I feel that if you take a look at ICE and the dimensions that it’ll increase to beneath the price range that’s been handed, this huge potential home power, I feel that’s one thing, if there’s one other Democratic president or one other Republican president who’s not Donald Trump, they’re actually gonna must grapple with what’s been created and deliver it according to the Structure.
Frum: And ICE does actually see itself as answering to the president, to not the federal government.
Waldman: They’re sporting masks, so we don’t know, but it surely actually appears extra that approach. (Laughs.) And these Nationwide Guard are common of us. They’re coming from their common lives. They’re usually beneath the command of the governor of the state. It’s very apolitical. It’s a citizen-service factor. However that is the place governors and mayors, particularly, have an necessary function to play. Police, state troopers, and others can shield elections, and it’s an necessary function for them to play, and that is the place it’s actually been very important that governors have come to grasp their function on this federal system: that they’ll shield their very own folks and ensure that they shield voters. And this can be one other profit evoked by [voting by] mail, is that it’s more durable to intimidate folks with hassle on the polling place.
Frum: Nicely, let’s speak about governors and mayors and native elections as a result of lots of the mischief in American elections has occurred at these decrease ranges. In actual fact, one of many causes we have now this phantasm that there are issues known as “purple states” and “blue states,” or that the nation’s neatly divided between purple states and blue states, is as a result of the state ranges are sometimes so gerrymandered that states which are actually fairly carefully divided, like Texas, look vibrant, vibrant purple. And that’s a phenomenon of political hijinks on the state and native stage, lots of which they—
Waldman: And there are lots of Republicans in Massachusetts. And we have now this improvement of the nation into inflexible blocks of purple states and blue states, and should you’re a Democrat in Texas or a Republican in Massachusetts, beneath the present system, you get little illustration.
Frum: Yeah. And the voting traces might be drawn in methods to accentuate that. And this appears to have been a phenomenon post-2000, and it appears to have accelerated—nd possibly it’s higher computer systems which are guilty—but it surely appears to have accelerated since 2010.
Waldman: Higher computer systems, wimpier Supreme Courtroom justices.
Frum: (Laughs.)
Waldman: They, for a very long time, they knew this was an actual drawback. They stated, We’re going to concern a typical. They stated, We will’t provide you with a judicially manageable normal. And in a 2019 case known as Rucho v. Frequent Trigger, they stated, Truly, it’s too exhausting. We’re simply not going to police partisan gerrymandering.
I ought to point out one other subject, which may have an effect on redistricting and far else, is the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Courtroom appears poised, primarily based on their questioning in a latest argument, to essentially severely weaken, on the most probably situation, what’s left of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Frum: For many who don’t comply with it, what was the 1965 Voting Rights Act? What did it do at first, and in what methods has it been pared again since 1965?
Waldman: The Voting Rights Act was one of the vital profitable legal guidelines in American historical past. It was the product of the civil-rights motion, of John Lewis and others who bravely marched for voting rights at a time within the South when the Jim Crow segregation meant there have been only a few Black individuals who have been allowed to vote. And what the Voting Rights Act did, above all else, was to say that states that had a historical past of racial discrimination in voting needed to get permission from the Justice Division or the federal courts earlier than they may change their voting practices; this was known as preclearance. And it was massively profitable and actually reworked the South and the entire nation. Actually, beginning in 1965 was once we actually might be stated to have had a multiracial democracy on this nation.
In 2013, in a case known as Shelby County, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for almost all, gutted Part 5—meant you couldn’t use it anymore—and he mainly stated, Oh, this sort of racism, that’s a factor of the previous. The South has modified; the nation’s modified. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a dissent stated, Nicely, that’s like standing in a rainstorm, holding an umbrella and never getting moist, and saying, due to this fact, “Oh, I don’t want an umbrella. I’m not moist.” In different phrases, that type of equality in voting flourished due to the safety of the Voting Rights Act.
Nicely, they eradicated preclearance, however there was part of the legislation that was nonetheless left known as Part 2, which meant you, as a voter, as a civil-rights group, or the Justice Division—folks like that—may deliver a lawsuit to guard voting rights. Quietly, with a lot much less fanfare, in a case in 2021, the Supreme Courtroom made it a lot more durable to make use of that for voter-suppression legal guidelines, but it surely nonetheless may block racial discrimination in redistricting and to cease what’s known as the dilution of the political energy of communities of colour. This can be a case known as Callais; they really requested for a reargument. They usually made it fairly clear that, whereas I don’t assume it’s possible they’re going to truly declare the entire Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, they’re going to make its use in defending voting districts that can elect Black and Latino candidates a lot, a lot more durable. And a few analyses have stated, in The New York Occasions and elsewhere, that this might add to the Republicans 15 seats within the Home of Representatives. I’m unsure it’s fairly that dramatic, however that may be the consequence of one thing like this.
Frum: Can’t it additionally backfire on Republicans? As a result of one of many results of the Voting Rights Act was you’d have a state like Mississippi, which is roughly, what, close to—not fairly however practically—half Black; I don’t bear in mind off the highest of my head what number of seats Mississippi would have, however since you needed to assure the Black voters a sure variety of seats, the bulk, the racial majority, may cram all of them right into a finite variety of districts after which take the remainder of the board for itself. As soon as the Voting Rights Act is gone, these Black voters don’t disappear, they usually haven’t misplaced their proper to vote. They now take part in politics throughout the entire state in new sorts of ways in which may create a type of dummymander by a special title.
Waldman: There was a interval just a few many years in the past the place civil-rights teams and the RNC have been each urging the creation of extra Black-majority or Black-supermajority districts to verify, not in partisan phrases however in representational phrases, that there can be members of Congress and different legislators who actually represented these communities. We don’t actually know what would occur, and lots of us are serious about what would come subsequent. And in partisan phrases, you might be proper that it’s exhausting to foretell.
I feel that there are different kinds of the way to strengthen the legislation—lots of these choices made by the Supreme Courtroom on the Voting Rights Act are usually not in regards to the Structure; they’re about the best way the statutes are worded. Now, the courtroom appears to seek out any likelihood it could actually to intestine this legislation. However one of many issues that may occur and may occur on this and on different voting points and redistricting points is: I stated the Supreme Courtroom backed away from its duty, however to me, there is no such thing as a substitute for nationwide requirements on redistricting that utilized and may apply to purple states and blue states alike. The Supreme Courtroom wouldn’t do it, however Congress emphatically has the ability beneath the Structure to set nationwide requirements on redistricting. That may have an effect on partisan gerrymandering; it might additionally assist with racial discrimination in gerrymandering too, in addition to the Voting Rights Act. And the laws that got here fairly near passing in Congress just a few years in the past, the Freedom to Vote Act, it was a type of an omnibus invoice on voting and quite a few different issues. But it surely had in it a ban on mid-decade redistricting and a ban on partisan gerrymandering in every single place within the nation. If it had handed, what’s occurring proper now on redistricting wouldn’t be authorized, wouldn’t be occurring. It handed the Home. It had a majority within the Senate. This was a invoice that Senators [Kyrsten] Sinema and [Joe] Manchin, whereas supporting the invoice, stated they wouldn’t change the filibuster guidelines so it might go. The Democrats have stated that in the event that they get management once more, they are going to discover a approach to get this handed, even with a majority vote, and that may have a huge impact.
Frum: Let’s wrap up with two abstract questions. As you take a look at the 12 months forward, the political 12 months forward, what has you most anxious a few menace to free and honest elections? And second—you’ll be able to take a pause after this one—ought to there be free and honest elections? And, ought to there be a brand new type of post-Trump Home of Representatives and even two homes of Congress, w What sort of modifications ought to that Congress be serious about as a approach to make elections free and honest for the longer term?
Waldman: What has me anxious is the fact that we have now now a federal authorities working actively to undermine the integrity of the elections. And what eases that fear is once I see folks in communities, folks in states and throughout the nation really on the brink of defend these elections, as a result of Trump has his plan, however I feel lots of the remainder of us have our plan and know what to do to guard free and honest elections.
When it comes to the longer term, I feel this can be a second the place the citizens has made actually clear, election after election, that it’s deeply sad with the establishments and with the best way issues are going within the nation. The factor that’s noteworthy to me in regards to the 2024 election is that it was the primary time for the reason that 1800s that the incumbent social gathering misplaced the White Home 3 times in a row—totally different events, proper: Democrat, Republican, Democrat. That doesn’t occur. That implies an actual deep unhappiness. And Donald Trump, in his approach, intuited this and has responded to it; Democrats have persistently missed it, alternative ways every time.
But it surely’s fairly clear there’s a starvation for actual change, and I don’t assume it’s a query of left or proper; I feel it’s the type of factor, as has occurred at different durations, akin to a century in the past, the place reform-minded folks of all political factions and in each events can actually attempt to make modifications. So I might encourage every part from nationwide requirements to cease partisan gerrymandering, nationwide requirements to ensure that there’s not racial discrimination or vote suppression. I feel that coping with the function of the Supreme Courtroom is fairly necessary—as I feel you already know, I strongly really feel that an 18-year time period restrict for Supreme Courtroom justices can be accountability measure. It’s a very worthwhile factor to notice that it displays type of a core American worth that no person needs to be having that a lot energy for too lengthy. And the newest Fox Information ballot confirmed 79 p.c of the general public supporting time period limits. I feel that after scandal is if you get reform—not at all times, however that’s when it occurs—and if we do it proper, we are able to make this a season of renewal, although issues sometimes look darkish on any given day.
Frum: Michael Waldman, thanks a lot for speaking to me at this time.
Waldman: Thanks, David.
Frum: Bye-bye.
[Music]
Frum: Thanks a lot to Michael Waldman for becoming a member of me at this time on The David Frum Present.
As I discussed on the prime of the present, my e book of this week will not be a e book in any respect; it’s an article, and an article from an space of literature I don’t learn that a lot in: the literature of administration research. However the goings-on on the Pete Hegseth Pentagon—the Division of Protection, because it’s legally known as; the Division of Warfare, because it now types itself—compelled my consideration to this query of administration.
Now, one of many issues that you’ve most likely observed is that the Division of Protection, the Division of Warfare, has given many various explanations for a way and why it got here to be {that a} boat that was allegedly smuggling medication was struck not as soon as by the US armed forces, however a second time—after it had been disabled, after it had been capsized—killing all survivors aboard.
There have been many tales. However all of the tales have one theme, which is that the secretary in cost—the secretary of protection; the secretary of warfare, as he types himself—repeatedly disclaims private duty. In case you just like the operation, properly, you’ll be able to credit score him, however should you don’t just like the operation, or if any blame attaches to it, or if any authorized legal responsibility attaches to it, that was any person else’s resolution. He needs credit score for something that went properly, however he needs to keep away from any blame or legal responsibility for something that went incorrect. And as I stated, this despatched me to the realm of administration research and to an article known as “How Accountability Shapes Profession Success in Leaders.”
Now, [Jack] Zenger was a professor on the Stanford enterprise college, and he was the founding father of an necessary administration consulting agency, Zenger Folkman. However he wrote this in 2024: “Greater than 40 years in the past, a colleague of mine, Dale Miller, performed a research that in contrast two teams of executives. One group was recognized by their colleagues as extremely efficient and prepared for promotion, whereas the second group was initially thought-about prepared; however upon additional reflection [management] was deemed unready or unsuited for that function.”
Now, right here comes the necessary half: “Every group acquired a deck of 62 statements describing administration conduct. Every was requested to kind the deck in a compelled selection, bell-shaped curve—going from the simplest to the least efficient conduct. The extremely efficient group’s best choice was the assertion ‘Accepts full duty for the efficiency of the work unit.’ This merchandise was chosen much more steadily than statements about delegation, planning, staffing, time-management or technical expertise. This selection additionally illustrated the sharpest distinction between the 2 teams. The managers who had been handed over for promotion connected far much less significance to accountable conduct.”
Now, Pete Hegseth has not been handed over for promotion; he has been promoted and overpromoted—from Sunday-morning-talk-show host to secretary of protection, with the brand new title that he’s awarded himself of secretary of warfare. However you’ll be able to see that the conduct that Zenger describes of not wanting duty for the efficiency of the work unit, that describes him completely.
I feel there’s a clue there, as with the foolish prizes Trump needs for himself, the refusal of an important attribute of management—not a foolish prize, however precise duty—that defines what goes incorrect with a lot of the US authorities and that simply defines a lot of what’s going incorrect with the US navy at this time.
Thanks a lot for becoming a member of me this week. I wanna add two private notes earlier than I log out. One, you might have observed this week and final a barely totally different search for The David Frum Present. We’ve a brand new digicam and a brand new set. I hope each meet together with your approval. I additionally wanna point out, as common viewers, readers, listeners will know, my spouse and I are huge canine folks. This previous weekend, we misplaced a canine who was very near us, meant greater than any only one animal may imply, and that’s the canine that belonged to my late daughter, Miranda; the canine’s title was Ringo. I wrote a chunk about Ringo for The Atlantic final 12 months known as “Miranda’s Final Reward,” and with Ringo very a lot in my ideas, if you need to learn the piece, and should you’ve met with any type of problem at The Atlantic paywall, simply ship me a notice at [email protected], and I’ll be sure you get a present hyperlink to the article.
And with The Atlantic in thoughts, I hope you’ll take into account subscribing to The Atlantic. That’s the easiest way to help the work of The David Frum Present and of all my colleagues at The Atlantic. I hope you’ll take into account additionally following me on social media: @davidfrum on X, or Twitter; @davidfrum on Instagram. There’s a Fb web page as properly.
Thanks for listening. Thanks for watching. See you subsequent week on The David Frum Present.
[Music]
Frum: This episode of The David Frum Present was produced by Nathaniel Frum and edited by Andrea Valdez. It was engineered by Dave Grein. Our theme is by Andrew M. Edwards. Claudine Ebeid is the manager producer of Atlantic audio, and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor.
I’m David Frum. Thanks for listening.
