'The Oracle' of the White House Declares: Economy Will Stabilize Shortly
James Blair, a deputy chief of staff, remains confident that the current uncertainty will dissipate once Trump's policies navigate through the 'activist partisan judges.'
TroibNews 
James Blair is one of the most significant figures in the White House that you may not yet recognize.
In his role as deputy chief of staff for legislative, political, and public affairs, he has a comprehensive set of responsibilities. Essentially, he manages the White House’s communication strategy with the American public, focuses on political dynamics and public sentiment, and works to rally lawmakers to advance President Trump’s agenda in Congress—even if it requires applying a bit of pressure on his own party.
As a deputy to Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Blair—often referred to by colleagues as “The Oracle”—is guiding a Trump administration that is currently functioning with greater efficiency than during its initial term.
I met with Blair in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building for a taping of the Playbook Deep Dive podcast. During our discussion, he unveiled insights into how the Trump administration's second term has achieved so much in just two months, Wiles's leadership style, the White House's response to the latest Democratic disarray on Capitol Hill, efforts to address tariff worries, and the real motives behind the president's threats to impeach judges.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity by Deep Dive Producer Kara Tabor. You can listen to the full Playbook Deep Dive podcast interview here:
Listen to this episode of Playbook Deep Dive on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I’ve heard from fellow Trump campaign staff that you had a nickname on the campaign trail. They called you “The Oracle.” What’s the story behind that?
That started with my dear friend, Tony Fabrizio, years ago, which is kind of half pejorative, half friendly.
So, basically, you didn’t know what you were talking about?
I would say that the pejorative side is “He's a know-it-all.” I would say it’s probably also because they think I’m actually right a lot. I’m known for my strongly held opinions and predictions.
President Trump is in the Oval Office right now. So, I guess you can say, “I told you so.”
Whether people love President Trump or hate him, the undisputed fact is that you have been extremely successful in following through on your campaign promises. How have you managed to do this so quickly?
He had four years out of office to reflect on what he wanted to accomplish and how. He educated the team and his leadership on that over time. You had a group of people—Stephen Miller comes to mind—who spent a lot of that time preparing for their return to the White House. He was really well-prepared. Momentum builds momentum. Once you start getting wins and become confident and comfortable in what you’re doing, I think the entire administration is, in many ways, positively competing to achieve something.
You’ve known chief of staff Susie Wiles for quite a while. You worked with her before joining the Trump campaign, dating back to your time with Gov. Ron DeSantis in Florida. There’s a perception in the media and some GOP circles that she acts as a gatekeeper. Is that accurate?
No. Honestly, she’s the opposite of a gatekeeper in the way some traditional chiefs of staff have been, or even previous chiefs of staff to President Trump.
Susie is good at getting the group beneath the president to collaborate, align, and stay focused on the key mission. When you’re in the right role and you have competence, she gives you plenty of space to operate as a manager. That’s something the president appreciates. That’s how she has always been in all the different roles I’ve worked with her for nearly a decade. So, no, she’s not a gatekeeper in the traditional sense.
Many people have noted that this White House is more disciplined. The campaign was more disciplined than anything seen before with President Trump due to fewer leaks, which is attributed to Susie Wiles. How does she maintain order among the staff?
I think she excels at setting a direction and getting the core decision-making group—however big or small—to work as a cohesive team.
The worst thing you can be around Susie is an intentionally siloed or solo actor. She expects you to be part of the team. When that dynamics works—and it does—people gain mutual respect. Everyone wants to do their job, and they want their colleagues to respect that.
You start at a higher baseline than most bosses and managers. The president has acknowledged it—she can be the Ice Maiden if she needs to be.
What does that look like? Does she raise her voice?
No. She doesn’t raise her voice. She doesn’t need to. Susie has a way of expressing deep disappointment in a way that might be more painful than yelling.
Recently, Elon Musk and other MAGA influencers have discussed impeaching judges who block various rulings. President Trump only joined the conversation recently. Can you explain what prompted his reaction regarding a ruling sending alleged gang members to El Salvador?
The president is the chief executive, and the executive power is vested in him by the Constitution, which outlines a framework for the Supreme Court, not the entire judiciary below it.
The president has been victimized by corrupt, highly politicized, obviously partisan judges, both when he was out of office—one could argue in the first term, too—and now. I just saw a statistic today on X showing that an extraordinary 70 percent of stays on executive actions have involved President Trump throughout history.
But isn’t that because you often promote the idea that he is doing things no other president has attempted?
It’s because there’s a group of well-funded left-wing organizations that look for radical judges who oppose what we’re doing. They’re legislating from the bench. The president is highlighting that judges should rule based on the law.
It's a tactic for judges to put a stay on something to prolong legal battles for years. During that time, we can’t deport gang members because these judges decide otherwise. They’ve effectively neutered a critical aspect of our administration and sidelined the chief executive. They know exactly what they’re doing.
During President Trump’s first term, I reported extensively on how he utilized the courts to stall Democratic investigations of him. Now, the situation seems to have flipped. Does the president expect Speaker Mike Johnson and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan to initiate impeachment proceedings upon their return to Congress?
I think it will be up to the speaker to determine what can be passed or not. That’s the speaker's responsibility, and I won't speak for the speaker’s views.
Right now, what’s crucial is that the president is spotlighting a critical issue and is doing what he does best—drawing attention to matters that might otherwise be obscure or misrepresented in mainstream media.
The administration has argued that the courts have no power to stop them from terminating federal workers, reducing appropriated spending, or exercising their foreign policy and deportation powers. Where can the courts actually check the president’s authority?
Ultimately, the Supreme Court will answer that question. However, there should be a system of recourse. There’s impeachment. We cannot allow the will of the majority of this country—communicated through both the popular vote and the electoral college—to be usurped by unelected judges. Ultimately, the public will have their say at the ballot box. If they believe judges should wield unchecked power, they’ll express that in 2026. But we are willing to encourage that debate publicly.
I spoke with Hill Republicans about this, and their responses varied. “Idiotic” was the concise remark from Sen. John Kennedy, a Trump ally. Sen. Josh Hawley said, “If Republicans impeach judges they disagreed with, they’d be stuck in perpetual impeachment hearings.” John Cornyn added, “You don’t impeach judges for decisions you disagree with. What you do is appeal, and if you’re right, you win.” How do you respond to this sentiment, considering it isn't just Chief Justice John Roberts who believes this judge shouldn’t be impeached, but also some of your own members on the Hill?
My response is that members are entitled to their opinions, including within our party. We expect a range of opinions.
Do you plan to engage with them?
What we are encouraging is a public debate, and I believe it's reasonable. I mean no disrespect to any of those senators, who are all wonderful people and my friends. They weren’t elected by the popular vote in this country. One individual has received the backing of over 77 million Americans who said, “I want this guy to lead and this agenda.”
It seems you're aiming to make a statement regarding your discontent with judges rather than actively pursuing their impeachment.
To clarify, I believe the president is justified in wanting to impeach activist, partisan judges. The real question is whether that will happen. Time will tell, but it's necessary.
Judges are not the problem; it’s not the judiciary itself. In each case, we can pinpoint a clear partisan bent among judges that have hindered the president’s agenda, whether it's in a Democrat-controlled circuit, like D.C., or judges with ties to Democratic fundraising.
You’ve voiced significant dissatisfaction with these judges, yet President Trump has indicated he will adhere to their rulings. Why has he come to this decision despite many in his base suggesting he take a more defiant approach?
The president respects the three branches of government, which isn’t the case for some of these partisan judges. They do not show respect for the president, and that's clear.
So despite his desire to impeach certain judges—perhaps more—he will still follow their orders, even if he disagrees?
The president has made it clear: He is not looking to defy court orders.
In your portfolio, you manage legislative affairs. Are Democrats reaching out to discuss matters with the president? It surprises me that they are even engaging with you.
Certainly. We converse with Democrats from time to time and welcome their input and engagement. It needs to be constructive, though. When Democrats are ready to be constructive, that’s great. I reached out to a few over the weekend concerning military actions, both Democrats and Republicans, and they were appreciative.
You have managed to guide Republicans in Congress, specifically conservatives, to take actions I’ve rarely witnessed in my decade as a congressional correspondent. We know President Trump has substantial influence over these members. He can quickly persuade them to shift their positions, but from a legislative perspective, is Susie also reaching out to those you see as potential problem members? How are you utilizing JD Vance to apply pressure to specific senators or ease pressure off others? What’s your strategy?
It’s undoubtedly a team effort. Susie is involved at times, the vice president certainly plays a role, and the president is deeply involved.
The president has a unique bond and strength. For one, he has the people's mandate, giving him a political stature that is uncommon. In the House, especially, but also in the Senate, he helped many of these members get elected, both during his previous term and since. He has established relationships with them.
If he wasn’t as connected and politically savvy as he is, I’m not sure any staff member could compensate for it when, as you pointed out, we’re managing such a diverse and at times disagreeable coalition. We strive to elevate issues up the chain when teams can no longer navigate them. We respect the president's time—not because he doesn’t want to engage, but because he has a vast agenda and speaks with members regularly.
I have two recent stories highlighting instances where the vice president's team is either reaching out to outside figures asking them to refrain from tweeting at a senator because that senator’s vote is in jeopardy or signaling that a senator isn't aligning. Where do you draw the line between the carrot and the stick?
Have we employed sticks so far? I hadn’t noticed.
I’m speaking about the public pressure campaigns since members appear to be quite intimidated by them.
Our goal is always to resolve matters privately. That’s what we strive for. I can’t comment on the specific situations mentioned, but as a whole, the president, vice president, and our team understand the various levers we can pull to advance our agenda. We're not shy about utilizing those levers, especially since we have a president who actively engages in that work himself.
They are all wary of those tweets. You recently cornered Senate Democrats on funding. What are your thoughts on the current state of the Democratic Party's turmoil over what [Senate Minority Leader Chuck] Schumer did?
Schumer showed courage. I’d echo the president's sentiment: Schumer had guts and did the right thing.
It’s tough on him. Now, there’s talk of primary challenges and Nancy Pelosi publicly criticizing him.
That’s incredibly harsh.
It's a challenging time for them. I believe they are lost in the wilderness, searching for a leader of an unpopular agenda. They are still holding onto issues that the vast majority of Americans don’t support: men competing in women’s sports and allowing gang members to roam free from other countries. Until they—though not every Democrat—collectively realign with common sense, it will be tough for them to avoid conflict with one another. When Chuck Schumer takes a common-sense action—like keeping the government open, a principle historically supported by every Democrat—and he’s the only one to stand up, they turn on him.
Do you believe Republicans can maintain both chambers of Congress in the midterms, given the current state of the Democratic Party?
It’s quite premature to make predictions right now.
In certain respects, the motivating force behind votes currently lies with their base, riled up and angry, whereas Republican base voters seem content. In some ways, this could pose a political challenge at the ballot box.
Realistically, the Republican Party's success in the midterms will hinge on its actions moving forward, irrespective of the Democrats.
If we remain united and rally behind the president, we’ll likely find success at the polls. However, if Congress attempts to pursue a Republican agenda reminiscent of 2008 to 2012 instead of one focused on 2024, they could face consequences in the elections.
Many Republicans appreciate Elon Musk’s aggressive approach towards a bloated bureaucracy, while some independents also view it favorably. Yet, recent polls indicate a shift. We’ve seen video clips from town halls displaying public contempt towards Republicans. Is Elon Musk becoming a liability for President Trump?
I don’t believe so. I think Elon brings significant value. Many observers are calling this the most aggressive and successful start to a presidency ever. We’ve accomplished quite a bit in a short time, and it will take time to continue our efforts and see the benefits of our work. Elon is tackling issues everyone acknowledges, including long-time Democrats. For example, Chuck Schumer has been vocal about eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid for the past decade.
But he hasn’t been advocating for eliminating the Education Department or USAID.
Well, the president has run on returning education to state control. That concept isn’t new; it was echoed in every rally.
Do you think that most voters—especially swing voters or those who showed up to support him in the past—prioritize those issues over economic factors?
You’re asking me to rank issues. What I’m saying is these are not surprises. Do we need to curb rising prices? Absolutely.
Joe Biden damaged the economy, leading to decades-high inflation. What primarily fueled that? Government spending. It’s a complex issue to resolve, but we must address spending in light of the current national scenario.
I asked Elon, “What constitutes the right-sizing? What does success look like?” I’m not asserting we’ll accomplish this this year, but as we work to reduce the deficit, we can’t continue spiraling deeper into debt. Interest rates are climbing, increasing debt service payments and expanding the deficit. We must combat the spending problem for the voters’ sake.
And the president is also focused on other critical matters. Egg prices have significantly dropped, gas prices are down across every state, and energy costs are also decreasing, which will further alleviate inflation. The first full inflation report indicated lower-than-expected figures. Domestic manufacturing is on the rise, as evidenced by the latest job report. There are many positive and healthy indicators.
When President Trump won, I recall my brother and dad—both Trump voters—celebrating on a family text message...
Very astute individuals.
…that the stock market would leap, and it did for a while; however, now the S&P 500 is lower than before Election Day. Some noted last week was the worst for stocks in two years. There’s buzz about an impending recession. What’s going on? You claim things will improve—short-term pain for long-term gain—but when will we see that turnaround?
First off, business school teaches that you can’t monitor the market daily. We’re all thrilled when the market rises. A slight correction over a few weeks isn’t significant in the grand scheme.
The genuinely pertinent question is, what does the long-term trend look like? I believe things will normalize as we progress into April, particularly as tariff issues come into focus for the markets. Then the volatility—though I’m not an economist—is likely to ease.
You mentioned April?
Yes. The president has made it clear that volatility will decrease. As Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasized, we need to reduce government spending. As we manage to do that—removing the government from competing with the private sector and reinvigorating private enterprises through deregulation and the promotion of domestic manufacturing—these efforts, in conjunction with offering tax relief and other forms of financial support to voters, will lead to robust growth. We will push as hard as we can to achieve this promptly. However, some adjustment will be necessary.
Can you assure the business community that there will be clear and predictable regulations regarding tariffs going forward? Will they understand exactly what affects tariffs and how they will fluctuate?
The president is a businessman; he comprehends how business planning and cycles operate. We’ve only been in office for eight weeks, but he aims to provide predictability to the markets and businesses so they can plan effectively.
However, the imminent expiration of tax cuts at year’s end, the need to decrease government spending, and uncertainty surrounding tariffs contribute to some instability. We’re essentially in a phase of stabilization, which is causing some volatility. Again, I'm not an economist, but I believe that will stabilize fairly soon.
Listen to this episode of Playbook Deep Dive on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Max Fischer for TROIB News
In his role as deputy chief of staff for legislative, political, and public affairs, he has a comprehensive set of responsibilities. Essentially, he manages the White House’s communication strategy with the American public, focuses on political dynamics and public sentiment, and works to rally lawmakers to advance President Trump’s agenda in Congress—even if it requires applying a bit of pressure on his own party.
As a deputy to Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Blair—often referred to by colleagues as “The Oracle”—is guiding a Trump administration that is currently functioning with greater efficiency than during its initial term.
I met with Blair in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building for a taping of the Playbook Deep Dive podcast. During our discussion, he unveiled insights into how the Trump administration's second term has achieved so much in just two months, Wiles's leadership style, the White House's response to the latest Democratic disarray on Capitol Hill, efforts to address tariff worries, and the real motives behind the president's threats to impeach judges.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity by Deep Dive Producer Kara Tabor. You can listen to the full Playbook Deep Dive podcast interview here:
Listen to this episode of Playbook Deep Dive on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I’ve heard from fellow Trump campaign staff that you had a nickname on the campaign trail. They called you “The Oracle.” What’s the story behind that?
That started with my dear friend, Tony Fabrizio, years ago, which is kind of half pejorative, half friendly.
So, basically, you didn’t know what you were talking about?
I would say that the pejorative side is “He's a know-it-all.” I would say it’s probably also because they think I’m actually right a lot. I’m known for my strongly held opinions and predictions.
President Trump is in the Oval Office right now. So, I guess you can say, “I told you so.”
Whether people love President Trump or hate him, the undisputed fact is that you have been extremely successful in following through on your campaign promises. How have you managed to do this so quickly?
He had four years out of office to reflect on what he wanted to accomplish and how. He educated the team and his leadership on that over time. You had a group of people—Stephen Miller comes to mind—who spent a lot of that time preparing for their return to the White House. He was really well-prepared. Momentum builds momentum. Once you start getting wins and become confident and comfortable in what you’re doing, I think the entire administration is, in many ways, positively competing to achieve something.
You’ve known chief of staff Susie Wiles for quite a while. You worked with her before joining the Trump campaign, dating back to your time with Gov. Ron DeSantis in Florida. There’s a perception in the media and some GOP circles that she acts as a gatekeeper. Is that accurate?
No. Honestly, she’s the opposite of a gatekeeper in the way some traditional chiefs of staff have been, or even previous chiefs of staff to President Trump.
Susie is good at getting the group beneath the president to collaborate, align, and stay focused on the key mission. When you’re in the right role and you have competence, she gives you plenty of space to operate as a manager. That’s something the president appreciates. That’s how she has always been in all the different roles I’ve worked with her for nearly a decade. So, no, she’s not a gatekeeper in the traditional sense.
Many people have noted that this White House is more disciplined. The campaign was more disciplined than anything seen before with President Trump due to fewer leaks, which is attributed to Susie Wiles. How does she maintain order among the staff?
I think she excels at setting a direction and getting the core decision-making group—however big or small—to work as a cohesive team.
The worst thing you can be around Susie is an intentionally siloed or solo actor. She expects you to be part of the team. When that dynamics works—and it does—people gain mutual respect. Everyone wants to do their job, and they want their colleagues to respect that.
You start at a higher baseline than most bosses and managers. The president has acknowledged it—she can be the Ice Maiden if she needs to be.
What does that look like? Does she raise her voice?
No. She doesn’t raise her voice. She doesn’t need to. Susie has a way of expressing deep disappointment in a way that might be more painful than yelling.
Recently, Elon Musk and other MAGA influencers have discussed impeaching judges who block various rulings. President Trump only joined the conversation recently. Can you explain what prompted his reaction regarding a ruling sending alleged gang members to El Salvador?
The president is the chief executive, and the executive power is vested in him by the Constitution, which outlines a framework for the Supreme Court, not the entire judiciary below it.
The president has been victimized by corrupt, highly politicized, obviously partisan judges, both when he was out of office—one could argue in the first term, too—and now. I just saw a statistic today on X showing that an extraordinary 70 percent of stays on executive actions have involved President Trump throughout history.
But isn’t that because you often promote the idea that he is doing things no other president has attempted?
It’s because there’s a group of well-funded left-wing organizations that look for radical judges who oppose what we’re doing. They’re legislating from the bench. The president is highlighting that judges should rule based on the law.
It's a tactic for judges to put a stay on something to prolong legal battles for years. During that time, we can’t deport gang members because these judges decide otherwise. They’ve effectively neutered a critical aspect of our administration and sidelined the chief executive. They know exactly what they’re doing.
During President Trump’s first term, I reported extensively on how he utilized the courts to stall Democratic investigations of him. Now, the situation seems to have flipped. Does the president expect Speaker Mike Johnson and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan to initiate impeachment proceedings upon their return to Congress?
I think it will be up to the speaker to determine what can be passed or not. That’s the speaker's responsibility, and I won't speak for the speaker’s views.
Right now, what’s crucial is that the president is spotlighting a critical issue and is doing what he does best—drawing attention to matters that might otherwise be obscure or misrepresented in mainstream media.
The administration has argued that the courts have no power to stop them from terminating federal workers, reducing appropriated spending, or exercising their foreign policy and deportation powers. Where can the courts actually check the president’s authority?
Ultimately, the Supreme Court will answer that question. However, there should be a system of recourse. There’s impeachment. We cannot allow the will of the majority of this country—communicated through both the popular vote and the electoral college—to be usurped by unelected judges. Ultimately, the public will have their say at the ballot box. If they believe judges should wield unchecked power, they’ll express that in 2026. But we are willing to encourage that debate publicly.
I spoke with Hill Republicans about this, and their responses varied. “Idiotic” was the concise remark from Sen. John Kennedy, a Trump ally. Sen. Josh Hawley said, “If Republicans impeach judges they disagreed with, they’d be stuck in perpetual impeachment hearings.” John Cornyn added, “You don’t impeach judges for decisions you disagree with. What you do is appeal, and if you’re right, you win.” How do you respond to this sentiment, considering it isn't just Chief Justice John Roberts who believes this judge shouldn’t be impeached, but also some of your own members on the Hill?
My response is that members are entitled to their opinions, including within our party. We expect a range of opinions.
Do you plan to engage with them?
What we are encouraging is a public debate, and I believe it's reasonable. I mean no disrespect to any of those senators, who are all wonderful people and my friends. They weren’t elected by the popular vote in this country. One individual has received the backing of over 77 million Americans who said, “I want this guy to lead and this agenda.”
It seems you're aiming to make a statement regarding your discontent with judges rather than actively pursuing their impeachment.
To clarify, I believe the president is justified in wanting to impeach activist, partisan judges. The real question is whether that will happen. Time will tell, but it's necessary.
Judges are not the problem; it’s not the judiciary itself. In each case, we can pinpoint a clear partisan bent among judges that have hindered the president’s agenda, whether it's in a Democrat-controlled circuit, like D.C., or judges with ties to Democratic fundraising.
You’ve voiced significant dissatisfaction with these judges, yet President Trump has indicated he will adhere to their rulings. Why has he come to this decision despite many in his base suggesting he take a more defiant approach?
The president respects the three branches of government, which isn’t the case for some of these partisan judges. They do not show respect for the president, and that's clear.
So despite his desire to impeach certain judges—perhaps more—he will still follow their orders, even if he disagrees?
The president has made it clear: He is not looking to defy court orders.
In your portfolio, you manage legislative affairs. Are Democrats reaching out to discuss matters with the president? It surprises me that they are even engaging with you.
Certainly. We converse with Democrats from time to time and welcome their input and engagement. It needs to be constructive, though. When Democrats are ready to be constructive, that’s great. I reached out to a few over the weekend concerning military actions, both Democrats and Republicans, and they were appreciative.
You have managed to guide Republicans in Congress, specifically conservatives, to take actions I’ve rarely witnessed in my decade as a congressional correspondent. We know President Trump has substantial influence over these members. He can quickly persuade them to shift their positions, but from a legislative perspective, is Susie also reaching out to those you see as potential problem members? How are you utilizing JD Vance to apply pressure to specific senators or ease pressure off others? What’s your strategy?
It’s undoubtedly a team effort. Susie is involved at times, the vice president certainly plays a role, and the president is deeply involved.
The president has a unique bond and strength. For one, he has the people's mandate, giving him a political stature that is uncommon. In the House, especially, but also in the Senate, he helped many of these members get elected, both during his previous term and since. He has established relationships with them.
If he wasn’t as connected and politically savvy as he is, I’m not sure any staff member could compensate for it when, as you pointed out, we’re managing such a diverse and at times disagreeable coalition. We strive to elevate issues up the chain when teams can no longer navigate them. We respect the president's time—not because he doesn’t want to engage, but because he has a vast agenda and speaks with members regularly.
I have two recent stories highlighting instances where the vice president's team is either reaching out to outside figures asking them to refrain from tweeting at a senator because that senator’s vote is in jeopardy or signaling that a senator isn't aligning. Where do you draw the line between the carrot and the stick?
Have we employed sticks so far? I hadn’t noticed.
I’m speaking about the public pressure campaigns since members appear to be quite intimidated by them.
Our goal is always to resolve matters privately. That’s what we strive for. I can’t comment on the specific situations mentioned, but as a whole, the president, vice president, and our team understand the various levers we can pull to advance our agenda. We're not shy about utilizing those levers, especially since we have a president who actively engages in that work himself.
They are all wary of those tweets. You recently cornered Senate Democrats on funding. What are your thoughts on the current state of the Democratic Party's turmoil over what [Senate Minority Leader Chuck] Schumer did?
Schumer showed courage. I’d echo the president's sentiment: Schumer had guts and did the right thing.
It’s tough on him. Now, there’s talk of primary challenges and Nancy Pelosi publicly criticizing him.
That’s incredibly harsh.
It's a challenging time for them. I believe they are lost in the wilderness, searching for a leader of an unpopular agenda. They are still holding onto issues that the vast majority of Americans don’t support: men competing in women’s sports and allowing gang members to roam free from other countries. Until they—though not every Democrat—collectively realign with common sense, it will be tough for them to avoid conflict with one another. When Chuck Schumer takes a common-sense action—like keeping the government open, a principle historically supported by every Democrat—and he’s the only one to stand up, they turn on him.
Do you believe Republicans can maintain both chambers of Congress in the midterms, given the current state of the Democratic Party?
It’s quite premature to make predictions right now.
In certain respects, the motivating force behind votes currently lies with their base, riled up and angry, whereas Republican base voters seem content. In some ways, this could pose a political challenge at the ballot box.
Realistically, the Republican Party's success in the midterms will hinge on its actions moving forward, irrespective of the Democrats.
If we remain united and rally behind the president, we’ll likely find success at the polls. However, if Congress attempts to pursue a Republican agenda reminiscent of 2008 to 2012 instead of one focused on 2024, they could face consequences in the elections.
Many Republicans appreciate Elon Musk’s aggressive approach towards a bloated bureaucracy, while some independents also view it favorably. Yet, recent polls indicate a shift. We’ve seen video clips from town halls displaying public contempt towards Republicans. Is Elon Musk becoming a liability for President Trump?
I don’t believe so. I think Elon brings significant value. Many observers are calling this the most aggressive and successful start to a presidency ever. We’ve accomplished quite a bit in a short time, and it will take time to continue our efforts and see the benefits of our work. Elon is tackling issues everyone acknowledges, including long-time Democrats. For example, Chuck Schumer has been vocal about eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid for the past decade.
But he hasn’t been advocating for eliminating the Education Department or USAID.
Well, the president has run on returning education to state control. That concept isn’t new; it was echoed in every rally.
Do you think that most voters—especially swing voters or those who showed up to support him in the past—prioritize those issues over economic factors?
You’re asking me to rank issues. What I’m saying is these are not surprises. Do we need to curb rising prices? Absolutely.
Joe Biden damaged the economy, leading to decades-high inflation. What primarily fueled that? Government spending. It’s a complex issue to resolve, but we must address spending in light of the current national scenario.
I asked Elon, “What constitutes the right-sizing? What does success look like?” I’m not asserting we’ll accomplish this this year, but as we work to reduce the deficit, we can’t continue spiraling deeper into debt. Interest rates are climbing, increasing debt service payments and expanding the deficit. We must combat the spending problem for the voters’ sake.
And the president is also focused on other critical matters. Egg prices have significantly dropped, gas prices are down across every state, and energy costs are also decreasing, which will further alleviate inflation. The first full inflation report indicated lower-than-expected figures. Domestic manufacturing is on the rise, as evidenced by the latest job report. There are many positive and healthy indicators.
When President Trump won, I recall my brother and dad—both Trump voters—celebrating on a family text message...
Very astute individuals.
…that the stock market would leap, and it did for a while; however, now the S&P 500 is lower than before Election Day. Some noted last week was the worst for stocks in two years. There’s buzz about an impending recession. What’s going on? You claim things will improve—short-term pain for long-term gain—but when will we see that turnaround?
First off, business school teaches that you can’t monitor the market daily. We’re all thrilled when the market rises. A slight correction over a few weeks isn’t significant in the grand scheme.
The genuinely pertinent question is, what does the long-term trend look like? I believe things will normalize as we progress into April, particularly as tariff issues come into focus for the markets. Then the volatility—though I’m not an economist—is likely to ease.
You mentioned April?
Yes. The president has made it clear that volatility will decrease. As Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasized, we need to reduce government spending. As we manage to do that—removing the government from competing with the private sector and reinvigorating private enterprises through deregulation and the promotion of domestic manufacturing—these efforts, in conjunction with offering tax relief and other forms of financial support to voters, will lead to robust growth. We will push as hard as we can to achieve this promptly. However, some adjustment will be necessary.
Can you assure the business community that there will be clear and predictable regulations regarding tariffs going forward? Will they understand exactly what affects tariffs and how they will fluctuate?
The president is a businessman; he comprehends how business planning and cycles operate. We’ve only been in office for eight weeks, but he aims to provide predictability to the markets and businesses so they can plan effectively.
However, the imminent expiration of tax cuts at year’s end, the need to decrease government spending, and uncertainty surrounding tariffs contribute to some instability. We’re essentially in a phase of stabilization, which is causing some volatility. Again, I'm not an economist, but I believe that will stabilize fairly soon.
Listen to this episode of Playbook Deep Dive on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Max Fischer for TROIB News
Find more stories on Business, Economy and Finance in TROIB business
