Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Elon Musk Is Reshaping The Government, But Is It Legal?; Breaking Down Elon Musk's Expanding Role in Trump Administration; Democrats Plot First Major Attack on Trump Agenda; Trump To Become First President to Attend Super Bowl. Aired 8-9a ET

Aired February 09, 2025 - 08:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[08:00:08]

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: And thank you for spending your morning with us.

INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY WITH MANU RAJU is next.

AMARA WALKER, CNN ANCHOR: Have a great day.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(MUSIC)

MANU RAJU, CNN HOST (voice-over): Trump takeover. The president takes a sledgehammer to the government.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're going to be looking at Department of Education. We're going to be looking at even our military.

RAJU: Now, judges are saying not so fast. The news overnight, and what's next? My panel weighs in.

Plus, my new reporting and how Democrats are responding.

And the Elon effect.

ELON MUSK, TECH BILLIONAIRE: This is what victory feels like. Yeah.

RAJU: I'll talk to a close ally of musk about his next steps.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): I think the American people like the intensity and the speed and the focused energy, and they like I think what Elon Musk is showing 'em.

RAJU: But is it all legal?

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan live.

Plus, it's Super Bowl Sunday and Trump's the first president to go.

TRUMP: Mahomes, a pretty good quarterback, right?

RAJU: What to expect when the president shows up at the big game.

INSIDE POLITICS, the best reporting from inside the corridors of power, starts now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RAJU (on camera): Good morning. And welcome to INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY. I'm Manu Raju.

President Donald Trump has only been back in the White House for 20 days, and already the government he leads feels drastically different. Trump and his right hand man, Elon Musk, are wasting no time turning federal agencies upside down, testing the limits of their power, installing loyalists in key positions and seeking to eliminate federal programs while trying to purge the workforce. Even if it's not clear they are legally allowed to do so.

But Trump's actions the last few days have also spanned the gamut. New this morning, he disclosed to "The New York Post" that he has spoken to Vladimir Putin as he tries to broker an end to the Ukraine war. He also said he's taking control of the Kennedy Center in Washington, blocked an Anthony Fauci museum exhibit and stripped Joe Biden's access to classified intelligence, and that's just to name a few.

But not all these changes are moving forward, at least not yet. Judges are blocking some of Trump's most controversial moves, including his plans to put USAID workers on leave and to give Musk access to sensitive trade sensitive Treasury Department data.

All right, let's break this all down with my great panel this morning. "The Wall Street Journal's" Molly Ball, CNN's Stephen Collinson, and Margaret Talev with "Axios".

Good morning to you all.

MARGARET TALEV, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Good morning.

RAJJU: Thanks for being here.

Overnight, it sounds like the next target on this list is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. There's -- the new acting head of this, Russell Vought, who's the head of the powerful White House Budget Office, Trump also named him to lead this agency, suggesting that they are not going to move forward with doing what Congress told the agency to do, which is essentially to police Wall Street.

And the Republicans have been trying to go after this agency for years, but this is the next target on this list. What do you make of the efforts so far to go after these federal agencies, federal, that are not in line with the Trump policies and whether they're going to be successful ultimately carrying this out?

MOLLY BALL, WALL STREET JOURNAL: I think those are two very good questions. As you point out, the CFPB is something that Republicans have had in their sights for a long time. There were efforts during the first Trump administration to, if not eliminate it, to at least make it so that it could not fully operate.

And I think what Republicans are learning from this whole DOGE effort is they don't actually have to pass a bill that eliminates the agency. They can just have these guys go in there and cut it out. And whether or not that's legal is sort of a question for another day. And, you know, there are there are there's a whole flurry of lawsuits against all kinds of moves.

But, you know, at least one judge so far has said that its difficult to figure out who has standing to actually challenge these moves because, you know, the agency can't sue. It's not clear who is sort of the victim here.

So there I think the question that a lot of people, including Republicans on Capitol Hill, are wondering about is, is there actually a political cost to this, right? Because they see this all playing out. They're getting thousands of calls in every congressional office. The phones have literally been ringing off the hook. So is there going to be a cost to that politically, given that, that people's constituents are actually feeling some of these changes.

RAJU: In just about the agencies that have been reshaped by Trump, we're showing you again on your screen there, it is really across the board, from USAID to going after January 6th, investigators and the FBI, EPA, the Justice Department, really CIA offering these buyouts that have been paused, trying to eliminate a whole bunch of programs.

[08:05:17]

What do you make of the efforts so far? And what does it say to you about how they're planning to carry out their agenda?

STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, we've never been in a moment when conservatives have had so much power in Washington and an understanding that they may have a limited window to go after things they've been trying to do for decades. So that's the backdrop to this.

But what I think were heading towards is a historic clash in the courts about the extent to which presidents can do this. The expansive view of presidential power that president Trump is. A lot of this stuff looks highly questionable, legally and constitutionally, and it's going to go up through the chain of the courts. And I think the expectation of the White House is that you can do so much, and with a Supreme Court that itself has a pretty expansive view of presidential power, as we saw in the immunity ruling last year, that some of this is going to get through.

And if some of it is turned back, the damage from their point of view would have been done. No, Congress is now going to renew the CFRB (ph) or reconstitute USAID. That's all going to go away in the meantime. So that's the way they're trying to wield power.

TALEV: Yeah, I think the public messaging and we're already hearing it is going to be waste, fraud and abuse, cut bureaucracy. Some throwaway lines about Marxists or whatever, but what's really going on here across these agencies, if you look at what's in common, is significant moves by reducing the number of officials in some of these jobs to also reduce regulatory mechanisms inside these agencies and anti-corruption mechanisms inside these agencies.

So it is not just a massive expansionist view of -- of executive power, which it absolutely is, is to say there are three branches of government, but the presidents the most important one. That's one of the views.

But one of the other views is get out of the way of business. Just let them do a lot more of what they want without the government getting in the way. And that -- that's not how they're talking about it, talking about it in terms of governments wasteful, but that is the implication that we're beginning to see play out here.

RAJU: And overnight, Elon Musk tweeted that FEMA is broken. So that's how Trump has also suggested winding down FEMA. So we'll see how that ultimately plays out.

But, Molly, you had mentioned about the lawsuits that have been moving ahead. There are so many lawsuits and several of them have been successful so far, at least in temporarily pausing these actions by Trump, everything from ending birthright citizenship that has been rejected by multiple federal judges, the federal funding freeze also blocked by a federal judge, buy outs for federal employees is a pause on that. These efforts to try to push out these USAID workers, that's been halted temporarily at least, and the DOGE's access to the treasury payment system.

But there's so many other lawsuits that are pending. But this is all part of the strategy, right? Like try to fight in the courts. Maybe they ultimately win an appeal in the Supreme Court, and that expands Trump's powers and the executives power to do all of these, take all these actions.

BALL: Yeah, I think as Stephen was saying, there's a feeling that they -- there's -- they almost can't lose in a way, because even if they -- if they win the cases, then they can do what they want. If they lose the cases, they still have won in a way, because number one, as Stephen was saying, you know, if the damage is already done, its near impossible to build back up some of the capacity that's been lost.

And even if, you know, people get their jobs back, they're sort of living in fear, looking over their shoulders, knowing that they may not have a job the next day. So the -- there's they are going to try to go as far and as fast as they can and then let the courts sort of sort it out later and tell them what they what they cant do. And that's a very different way than administrations have approached this kind of thing in the past. And it'll be interesting to see, you know, if anyone else steps up to rein them in, if Congress decides, you know, this was historically our job to decide how the money gets spent.

So far, they seem pretty happy to let -- let Musk sort of run wild and cut the spending that they have never had the courage to do. RAJU: So how is the American public viewing this? There's a -- there

was a Pew poll that came out this past week about approve or disapprove about Trump's performance so far. For Trump, the numbers are actually not bad for him, 47 percent approve, 51 percent disapprove.

Now, this is higher than at any point in pews polling during his first term, but it's lower than other presidents in the early parts of their new presidency. What do you make of that, the fact that the numbers are for Trump? Not bad.

COLLINSON: That's pretty good. That's near his high watermark. It is still early. And to your point about the potential political blowback from all of this, the impact of getting rid of all these agencies hasn't yet filtered down.

You saw that -- was it last week or the week before last, when that temporary funding freeze went into place and government services throughout the states suddenly started going away? There was an immediate political backlash. So over time, perhaps this can change.

To the point about FEMA, if they get rid of FEMA, they're not just getting rid of a monolithic agency, they're getting rid of expertise and say there was a big national natural disaster, a hurricane later in the year, and it doesn't work out very well. They're taking on a substantial political risk by doing that.

RAJU: Very quickly. There's a honeymoon, but may not last.

TALEV: It's what you call a benchmark poll. You do the poll at the beginning of the year so that when you go back in February or March to see how sentiment is, you can see how it's changed. This is how it started. This may not be how it ends.

RAJU: Well, we certainly shall see. There's a lot more that will come as we know.

All right. Up next, Donald Trump wants Elon Musk to take an ax to even more of the federal government. So what's coming up next?

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan joins me live to weigh in on the DOGE debate.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:15:35]

RAJU: After a week of trying to gut USAID and other agencies, Elon Musk and DOGE are just getting started on their mission to make massive cuts to federal spending. But questions still loom large about the details and legality of all of this.

My next guest has developed a close relationship with the world's richest man, Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and an Ohio Republican.

Mr. Jordan, thank you for joining me.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Good to be with you, man.

RAJU: Appreciate it.

JORDAN: You bet.

RAJU: So it's clear that the Trump team is looking at other agencies to try to shutter, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Let's talk about the Department of Education. There's also FEMA as well as part of it.

You know, these are agencies that have monies been appropriated by Congress. They've been established by law. Are you okay with them trying to essentially shutter these agencies without -- without congressional consent?

JORDAN: Well -- the conservatives long said, we need to get rid of the Department of Education. We have real concerns with all the waste, fraud and abuse that that Elon Musk and his team are identifying. It's interesting.

You know, no one wants to defend the waste, fraud and abuse. So they attack the guy who's exposing all the waste, fraud and ridiculous things were spending money on. And remember, the Constitution is clear. Article Two, Section One, the very first sentence says the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America, first sentence in the section about the executive.

RAJU: But you have the power of the purse, Constitution?

JORDAN: We do. But the -- it's the president. It's not a bureaucrat at USAID. It's not some staff person or some employee at the Department of Education. It's the president of the United States and the folks who work for DOGE are federal employees carrying out the will of the executive branch leader, the president of the United States.

RAJU: So, you're comfortable if he shuts those down without getting congressional approval.

JORDAN: Congress will be involved at some point. But I think the country is comfortable with identifying all the stupid things they are spending money on, like --

RAJU: So, Congress needs to --

JORDAN: -- the opera, the trans opera in Ireland. Like they're doing Sesame Street in Iraq. I mean, I think the American people think, you know what? You could probably spend my tax money a little better --

RAJU: But I'm talking about shuttering the --

JORDAN: Than having Big Bird and Bert and Ernie on TV in Baghdad. So that's what he's pointing out. That's the kind of stuff we need to get rid of. And frankly, 77 million people knew he was going to do this and they voted for him on Election Day --

RAJU: But I just want to --

JORDAN: -- because of this.

RAJU: I just want to clear what you're saying. First of all, USAID, we don't need to. They do other things besides the programs they'll deal with humanitarian issues and the like. But, but, but you're okay. It sounds like you believe that Congress needs to have some say ultimately here.

JORDAN: Well, I think that -- I think in the end, that will be the case. But I do think what -- what Elon and his team are doing at the -- at the request, at the urging of the president, and it's something that he campaigned on and it's something that people evaluated and voted for on November 5th, and he won on an overwhelming way. I think that's entirely appropriate.

RAJU: Okay, so speaking of Elon Musk, they -- there was a judge that ruled over the weekend, as you know, about his access to the Treasury Department payment system. The judge says it would do, quote, irreparable harm because of the highly sensitive data that they are accessing, concerns about leaking, concerns about hacking.

One of the things that the judge said was that they should destroy all the copies of the materials that were downloaded by this Treasury Department system. The White House has not said whether it would comply with that judge's order.

Do you think that they should comply and destroy those records?

JORDAN: Well, first of all, again, the people who are working on the DOGE team are federal employees, just like the people at Treasury who have access to the information you're describing or the judge is describing.

Second, I think this may be the same judge. If it's the case I'm thinking about. There's been several cases, court cases over the rulings over the last several days, but it's the one I'm thinking about. It's an Obama judge who said even Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent couldn't -- couldn't see some of this information.

Are you kidding me? He's the guy who the president nominated to be treasury secretary, who was confirmed by the United States Senate. And he's not allowed and he's not allowed to see this.

RAJU: But he's a federal judge saying destroy these records. Should the White House comply with what the judge is saying?

JORDAN: Well, I assume it will argue this out in court like the other 17 or 18 decisions we've seen in the last several days, that all is going to get argued out in court.

And frankly, we knew the left. We knew the Democrats were going to do this. When you're moving at the intensity and speed that President Trump is moving, which I think is great. I think it's what the American people voted for.

When you're -- when you have that kind of focused intensity and speed, you knew the left was going to take us to court and they're doing it whether it's immigration policy, border security policy or the DOGE action.

RAJU: I'm glad you brought up the court, because there have been a lot of litigation so far, and they've been halted on several fronts. You mentioned some Obama judges, but there have been some Republican appointed judges, too, that have halted some of these actions, just a few of the cases so far that have been -- there's the buyouts, the federal buyouts that's been paused at least until Monday.

We talked about the treasury case, USAID, the efforts to try to put these workers on leave has been blocked, temporarily at least. And then there's also the issue about birthright citizenship from a Reagan appointed judge who said this in its -- in his ruling to block this from going forward. He said it has become ever more apparent that our president, the rule of law, is but an impediment to his policy goals.

The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain. So I guess my question to you, Congressman, is that this is a clear sign that the judges believe the president is going too far.

JORDAN: It's one judge, but --

RAJU: There are several judges.

JORDAN: On that particular issue, I would -- I would just point to common sense. Do we really think that someone who illegally enters the country one day, the very next day, they have a child here, and then the third day, let's say they go back to their native country.

RAJU: But I guess I'm talking --

JORDAN: Do you really believe common sense says that that kid is now a citizen. That youngster is now a citizen of the United States?

RAJU: But I'm just talking about --

JORDAN: That child? I don't think so.

RAJU: I'm talking about the pattern. I'm talking about there's a pattern where judges are saying they're going too far on these issues. It's a clear sign that judges are --

JORDAN: As I said before, we're going to have this -- we're going to argue these cases in court. In fact, we filed an amicus brief in the birthright citizenship case. Members of Congress, we -- we led an amicus brief on that issue. So, some of this stuffs going to get ironed out in court.

All I know is, again, Article Two, Section One, the very first sentence, the executive power shall be vested in a president. I think it's important, a president of the United States of America, not in bureaucrats, not in career people in the president, the guy who put his name on it. But this is a fundamental difference we have with the left.

The left thinks, oh, it's the career experts who make the decisions. That's not how our country works. It's the guy who puts his name on the ballot, get elected, gets elected by we the people. He gets to make the decisions or she gets to make the decisions.

That's how we don't want the Faucis of the world and all the people in the bureaucracy making the decisions. We want the guy who put their name, puts their name on the ballot and gets elected by the American people.

RAJU: But you guys are elected to, of course. You're a co-equal branch of government.

JORDAN: Yeah, I said, we're going to be involved, certainly.

RAJU: And I want to ask you about just Elon Musk's role in this, because he clearly has he has an enormous amount of business before the government, billions of dollars in contracts and the like.

This is what Senator Kevin Cramer, a Republican, fellow Republican, told me about how they should look after what Elon Musk is doing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-SD): I do think we have to, you know, there have to be guardrails, obviously, on what information he accesses, but more importantly, what he does with it.

As a major defense contractor, as a major government contractor, we have -- there have to be some -- some guardrails.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So he says, Congressman, that there must be some guardrails on Elon Musk. Do you agree? Should there be at least some guardrails, given that there could be a conflict here?

JORDAN: Well, I think the -- I think the guardrails are you -- you all in the press who are talking about every day. That's -- that's --

RAJU: Well, we don't know what he's -- he hasn't disclosed anything publicly or his financial assets.

JORDAN: All I know is he's -- he's an employee of a special employee of the president of United States, a guy who was elected, as I said, I think the American people appreciate the effort and the work that he is doing.

The fact that he's exposed the ridiculous things that our money is being spent on. I think the American people said, yeah, we sort of always had this suspicion, and now were seeing the evidence. God bless him for bringing that.

RAJU: Did you guys have --

JORDAN: And frankly, more importantly, God bless him for the work he did in exposing what other journalists, not Republicans, other journalists have called the censorship industrial complex, where big government was pressuring big tech to censor Americans, largely conservatives.

He led the -- he led the charge with the Twitter files and helping us expose the ridiculous attack on the First Amendment and free speech. And you guys should have been helping us with that. Instead, you're attacking Elon Musk.

RAJU: Wait, wait, wait. No, no, I'm just wondering. You have oversight responsibility. You're chairman of a very powerful committee.

JORDAN: We do a lot of work on that.

RAJU: Should you provide -- should you provide some oversight into what Elon Musk is doing here as well?

JORDAN: We provided all kinds of oversight into the attacks on free speech and First Amendment liberties. We're going to continue -- in fact, we've got a hearing on Wednesday. We're going to bring in Mr. Taibbi.

(CROSSTALK)

RAJU: But you're not -- but not on Elon Musk, not on Elon --

JORDAN: I think -- I think the country appreciates what Elon Musk is doing.

Oh, our government is taking my tax money and spending it on trans opera comic in Ireland. No. Thank you. Glad you pointed that out, Mr. Musk. Stop that.

Spend our money on something that's effective and maybe be better if we got rid of the Department of Education and actually had money going to local schools. At least the teacher in the classroom knows the child's name. Some bureaucrat working remote at the Department of Education here in Washington is really helping kids learn -- I don't think so.

RAJU: Okay. Well, that's going to be a debate, of course. It sounds like maybe a debate in Congress.

We'll see what Trump decides to do on the executive level.

Congressman Jordan, thank you for coming in, sharing your perspective. I appreciate it.

JORDAN: You bet. Thank you.

RAJU: All right. My panel is back to weigh in on what you just heard from the congressman. Plus, Democrats are about to have a big moment of leverage to use

against Trump. But will they use it? My new reporting on their dilemma, straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:29:26]

RAJU: You just heard one of Trumps closest allies, Jim Jordan, answer some questions about Elon Musk and his role in the Trump administration, and whether there should be any guardrails over what he is doing to reshape the government.

My panel's back now.

[08:29:36]

It's interesting. This was a full-on defense of Elon Musk and saying that really, Trump can deal with things however he wants, even as obviously Congress is a co-equal branch of government and has a say.

He thinks Congress may have some say in shutting these federal agencies, but he's giving Trump a ton of latitude to go really far, people would say beyond his authority.

TALEV: Yes, the congressman certainly has signaled that the oversight that he will be interested in is not oversight of this.

And he did say repeatedly that when it comes to President Trump, that's what the American people voted for. I think most Americans voted for like inflation -- like a response to inflation, and for the price of household goods to be reduced. And maybe for increased border controls.

So I think politically Congressman Jordan, sort of he knows where his base is at. And -- but the idea that this is what the American people voted for, I think is a political question that we don't know the answer to yet.

This really wasn't the core part of President Trump's message broadly speaking. It was the message at some rallies. But he really downplayed the Project 2025 stuff and the idea that he was just going to like completely upend government.

And now you're seeing him do it.

RAJU: Yes.

TALEV: And even like the way DOGE was first announced was like some outside -- it's not a government agency -- and then he empowered it as if it were.

So I -- you know, I -- the other thing is I noticed you were asking about the guardrails.

RAJU: Yes. And the two things that really stood out to me was that he said that

the courts should be the guardrail on President Trump and that the press should be the guardrail on Elon Musk.

And so it feels like a voluntary weakening of his own powers, of the House's own powers.

I assume this is a limited time offer, not a permanent weakening of the role of the oversight.

(CROSSTALKING)

RAJU: You're right. That's right. There'd probably been a much different response if it were a Democrat.

TALEV: Yes. Who had brought in Elon Musk, right?

RAJU: Yes. Most certainly.

And the question is you mentioned what the voters voted for. Just the views of Elon Musk and the role he's playing in the administration according to a recent Quinnipiac poll. Democrats, not surprisingly, not so favorable opinion about Elon Musk. Independents though, just 36 percent of Independents approve of the role of Elon Musk so far in this administration. Republicans have a higher view, 73 percent.

What do you make of the fact that, look, he's underwater with a good part of the American public? This is not yes, Trump won, but this is not necessarily how a lot of voters viewed.

STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Presumably, that poll shows that some of the people in suburban districts who flipped from Democrats to Trump are now having second thoughts. But this is the virtue of being a lame duck president in many ways, because Trump doesn't really need to think about those voters, even though obviously the midterm elections are looming.

We've never seen in history a private citizen go into the government and throttle all of these government agencies, fire or lay off workers -- federal workers.

So we've never seen anything like this before. And that's why it's important for eventually the courts to weigh in here, because you could set a precedent whereby say, there's a radical or populist left wing president comes in and decides unilaterally to start defunding aircraft carriers or something like that.

So, you know, this is not the way government works or has worked. We could be looking at a complete change in the governing system.

RAJU: And you had mentioned Molly, before about the onslaught that members of Congress are getting from their constituents about this.

This is just a handful of people who talked to "The Washington Post", Senator Tina Smith saying it's a deluge of DOGE. She's talking about more phone calls than they've gotten in years. She said people are really angry.

The Independent Angus King, who caucuses with Democrats, says we can hardly answer the phones fast enough. He said it's a combination of fear, confusion and heartbreak.

Senator Lisa Murkowski said the questions are asking for a lot of clarification. She said the phones that they're receiving were 1,600 calls each minute, compared with the usual 40 calls per minute. So this is getting the attention of a lot of constituents.

BALL: That's right. I mean, the administration's gamble is that by doing this all so early, at the very beginning of the administration, that by the time an election rolls around, this will all be so distantly in the rear-view mirror that people will be focused on other things and whatever sort of panic has existed will have died down.

I think, you know, ironically, although it sort of feels like this massive disruption, the amount of actual spending that they've been able to eliminate is quite small. It's a real drop in the bucket when it comes to the federal budget.

If they start going further, if they start really, you know, kneecapping agencies that have a much larger budget, a much bigger mandate, there could -- there could be even more of, you know, a ripple effect of people actually feeling this out in the country.

[08:34:46]

BALL: And so the other part of the gamble, right, is that this is -- this is a bunch of sort of D.C. bureaucrats that are having their lives disrupted, but out there in real America, they're cheering because they see that, you know, the government is being reduced.

We will see in practice if that's the case or, you know, if more and more -- you know, Stephen was talking about the federal funding freeze. Once you start getting into more of these agencies, you start hitting a lot more people, and there could be more of a reaction.

RAJU: Absolutely.

All right. Coming up, what Democrats are telling me about why they might soon have the upper hand on Capitol Hill.

And the Kansas City Chiefs are trying to make history tonight. But we'll tell you why Donald Trump definitely will be there, next.

[08:35:26]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RAJU: There's an emerging split inside the Democratic Party and how far to go as they try to find their footing three months after their election losses.

My new reporting this morning with my colleague Sarah Ferris and Lauren Fox delves into the Democrats dilemma as they face their first real point of leverage over Donald Trump.

Trump will need Democratic votes in the House and Senate to avoid a government shutdown on March 14th. Some in the rank and file are agitating for a showdown.

As Congressman Jim McGovern told us, quote, "We are not a cheap date."

But House and Senate Democratic leaders are being far more cautious about a possible shutdown. Just take Hakeem Jeffries on Friday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): I'm trying to figure out what leverage we actually have. What leverage do we have?

They control the House, the Senate and the presidency. It's their government.

What leverage do we have?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: But Senator Chris Murphy told me Democrats cannot waste any time in battling back against Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Do you think enough of your Democratic colleagues are raising concerns about what you're considering a crisis moment?

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Well, listen. I think there's no harm in Democrats raising alarms every single day.

I do not believe in this theory that we should sit in the bushes and wait for some moment down the line when things get really, really bad.

They're bad right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: All right. My panel is back.

Look, we have seen this uptick in Democrats this past week going after Elon Musk. But now the rubber is about to meet the road because they could decide to try to go after Elon Musk and go after Trump in this must pass spending bill.

But Hakeem Jeffries told me that he is not certain whether or not they're going to actually do that. Target Elon Musk in the spending bill because they're worried about the impacts that they could get blamed for a shutdown.

M1: Well, Democrats can make noise, but they can't make change just because of their position, as the leader was saying there.

COLLINSON: I think what I took away from your story is that grassroots Democrats really want to fight. They want to they want to see some strength from the party, some sign that it's rebounding after the election.

But the question is, is this the moment so far ahead of the midterms? If Trump is causing pain with all these agency shutdowns, a government shutdown would be even worse and Democrats might get some of the blame.

So they really have to pick their moment, even though it's going to be politically dicey for them to do so.

RAJU: Remember, back in 2018, there was a brief shutdown that Democrats were agitating over the issue of immigration. They had to backtrack from that. Schumer was the Democratic leader. He had to backtrack from that.

But there is still this debate, as you mentioned, just a couple of people that we talked to here, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told Lauren Fox that "if Senate Democrats don't have the gumption to do what is necessary in this moment, I believe that House Democrats will".

But one House Democrat told me, Jim Himes, I asked him how hard they should fight this. What's going on? He said, as tragic as what is happening to USAID and our efforts abroad, I'm not sure that it hits many Americans emotionally, certainly not outside the Beltway, suggesting that they shouldn't make -- necessarily make this a red line -- USAID funding in this battle to keep the government open.

TALEV: I mean, I think Democrats have two things to figure out. And one is like, tactically, what -- what are their moves, right? Can they block anything? Can they slow it down? What would be the purpose of slowing it down?

And then the second is the political argument, which is like, what are the messages that connect with Americans?

The Republicans have figured out a message that connects with Americans, which is that the idea that part of the reason why people feel like their taxes are high or things aren't working for them, is that the bureaucracy is bloated.

This is a message that resonates with people. You can argue whether it's true. You can argue with whether gutting all this stuff does anything compared with, you know, defense spending, entitlements, the price of tax cuts. But that is a message that voters get.

And so Democrats just can't like -- I don't think they've figured out what their argument is yet. There's one theory that says that Elon's very unpopular. They should really drive heavy into Elon.

But Democrats have these two major lessons from the last few years. And one is that impeachment didn't help them politically, and the other is that making the democracy argument or the abortion argument, that you can't just find one magic pill, right?

RAJU: Yes. TALEV: And so I think until the Democratic Party can figure out, how do you message the idea that these cuts -- I think the message will fall somewhere in the consumer space, like protecting, you know, your rights as Americans or protecting your personal privacy as Americans. They haven't figured that out yet.

[08:44:44]

BALL: It is. It was remarkable, I thought, to hear Leader Jeffries admit that he just sort of has no idea what to do. I mean, they have quite a lot of leverage. You know, the Republicans --

RAJU: They need the votes. They need --

(CROSSTALKING)

BALL: -- have a one-vote majority in the house and only slightly larger in the Senate. They need Democratic votes in both chambers to get almost anything done.

But it -- but you can see in their public comments just how sort of behind the eight ball Democrats are. There's so much uncertainty. There's an internal debate, right, about, as you were saying, whether this is something that resonates with Americans.

Meanwhile, their base is seething, right? The Democratic base is --

RAJU: They want to fight everything.

BALL: -- up in arms across the country. They believe that, you know, this is an authoritarian takeover of government and that the Democrats ought to be at the battlements every day shouting about it.

RAJU: So rather than making a bipartisan deal, which they may ultimately have to do, as Jeffries suggested.

All right. Up next for us, a big night in the Big Easy for the Eagles, the Chiefs and the Commander-in-Chief. Christine Brennan joins me live to give us a taste of everything in store for Super Bowl LIX.

[08:45:48]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PATRICK MAHOMES, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS QUARTERBACK: It's always cool to be able to play in front of a sitting president. Someone that is at the top position in our country.

TRAVIS KELCE, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS TIGHT END: That's awesome. It's a great honor. I think, you know, no matter who the president is.

I know I'm excited because it's the biggest game of my life, you know. And having the president there, you know, it's the best country in the world. So it'd be pretty cool. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How do you feel about Trump attending the Super

Bowl?

JALEN HURTS, PHILADELPHIA EAGLES QUARTERBACK: He's welcome to do what he wants.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Those are three of the NFL stars who will be on the field tonight in New Orleans for the Super Bowl, reacting to one of tonight's fans, President Trump, who will become the first sitting president ever to attend a Super Bowl.

Here to break down everything to expect tonight from the presidential suite to the field below is CNN sports analyst Christine Brennan.

Christine, thanks for joining me this Sunday morning.

CHRISTINE BRENNAN, CNN SPORTS ANALYST: Great to be with you, Manu.

RAJU: Absolutely. So this is an interesting cultural moment. Typically presidents don't come to the Super Bowl. Trump is becoming the first one.

What do you make of the way the players are dealing with this and the significance of him making this decision to attend?

BRENNAN: It's the first time which is kind of surprising.

RAJU: I actually was surprised.

BRENNAN: I was. I've covered the game over the years, and I did not realize that, you know. Presidents go to the Olympics to open the Olympic games.

So this is just a preview for the president for three and a half years from now, when he opens up the Los Angeles 2028 Summer Olympics. And he'll probably show up at the men's World Cup next year.

You know, he is a guy that's totally connected with sports, and he also loves to be a part of the big scene. And so no surprise there.

But what it will create is just an absolute nightmare for security, for the fans coming in. It will be like an Olympic opening ceremony. The lines will go forever. And I'm sure the cameras will be on him at times.

And maybe I'm sure people will figure out how many times the camera is on President Trump versus Taylor Swift. I'm sure there will be something on the social media on that.

But, you know, he certainly has the right to do it. And I think the players handled it well, saying, of course, if he's there a sitting president without making any political statements per se.

RAJU: And we already know, security is going to be incredibly tight, especially after the New Orleans terrorist attack from January 1st and Donald Trump also being there.

The NFL announced it's interesting on Tuesday when we learned that Trump was actually going to be at the Super Bowl. It coincided with the announcement of the NFL announcing that the Knicks will, quote, "end racism end zone message".

That's the first time since 2021. This has been commonplace for years. What do you make of that? Is there a connection to the two in the significance of it?

BRENNAN: The NFL says there is no connection. They're going to have to choose love in the end zone. And the idea being that because of the terrible terrorist attack in New Orleans over New Year's, because of the other terrible, sad things that have happened, including the plane crash here in D.C., the midair collision, you know, that they decided to go with that theme.

Certainly the question should be asked. Journalists are asking them why? Why now? Why the End Racism, you know, end zone now.

RAJU: I mean, coming off Trump is going after DEI.

BRENNAN: Exactly. Exactly.

Roger Goodell, the commissioner on Monday when he was asked about DEI in general, he said that the NFL is not walking back from DEI. He endorsed it. He said it's not a trend for the NFL. It is something that the NFL believes in.

And he said it contributes to the strength and makes of the NFL, makes the NFL and the league better. And I will tell you, when I'm working on stories and calling people at the NFL, I'll often talk to one woman after another after another in just my reporting.

And we certainly know that it is a majority black league, and I don't know that there's any greater statement than for the second time, there will be two black starting quarterbacks/

And you know when you --

RAJU: It's also surprising the second time --

BRENNAN: Well it's stunning. But in 1978, it was the first time a black man that was Doug Williams was drafted first in the NFL draft, the first time a black quarterback was taken first.

RAJU: Yes.

BRENNAN: And that of course, it was 37 years ago that Doug Williams, I covered that game for "The Washington Post". Doug Williams became the first black starting quarterback to win the Super Bowl.

So they've made great strides in that area. But it is stunning that it's taken so long.

RAJU: So before we go, what do you expect tonight? This could be the historic -- history. Chiefs could win the first time ever three times in a row. But this is probably the toughest competition they have had in any Super Bowl in the Mahomes era.

[08:54:45]

BRENNAN: As you know, the Eagles came close two years ago, and I think the Eagles could pull this off. I know that there's a lot of fatigue, Chiefs fatigue in in the country that historic --

RAJU: Maybe Eagles fatigue too, depending on where you -- what part of the country you've come from.

BRENNAN: That is true. Maybe even in this part of the country in Washington, D.C.

But I think, you know, Jalen Hurts is better than he was two years ago. And Saquon Barkley is one of the great running backs of all time.

He can take over a game.

RAJU: Yes.

BRENNAN: So I -- my predictions are often wrong, Manu. But I will say that I think the Eagles could do this.

But going against Mahomes, I mean that man is magic. He pulls it off. He's not even 30 years old yet. He's won all these Super Bowls.

It is tough to beat the Chiefs. I think the Eagles are the team that can do it.

RAJU: I think the Eagles could win too. I'm also going to predict that the 2025 -- 2026 season will be the resurgence of one Chicago Bears, and then Coach Ben Johnson. And we'll have you back to talk about that, if and when they actually make my dreams come true.

Great to have you here on INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY.

BRENNAN: Thank you. Thank you, Manu.

RAJU: And that's it for INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY.

You can follow me on X @mkraju. Follow the show @InsidePolitics and follow me on Instagram @manu_raju.

Up next, "STATE OF THE UNION WITH JAKE TAPPER AND DANA BASH". Dana interviews Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Senator Cory Booker.

Thanks again for sharing your Sunday morning with us. We'll see you next time.

[08:55:56]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)