The Intercept Briefing

In an address to Congress on Tuesday, President Donald Trump once again cast himself as a divine savior of the American people.“I was saved by God to make America great again,” he claimed as he recounted the failed assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. During his 100-minute speech, Trump made direct appeals to the Christian right, a major segment of his base: “This will be our greatest era. With God's help over the next four years, we are going to lead this nation even higher.”He framed a series of policy proposals — many attacking civil rights for minorities and trans people — as part of God’s plan for the nation. He called on Congress “to pass a bill permanently banning and criminalizing sex changes on children,” proclaiming “our message to every child in America is that you are perfect, exactly the way God made you.”In some ways, Trump is the kind of political leader the Christian right has been seeking for decades. He has fully championed the movement’s long-held policy priorities: overturning Roe v. Wade, pushing prayer in schools, and curbing LGBTQ+ rights. Now he is taking their movement even further, embedding right-wing Christian ideology into every facet of federal policy.It’s a “broad coalition across Christian denominations,” says journalist Talia Lavin, “whose goal is an extremely socially restrictive agenda.” Lavin, author of "Wild Faith: How the Christian Right Is Taking Over America," argues that today’s Christian right is more receptive to authoritarianism than previous generations. “They've reached a kind of acme or apotheosis of their power and influence, where that sort of attitude towards democracy has attained real relevance in the way we're governed.” On this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing, Lavin and Intercept reporter Jessica Washington examine the Christian right’s growing influence, its long-term strategy, and what, if anything, can be done to curb their vision for the country. Washington warns that many liberals dismiss Trump’s alliance to the Christian right as fringe, missing its deep political impact. “While it's this convenient political organizing tool, it is also a deeply held belief,” she says — one that rejects the idea that Black people and queer people have a rightful place in American leadership. Trump, she adds, validates the belief that only white Christian males are the true inheritors of the nation’s legacy. “Trump is both a product of and an accelerant of this movement.” Countering the rapid lurch toward Christian nationalism, Washington argues, requires solidarity. “We all have to band together and fight this together. And not allowing ourselves to be siloed into different issues. And recognizing that this is an attack on everyone who doesn't fit this very specific mold.” Lavin calls for active resistance — a “joyous cacophony” — to the Christian right’s war on diversity, on the poor, and democracy: “We're gonna be gender rebels. We're not going to accept the gutting of social services. We're not going to accept a king.” Rather than doomscrolling, she encourages people to do “something, anything — feeding someone, attending a protest — whatever it is. All of that is how we win.” 

Safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP are in peril after the House Republicans passed a budget resolution this week that proposes massive $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, alongside $2 trillion in spending reductions. The math doesn’t add up: There is no realistic way to achieve the necessary savings without slashing entitlement programs that the most vulnerable Americans depend on.While the Republicans claim they won’t cut these programs, they are simultaneously setting up eventual changes. House Speaker Mike Johnson characterized Medicaid as "hugely problematic" with "a lot of fraud, waste, and abuse." This rhetoric echoes that of Elon Musk, who labeled those affected by federal program cuts as the "parasite class."On this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing, Anat Shenker-Osorio, a political messaging expert, and Sunjeev Bery, a foreign policy analyst and Intercept contributor, discuss how Republican messaging is previewing what’s to come and why Trump and his allies have been successful in the court of public opinion.“One of the most persuasive tools that we have in our arsenal is repetition. Messages that people hear over and over, irrespective of their actual content, are rated to be more credible,” says Shenker-Osorio. “Familiarity gives our brains what we call cognitive ease, they give us what's called the illusory truth effect that if you've heard something over and over, like if you've heard government is wasteful, government is wasteful, government is wasteful … then the next time that you hear it, you're like, oh, yeah, that sort of seems true.”Bery believes the way to fight back is by first changing our language. “Republicans are very good at trapping our country and our society with their language. You take something like the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, simply to repeat that phrase is to be trapped by its false logic and by the fraudulent claims of its master, the billionaire Elon Musk,” he says. “We need to use different language entirely. This is an attempt to steal from the American people and hand a fat check to Elon Musk and all the billionaires who stood on stage with Donald Trump during his inauguration. That's what this is.”And while the speed of change and upheaval seems dire, both Shenker-Osorio and Bery remain optimistic. Shenker-Osorio thinks Americans who disagree with the Trump administration’s actions should step up in this moment. “The opportunity, if we were to seize it, is a recognition that the only thing that has actually toppled autocracy, I would argue both in the U. S. past and also, most certainly, in other countries, is civil resistance. It is a sustained, unrelenting group of people showing, not telling, being out in the world, demonstrating their resistance, their refusal, and their ridicule,” she says. “The future is still made of the decisions that we take together. That is what makes the whole thing crumble. And the possibility, not the inevitability, but the possibility of a very different kind of governing regime.”To hear more of the conversation, check out The Intercept Briefing wherever you get your podcasts.

Swift and sweeping changes have marked the first month of Donald Trump's return to the White House. Having promised to "fix every single crisis facing our country," Trump wasted no time in making his mark — signing an extraordinary 36 executive orders within his first week in office.On this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing, politics reporters Jessica Washington and Akela Lacy assess the full scope of changes.Lacy is surprised at how ill-prepared people, especially Democrats, were for these changes. “So much of this stuff was on the wall with Project 2025 and Trump's own words, and yet what I'm struggling to understand is how we knew so much and why everyone is still struggling to play catch up in so many ways,” she says.“ I think broadly what we're seeing is a wholesale test of how to overturn the Constitution. So many of the orders are clearly outside of the law and an example of the administration pushing the limits of our system to see how far they can go and what it can really withstand,” she observes.Washington says one thing the headlines don’t fully capture is the human toll. “There are a lot of human stories in this chaos that get missed, and those are the stories I really want to tell more,” she says.“This is necessarily going to lead us to the darkest of dark places, but when they mass-fired the people who watch our nuclear systems and then had to try and rehire them back — whether or not you're going to be able to take your kid to daycare and get to your job that you need in order to keep a roof over your head, not knowing what's going on with the nuclear system. All of this chaos has very real effects on people,” Washington says.To hear more of the conversation, check out this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing.

Less than a month into Donald Trump's second term, his administration's aggressive restructuring of the government and flirtation with defying court rulings threaten to spark a constitutional crisis. "He could have done all of that lawfully, and instead what he's done is testing the limits of his power in a way we have never seen in this country," says retired federal Judge Nancy Gertner.During a press conference on Tuesday, Trump dismissed concerns about executive overreach and claimed he would respect court decisions. But legal experts warn his broad view of presidential power crosses long held boundaries and is propelling the country into a constitutional crisis. On this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing, Gertner, who is consulting on several cases challenging the administration's actions and is a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School, and The Intercept's senior counsel and correspondent Shawn Musgrave discuss the federal courts’ response so far and what it demonstrates about our system of checks and balances.“I hope that they will realize that one of the two checks on an aggressive president doing unlawful things is that the courts are functioning as a check on his power. I fear that the other takeaway is that Congress is not. The concern about Trump wiping out programs that Congress has approved is a concern that should bother every legislator — Republican or Democrat, it shouldn't matter. That is a core, foundational checks-and-balances issue. And the fact that there is not an outcry from Congress is troubling,” says Gertner.Musgrave adds that it is a real test of governmental structure. “We're in a moment that illustrates the fragility of the system of checks and balances that's held for a couple hundred years. The system that was set up in the Constitution isn't guaranteed; it has to be protected. And so far, it looks like it's going to be up to the courts to do that,” he says.Gertner says there is another check that isn’t explicitly laid out in the Constitution, but is just as important. “The public will speak in two years in the midterm elections,” she says. “So the public, although it doesn't have a specific role in the next two years before we can vote again on national issues, the public is important here. I think that people should stand up if they think that what's going on is illegal and unconstitutional.”To hear more of the conversation, check out this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing.

Donald Trump has unleashed a "flood the zone" strategy: a cascade of executive actions aimed at rapidly reshaping the federal government and the country. The scope of changes is staggering: massive reductions in the federal workforce, the dismantling of USAID, signaling departments of labor and education are next, and the firing of Justice Department prosecutors. Trump granted Elon Musk's so-called "Department of Government Efficiency" team unprecedented access to the Treasury Department payment systems. Trump's executive orders aren't just changing policy — many appear to openly challenge existing laws and constitutional boundaries. The sheer volume of changes has left government watchdogs struggling to respond.Amid this whirlwind, a critical question emerges: Where is the opposition? What concrete steps are Democrats taking to counter this aggressive agenda? Currently, the answer is obvious: not enough.On this week's episode of The Intercept Briefing, foreign policy analyst and Voices contributor Sunjeev Bery says it has a lot to do with who makes up the party leadership. “I'll say that from my perch, what I'm seeing is a window into the broader culture of the elected officials of the Democratic Party. They are not organizers, by and large. They are not people who build and channel power to extract concessions from the powers that be. They are ladder climbers and aggregators of pre-existing power. And that's why the Democratic Party is losing. You have folks like Chuck Schumer, he's not a critic of concentrated wealth. He's a product of concentrated wealth.”Senior politics reporter Akela Lacy says there are some very obvious things the Democrats could be doing. “Movement people are asking the obvious question right now, which is: Why are there any Democrats — at all — voting to confirm a single Trump nominee? That's one of the lowest hanging pieces of fruit,” she says. The Democrats had no plan, Lacy says, despite there being “no confusion about the fact that these nominees were going to be coming up for a vote. And still there were Democrats who voted for several of Trump’s nominees.” Bery, Lacy, and Jordan Uhl also discuss the messaging issues the Democratic Party continues to face, even post-election. “There still seems to be a fundamental failure to recognize that one party is telling a story as to why people are hurting and they are punching down in the naming of who's responsible,” says Bery. “It's undocumented migrants, it's DEI, it's transgender people, this is who Trump is punching down and blaming. The Democratic Party's not punching up. The Democratic Party is not punching,” says Bery.To hear more of the conversation, check out this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing wherever you get your podcasts.If you want to support our work, you can go to theintercept.com/join. Your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference.

After 15 months of Israeli bombardment, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are returning to northern Gaza as part of the first phase of the long-awaited ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas. During his inaugural speech, President Donald Trump pledged to be a peacemaker and claimed credit for securing the deal.But mere hours after promising peace and unity, Trump’s actions and rhetoric pivoted. After his inauguration, he signed an executive order lifting Biden-era sanctions against Israeli settlers in the West Bank meant to curb violence against Palestinians. “In the West Bank, Israeli settlers were regularly attacking Palestinian civilians, forcing them off their land, doing things like burning farms, olive groves, oftentimes injuring or killing Palestinians,” says Intercept reporter Jonah Valdez. “With Trump lifting those sanctions, Israel is getting pretty much another pass to continue its violent land grabs from Palestinians.” In the days since, Trump has suggested moving Palestinians from Gaza to Jordan and Egypt and said, “We just clean out that whole thing.” Before the election, Trump also floated the idea that Gaza could be rebuilt to rival Monaco as a tourist destination.“Close to 70 percent of all structures in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged. Experts say that just clearing the rubble from the 15 months of the siege could take more than 20 years. So we're talking about decades here,” says Intercept reporter Akela Lacy. “Another big issue with the reconstruction is that one of the largest aid providers in Gaza is banned starting on Thursday. Under this new Israeli law, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, also known as UNRWA, will be expelled from the territory.”Meanwhile, Trump issued an executive order halting foreign aid, raising concerns about U.S. future involvement in U.N. support. “This started under Biden. Trump comes in and issues this freeze of all humanitarian foreign aid, and people start blaming Trump for cutting funding,” says Lacy. Valdez continues, “There's really no indication that Trump would slow down actual support for the Israeli military. And I think, case in point, is Trump resuming the shipment of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, which had been known to inflict immense loss of civilian life in Gaza.” “The question now is, who is going to get up off their ass and do something about this?” asks Lacy. “Who is going to either create an alternative or do more to hold the leaders, leadership accountable or break from the Democratic Party and do something else?” To hear the whole conversation, check out this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing.

Silicon Valley’s biggest power players traded in their hoodies for suits and ties this week as they sat front and center to watch Donald Trump take the oath of office again.Seated in front of the incoming cabinet were Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, Google’s Sundar Pichai, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, and Trump confidant and leader of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk. Apple CEO Tim Cook, Sam Altman from OpenAI, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew also looked on.For an industry once skeptical of Trump, this dramatic transformation in political allegiance portends changes for the country — and the world. From the relaxing of hate speech rules on Meta platforms to the mere hourslong ban of TikTok to the billions of government dollars being pledged to build data centers to power AI, it is still only the beginning of this realignment.On this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing, Justin Hendrix, the CEO and editor of Tech Policy Press, and Intercept political reporter Jessica Washington dissect this shift. “Three of the individuals seated in front of the Cabinet are estimated by Oxfam in its latest report on wealth inequality are on track to potentially become trillionaires in the next just handful of years: Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk,” says Hendrix. “Musk is estimated to be the first trillionaire on the planet, possibly as early as 2027.”Washington says there’s more at stake than just personal wealth. “These are people who view themselves as world-shapers, as people who create reality in a lot of ways. Aligning themselves with Trump and with power in this way is not just about their financial interests, it's about pushing their vision of the world.”To hear more of this conversation, check out this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing.

What can we expect when President-elect Donald Trump begins his second term on Monday? This week on The Intercept Briefing, we ask Intercept reporters what’s on their radar as a new president and a Republican-controlled Congress take office. They’ll be watching the tentative ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, the brazenness of oligarchs seeking to profit from the new administration, and threats to reproductive healthcare. Trump’s biggest policy promise has been immigration, with a campaign built around his pledge to conduct “the largest mass deportation operation” in U.S. history.Now Congress is advancing measures that could help the administration achieve its deportation vision by expanding immigration authority to the states. Provisions in the Laken Riley Act, which passed the House of Representatives last week with support from dozens of Democrats, would mandate detention for unauthorized immigrants accused of shoplifting and theft. It would also grant state attorneys generals the power to sue the federal government over who is detained or released by U.S. immigration and Customs Enforcement and block people from specific countries from obtaining visas. Historically immigration has been the exclusive domain of the federal government — not states. “We've been trying to raise the alarm,” says Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, Deputy Director of Federal Advocacy for United We Dream, a nonprofit immigration advocacy organization.“This would just totally change the way detention and deportation decisions operate,” says Shawn Musgrave, The Intercept’s Senior Counsel and Correspondent. “The Laken Riley Act doesn't have any provisions that change the powers of local law enforcement,” says Musgrave. But it implicitly “allow[s] an arresting officer to trigger an immediate detention for something like petty shoplifting.” To hear more of this conversation and understand what’s at stake, check out this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing.If you want to support our work, you can go to theintercept.com/join. Your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference.