Roundup: carrier formations, calendars & corgis

The Democratic Party is up-ending its primary calendar ahead of the 2028 election. And President Trump is up-ending the relationship with allies in Asia. We have a lot unpacked today on the pod. It's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Tamer Keith. I cover politics. I'm Emily Fang, and I now cover the White House. And I'm Mara Liason, Senior National Political Correspondent. And let's start with some news from Asia this week. The United States is moving an aircraft carrier out of the region and towards the Middle East. Meanwhile, President Trump has scaled back military exercises with South Korea that were supposed to be happening this week. So we will talk about the carriers in a bit, but Emily, what is the reasoning for this sudden change to these long planned exercises? They're ending earlier than planned because of this announcement. According to Trump, he is scaling his back in the future because of Iran. He said he asked South Korea's president to help the U.S. with opening the straighter form moves, which Iran still largely has control over. Apparently, South Korea's president said no. And Trump has long had a gripe with South Korea for, according to him, not paying its fair share for the U.S. military base out there and security commitments that the U.S. provides to the South Koreans. So he said, going forward, there's going to be a reduction in these big drills that have been going on since the 1970s. They involve tens of thousands of troops and they're designed to counter an adversary North Korea. Yeah. I mean, President Trump appears to really, really, really want a meeting or a conversation of some kind with North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un. This announcement about the exercises came after randomly the president posted a photo of himself in Kim Jong-un on social media. What is going on here, Emily? Is it possible that he just wants a meeting with Kim Jong-un during his first term, Trump met three times with Kim? And not much happened, but he could be looking to replicate that. Trump likes the pageantry of meeting with other world leaders, especially leaders from authoritarian countries. So he could be angling. He could be angling at that. I think also it's notable that this war with Iran that Trump said was going to take days and that the U.S. is now months in has dragged on long enough that Trump is asking South Korea, which is nowhere near the Middle East for help. Well, he also has said that he didn't need any help from any countries at all. He just wanted to see if they'd offer it and if they didn't, he got angry. Is this move the carrier moving and downscaling these exercises? Is this part of some big geostrategic plan or is this just Trump making it up as he goes along? I have been trying to find some kind of connect the dots strategy behind the flurry of news from the carriers to the South Korean drills to an announcement on Wednesday from Trump on true social that they're going to impose another round of economic pressure on Iran. Like what is the strategy here? And I don't have one, I'm sorry, I failed to come up with an explanation. Yeah, that's one of the biggest criticisms of Trump that you hear from people all over the world that there is no strategy. And there used to be one and it seemed like it used to be called the pivot to Asia, right? That they were going to pay more attention to countering China and North Korea. What happened to that? It's officially still going on. It's not like we don't have a military presence in Asia, right? We've got the biggest overseas US military base in South Korea, bases in Japan, a presence in Singapore, Taiwan. So like we have tens of thousands of troops in Asia and ongoing commitments and free trade deals, you know, everything treaties with these countries, but this interest in trying to shift the American military force to being more of a Pacific fighting force again after decades of basically only fighting in the Middle East, you know, the Iraq War, Afghanistan War, the Gulf War, that effort, it's happening, but it's happening perhaps too slowly. And these vulnerabilities when it comes to equipment and to logistics have been there for a while, but it's the wars in Ukraine and US assistance to Israel and most recently the war in Iran that's really exposed sometimes embarrassingly so these shortcomings in just how slow and incomplete this pivot to Asia has been. But it sounds like Emily that there was a lot of effort put into beefing up the United States military presence in Asia. It just sounds like now the United States may be spread too thin. It can't do two things at the same time, fight a war with Iran that's lasted a heck of a lot longer than Donald Trump said it would and also counter China in the way that US presidents have wanted to. Right. So what the military might call the US posture in Asia is strong. We have bases everywhere. We have soldiers in places, but our ability to maintain those positions, like to service the troops out there to make sure there's always a carrier out there in the Western Pacific to assure allies that promises we made, you know, training with you twice a year every year, keeping those up that gap between what the US has said it's going to do and what it's actually able to do when it's priorities keep getting pulled back to the Middle East are becoming very, very obvious. Let's just talk briefly about this carrier group. Of course, there had been this huge focus on the USS Lincoln, which was in the Gulf for way too long wasn't getting supplies. There were a lot of complaints about conditions for for the sailors and Marines on that ship. So that ship is finally getting to go home. And now the USS Washington, which was in Asia, is rotating over to the Middle East. And that leaves a gap that hasn't existed in recent memory. There's been now about five times, including this gap that there has been briefly no carrier in the Western Pacific since the early 2000s. So it happens in the past, it's happened for a couple of days at a time. We're looking at perhaps a gap of a couple of weeks because there was no replacement for the US's Washington when it got diverted to the Middle East. And it takes a long time to get a carrier that's out in California most likely to sail and get its crew there and all the aircraft onboard ready to get it back out to the Western Pacific. And this is a huge deal. It's a huge deal because the US relies on not just its bases, but carriers to underpin its ability to project. It's defense capabilities so far away from the American mainland. So when the US became seemingly an unreliable partner for European allies, they started talking about, well, what are we going to do to strengthen ourselves and what is a future like if the US isn't a reliable partner? Is that now happening in Asia as well with US allies? It's been happening since the first Trump administration. You have places like Taiwan, they rely on the US for security commitments or Singapore, which also has put a lot of its eggs in the US basket, thinking to themselves, how do we balance our ties to the US, which are still really important to us, but also balance relations with China because that's the big power that's literally in their backyard, not the US, which is much farther away. That political thinking, discussions about increasing defense spending in Asia, that has really accelerated ever since Trump won. Do you think it's possible, or let's put it another way, how much money and time would it take for Taiwan and other countries in Asia to replace the US military shield? It's not possible to replace the US military shield completely. It's the question of buying time, how long could you hold out if China were to invade before the US or Japan came to your rescue, and that could take years still? Emily, since we have you here and you have also been covering the ongoing war with Iran, this week President Trump said that what's next is "economic D-Day". What does that mean? I have been doing literary analysis on this Trump, this truth social post where he announced this, and it's interesting to me that he emphasizes countries that host entities that help Iran give Iran an economic lifeline, that that seems to be the target, because we have so many sanctions on Iran, we have secondary sanctions on entities that help Iran evade sanctions, but the US hasn't really sanctioned governments yet, and the two biggest governments that are host entities that move money around for Iran or help it sell its oil is the United Arab Emirates, which said this month it was cutting off trade ties with Iran, and China, so maybe we'll see more sanctions on China. I was talking to a senior White House official this week who told me that the plan on Iran is for the economic suffering in Iran to get so bad that they will have to come to the table. So, we've moved on from the threats phase, the sort of kinetic threats phase, I guess, for now, to hoping that conditions on the ground are such that maybe a deal will ultimately happen. It just seems like something of a holding pattern. My question is, how is this different from what the US has been doing since the 1970s? was the thinking then sanctions which changed their mind politically, it didn't. - Right, sure, well, you know, Donald Trump has been looking for an off ramp from the Iran War for quite some time and he just can't find one. This was a war that he thought, he said famously would be over in a couple days. He even said in June of 2025, we've obliterated their nuclear program. So yeah, I think he's in a box of his own making and he can't quite figure out how to get out of it. One option that people have been waiting for him to do is just declare victory and walk away. - Okay, Emily, thank you so much for sharing your reporting. Thanks for having me on. And when we come back, a look at how Democrats are shaking up their primary calendar. Welcome back and NPR's Elena Morris with us now. Hey, Elena. - Hey, Tam, hey, Mora. - We haven't even hit the midterms yet, but 2028 is already on the agenda for the Democratic Party. The party has set its calendar for primary elections where what we're expecting to be a very large field of candidates will be win-owed. And Iowa and New Hampshire, the traditional first stops no longer have that role, at least based on what the DNC is saying. So Elena, what does this calendar look like? - Change is hard, you know, for some and change is exciting for others. I'm gonna rattle them off. We've got on January 22nd, 2028, South Carolina will have the first primary slot followed by Nevada on February 1st, New Hampshire on February 8th, New Mexico on February 15th, followed by Michigan on February 22nd. The last one before Super Tuesday will be Virginia and that will be on February 29th. So that's a change, like you said, because I mean, for decades it's been the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary that kind of kicked this all off. - So Elena, Iowa and New Hampshire prize their first in the nation caucuses and primaries, how are they responding to this? - I mean, they're not super happy. I think we can argue just by the tone of some of these statements. You know, I reached out to the New Hampshire Secretary of State and I got a statement back from Secretary Scanlan that said, "New Hampshire will hold the first in the nation presidential primary for the 2028 election cycle." And I said, "Can you, you know, the way I reached out was like, can you react to the formalizing of this schedule? How does the state plan to move forward given?" New Hampshire has this law that says that they have to be the first primary and that's the statement I got back. I think the Iowa Democrats are feeling kind of similarly. Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart, she said it was like fundamentally missing the mark. She said, "The 2028 calendar has no representation of states with a majority of central or mountain time zones and no Midwest state is among the first four." And that's kind of an interesting point. I mean, we've talked about Michigan being one of the tops the first six, but the Midwest was, you know, key. It for years and years and years in those early primary days where everyone go to the state fair and, I don't know, it'll just be interesting to see if the tone of those like early primary months feels different. - And these are an interesting mix of states. - Right, I mean, I think it's been very clear what the Democratic National Committee is trying to do here, which is both highlight what they argue is, you know, their winning coalition that is more representative across the country. And that means going to a place starting in South Carolina, a place where black voters make up nearly one and four registered voters, according to the state's voting data. Black voters are also kind of the backbone of the Democratic Party. And so that's an obvious nod there. And then you look at Out West and Nevada and New Mexico, large portions of their population are Latino voters. No group is a monolith, but also another very key part of the Democratic coalition in some places. And then obviously Michigan is one of the most swingiest of the swing states and has voted for the winning presidential candidate in the last several elections. And so it's a really interesting representation of both a more diverse Democratic coalition. And it's just kind of a look at some of the challenges the Democrats are going to have past the primary. The Democrats have really been trying to get their calendar fixed for quite some time. They made some of these changes in 2024, didn't really matter because Joe Biden was running for re-election at that time, at least. But what's interesting to me is that the Democrats are really trying to get their primary electorate in sync with a general electorate. In other words, the biggest mistake a party can make and we've seen both parties make this mistake, is nominate someone, whether it's in a presidential election or other kinds of elections, that's either too far to the left or the right for a general election. And Democrats don't want that to happen to them. And Democrats are in a very pragmatic state of mind. They care about affordability. Yes, in many ways, the young voters in the Democratic party are moving to the left, but over everything, their goal is electability. They want to win. Of course, what is electable is the great debate and has been the great debate of the Democratic party for a very long time and voters aren't pundits, but sometimes they think like they are. Well, it's interesting. I've heard the way one person expressed it was, Democratic voters want to choose the most electable candidate. They just don't want the Democratic establishment to tell them who that candidate is. But I think Democrats are pragmatic. That's why Bernie Sanders has never been the nominee. You are seeing more left-wing candidates win in blue districts, win the primaries, but those are districts that we're going to elect a Democrat anyway. To me, the biggest experiment here is Michigan. Michigan is a swing state. The Democratic primary voters chose the candidate who was farther to the left. Yes, he was also a more compelling candidate, more charismatic. He ran a better campaign. In the Senate race. In the Senate race. And now we're going to see if that candidate, Abdul Al-Sayed, can win a general election, not in a blue state, but in a swing state, a 50/50 state. And a swing state that now has a place high up in the Democratic nominating calendar. Yeah, and I don't want to go down too much of a rabbit hole, but it obviously reignites the conversations that the Democratic party is having right now in the midterm primary season. But I think this question of Democrats' pragmatism and what does electability mean? I would argue it's not a new debate. I mean, right? That's the debate. Right. And so I think there's a part of the Democratic primary base that is done with that argument. And if you try too hard to be electable, you're not electable. I think that's an argument they would make. And so I see putting Michigan so high up there as an interesting kind of test case for that to given that we are seeing a lot of grassroots support for a candidate, Abdul Al-Sayed, the Democratic primary winner for the race for US Senate. Gary Peters, the current holder of that seat is retiring. I feel like it's the question of electability and pragmatism is going to be even more so on display in 2028 primaries because it's already on display in the 2026 primaries. Before we wrap this up, I want to ask you guys about the Democratic party's finances. The Democratic National Committee is in debt. They are underwater. They have more debts than they have cash on hand by about $1.85 million. What does this mean for the party in the midterms and beyond? Well, it means they're on their back foot. I mean, this is a cycle where Democrats have all the organic things going for them. They have public opinion. The incumbent president is very unpopular. All of his policies are very unpopular. This is a time Democratic turnout in special elections and primaries have been very good. So they should be looking at a really good year. But all the structural things are going against them and some of them are self-inflicted wounds like not being able to raise money. That is kind of the first, second, and third job of the Democratic party chairman to raise money and Ken Martin has not been able to do it. But there's a lot of structural things going against them. The Republican party now has multiple times as much money as the Democratic party. All the campaign committees do, even if Democratic candidates are raising a lot on their own. And then they have other structural forces against them like partisan gerrymandering. So I think that the Democratic party's finances just kinds of sums up the tension in this election where a lot of things should be going for Democrats, but they've been blunted by a lot of other structural things that are helping Republicans. And money is number one. - Right, we've talked about the powerful messaging coming from these candidates, that just powerful messengers in some of these races, which Democrats have been kind of looking for these new leaders. I talked to a Democratic pollster today, actually, who made the point, you know, everyone's looking back to 2018 midterms, you know, the midterm during Trump's first time in office. And, you know, the key difference there he argues is in 2018, the opponent was clearly Trump and Democrats were more popular and Democrats among Democrats. And right now, a key difference is yeah, they're fired up about a message and they're fired up about some candidates, but they're not fired up about this party. And that is a key difference. - All right, well, we are gonna take a quick break and then it'll be time for "Can't Let It Go." And we're back and it's time for "Can't Let It Go." That's the part of the show where we talk about the things from the week that we just can't stop thinking about politics or otherwise. I'm gonna go first. What I can't let go of is something that my friend, Lynn Sweet, a reporter from the Chicago Sun Times, can't let go of. So, we were covering the opening of the Obama-- presidential center and not quite a library and museum in Chicago. And there was a question of where is the tan suit? Oh my god. The suit that President Obama wore approximately twelve years ago, an infamous suit that created a huge controversy because it was seen as cavalier to talk about serious subjects while wearing a tan suit. Biggest scandal of my lifetime. Word stop. Truly. So it is not in the museum. It is missing. The tan suit is missing. And so my friend Lynn has started a reporting quest to find the suit. The official word is that it was given to charity that Obama was cleaning out his closet or someone was cleaning out Obama's closet. Sometime in the period between 2014 and 2016 and the suit was donated. Lynn is trying to find it if anyone has a tan suit that they got for a great deal at a second hand store that maybe has a label that's been cut out of it because it would have had a label with his name on it because it was a custom suit. Call me and I will connect you with Lynn. I like that this was a callout. That's awesome. This is a callout. If you have any clues about the suit, please share them. I want to find the suit. I want Lynn to find the suit. I bet they're going to be now a dozen tan suits coming in. Well, I'll one eight hundred find that tan suit. Mara, what can't you let go of? Well, I am a dog lover and I feel that the nicest thing ever is to see a dog either running towards you or swimming towards you. Both are great. So because of that, my can't let it go this week is the fifth corgi race in Vilnius, Lithuania. And corgis are great. I highly recommend that people Google this and so they can see the video of the corgis running in their corgi race. And what I learned from reading about this incredible event is that not all corgis have their tails docked. There are some breeds of corgis that leave the tails. I thought that was pretty interesting, and at a time when the US seems to be on its back foot in many international conflicts, this time the first and second place winners were American corgis. The first one was Gigi, short for Gustav the Girl Dog. And the second place winner was Mr. Corgington. Mr. Corgington. Okay, I'm looking at photos. A bunch of them run in costumes. That was another part of the competition that I actually wasn't going to talk about because I have a pet peeve. I don't believe in costumes for dogs. Dogs are great creatures, noble animals, and I don't think they should be dressed up. So I decided to leave that part out. I feel very strongly about that. I have a couple other pet peeves. One is pajama day at school. I don't believe in sending kids in their pajamas to school. That would be another cant let it go sometime in the future. Wow. Oh my god. That's awesome. I want all of Mara's strongly held opinions. But for now, Elena, why can't you let go of? My cant let it go is a few weeks ago, I don't know what day it is or what week it is or what month it is, but a few weeks ago, Tim, on cant let it go, you brought in your squishy dumpling fidget toy. And we were talking about how we've all we've gotten into fidget toys, and they help at the office. They help us get through the day. And I just wanted to eulogize my fidget toy. I have this square little, I don't know, blob. Did you leave it in a hot car? No, no, no, no. I've treated it quite well. I just used it a lot and it has holes in it now. And I was doing an interview a few days ago and all of a sudden I was like, why is there a goo on my head? No. And I was like, oh my god, I've played with this toy so much that I've broken it. And so I just want to say thank you to that cube. I want to say thank you to that squish. And I want to say thank you to our incredible producer, Bria Suggs, because today we decided to operate on the squish and try to patch its holes because Bria, because she's amazing and talented, has super glue at her desk. How did it go? So far fine, the cube is still recovering, it's still drying. But it's a eulogy, but it's also one of those eulogies where at the end the person gets out of the casket, maybe it does dance. And they're like, it was a joke. All right, that is all for today. Our executive producer is Muthani Maturi. Our producer is Bria Suggs. Casey Morell edits the podcast, special thanks to Dana Farenton. I'm Tamra Keith. I cover politics. I'm Alaina Moore. I cover politics. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics podcast. [BLANK_AUDIO]