'BradCast' 10/10/2025 (Encore: Former White House budget advisor Bobby Kogan on the shutdown and why it matters)

Today's broadcast was originally recorded on October 2, 2025. On average, we're expecting premium payments by enrollees to increase by 114%. By 114%. That's what the Republicans are doing and the Democrats trying to stop. That makes sense. I got the feeling that something right. We'll see. I'm so scared in case I'll fall off my chair. on the stairs. Clouds to the letter me. Jokers to the right. Here I am. I am. From Pacifica Radio in Los Angeles, this is the broadcast. As heard on KPFK, 90.7 FM in LA, and on dozens of other fine affiliate stations on both the airwaves and the internets around the country and the world. Blanketing Planet Earth. I'm Brad Friedman, your friendly investigative blogger, journalist, troublemaker, muckraker, and all-around, swell fellow, says me from bradblog.com. Thank you for joining us for another all too thrilling edition of the Bradcast. Delighted to have you here. Desi Doyen, delighted to have you here as well. Yes, and oh my gosh, it's a very thrilling, Bradcast. Thank you for noticing. All right, let's get right to it because I got a guest standing by. Until some $4 to $5 trillion in tax cuts, mostly to wealthy people and huge corporations were made permanent by Donald Trump and the Republicans' so-called big, beautiful bill was adopted earlier this year without Democratic support in Congress back in July. Republicans had been campaigning on the idea that Democrats wanted to raise your taxes. It was a big part of the 2024 presidential campaign for Donald Trump and the Republicans elect us or Democrats will raise your taxes by trillions of dollars. They were referring to the fact that Trump's huge tax cuts, most of them going to millionaires and billionaires as adopted during his first term in office back in 2017, would be expiring this year. And unless they were extended for some time or made permanent forever, they would go away. Republicans characterized it as Democrats wanting to raise your taxes. It was a simple and apparently effective campaign strategy. Well, now, Republicans want to raise your health care costs by more than 100 percent and will do so as of January 1 unless enhanced premium subsidies for some 25 million Americans are immediately extended for some time or even better made permanent. As those subsidies adopted by Democrats without support from Republicans during Joe Biden's administration run out at the end of this year. Thus, Republicans are spiking the health care costs for tens of millions of Americans unless they agree to...

continue funding the expiring subsidies for the Affordable Care Act before the end of the year. Now, I'm not sure the Democrats' messaging on this is as clear as it should be. I'd advise them to simply go back to how Republicans ran on Democrats supposedly wanting to raise your taxes when they were referring to tax cuts that would go away if they were not extended. when Democrats are talking about what Republicans are doing right now. They are raising your health care costs, more than doubling them, in fact, according to experts, where Democrats are trying to prevent them from doing so as of January 1. It is really that simple. The Democrats who have never been geniuses at political messaging, as Republicans really are, do not yet seem to have figured that out. In the meantime, a partial federal government shutdown continues over the matter as Democrats refuse to vote for Republicans' budget bill that would slash some $350 billion next year alone. to Americans who purchased health care insurance via the Affordable Care Act or ACA or Obamacare exchanges. After Republicans have already cut $1 trillion from Medicaid and half a trillion dollars from Medicare over the next 10 years under their current spending plans. Republicans control the White House. They control both chambers of Congress and they could all by themselves without any help from Democrats even in the U.S. Senate. they could keep the government open by themselves if they wished by voting for funding themselves. Yes, even in the U.S. Senate. But apparently they would rather try to blame Democrats for their failure to do so or to even negotiate in good faith with Democrats on a way for all Americans to move forward. Instead, the White House is portraying this as an opportunity. to rain down pain on his political opponents, including apparently more than half of the country who voted against him last year. As AP reports today, President Trump has seized on the government shutdown as an opportunity to reshape the federal workforce and punish detractors. Meeting with White House Office of Management and Budget or OMB Director Russ Vought on Thursday to talk through, quote, temporary or permanent spending cuts that they believe could set up a lose-lose dynamic for Democratic lawmakers. Trump announced the meeting on social media saying that he in vote would determine, quote, which of the many Democrat agencies. would be cut, continuing their year-long strategy of slashing federal spending by threatening mass firings of workers and suggesting, quote, irreversible cuts to Democratic priorities, as Trump suggested during remarks to the media on Wednesday, the first day of the shutdown. So the last person that wants to shut down is us now. With that being said, we can do things during the shutdown that are irreversible.

that are bad for them and irreversible by them, like cutting vast numbers of people out, cutting things that they like, cutting programs that they like. And you all know Russ Vought. He's become very popular recently because he can trim the budget to a level that you couldn't do any other way. We're doing well as a country, so the last thing we want to do is shut it down. A lot of good can come down from shutdowns. We can get rid of a lot of things that we didn't want, and they'd be Democrat things. Democrat things. We could get rid of them if we want. Now, for the record, hundreds of millions of Americans who rely on health care via the Affordable Care Act or Medicaid or Medicare are, in fact, Republicans. Just FYI. Still, Trump is hoping to wield the federal government as a weapon against his political enemies, even unlawfully, as is the case, at what are supposed to be nonpartisan federal government websites like HUD, where every page now on the housing and urban development website currently has a huge pop-up banner reading, quote, the radical left in Congress shut down the government. Trump added on his social media posting, quote, I can't believe the radical left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity. CNBC today cites Trump's threat to use that quote, unprecedented opportunity to slash federal agencies and harm his political opponents while blaming them for causing the shutdown. His warning on Thursday came a day after his administration froze about $18 billion for two major infrastructure projects in New York City, and after he canceled roughly $8 billion for more climate-related projects in Democratic-leaning states, about which our own Desi Doyen will have more to say in our Green News report later this hour. The top Democrats leading the shutdown fight, Senator Chuck Schumer and Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, both represent New York. So the cuts are being seen as churlish efforts to harm them, even as he is harming millions of Americans in New York and elsewhere around the country. And arguably the world, given the climate-related cuts. Both of these funding halts were first introduced by, yes, Russ Vought at the White House Budget Office, not by the departments that actually have oversight of these projects. Trump said that he will soon meet with vote to determine, quote, whether or not those cuts will be temporary are permanent, telling right-wing media outlet OAN, quote, we could cut projects that they wanted, favorite projects, and they'd be permanently cut. Top White House officials, including vote and Vice President JD Vance, said on Wednesday that firings, presumably permanent ones, would begin within days.

Legally or otherwise, I guess. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday that the number of federal layoffs is, quote, likely going to be in the thousands. And Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Thursday morning on CNBC that Democrats, again, trying to prevent Republicans from doubling the health care costs for Americans beginning as soon as January 1, that Democrats are negotiating like, quote, terrorists. Past government shutdowns have caused hundreds of thousands of federal workers to be furloughed, meaning placed on temporary unpaid leave, but they generally are guaranteed back pay upon their return when the government reopens. Vice President JD Vance asked on Wednesday why the Trump administration is gearing up to fireworkers instead of merely furloughing them, said, quote, we might have to take extraordinary steps. especially the longer this goes on. Joining us now is Bobby Cogan, who served during the Biden administration as advisor to the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, the position that is now held by Russ Vought. And prior to that, he was the head of budget analysis for the U.S. Senate Budget Committee under Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington and Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Bobby is now the senior director. of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress. Oh, Bobby Cogan, welcome back to the broadcast, sir, as the fun times continue. Brad, thank you so much for having me back. Fun times is a fun thing. I always say people only care about the budget when things have gone. deeply, deeply, deeply wrong with the country. And so the few times that we have talked have all been when bad things are happening around the budget. Yeah, that's why they're calling you a lot these days. They need nerds like you in these times, Bobby Kogan. As noted, you previously held two key positions in government that I want to ask you about as a budget advisor at the White House OMB and in the U.S. Senate Budget Committee. Before we drill into some details on all of this, I'd love a little bit of insight here as to what you would actually. be doing right now in either of those posts had a similar federal government shutdown been underway at this point where as is usually the case it's republicans who are refusing to help democrats pass a bill to keep the government open what would your role have been right now in such a case first as the chief budget analysts for the senate budget committee and then in your later role as advisor at OMB At the Budget Committee, it wouldn't have been that much because appropriations are all done by leadership. And so we were there ready to help when we needed to. But basically, there was very little happening there at the Budget Committee. At OMB, typically...

appropriations are negotiated through OMB. So for all, you know, and I had left by that point in 2023, but the big, you know, when we when we almost shut down at the end of 2023, going into fiscal, you know, going into fiscal year 2024, that was done heavily, heavily negotiated the budget caps and the ensuing appropriations were negotiated with OMB taking kind of a heavy driver seat. So it's a lot of, you know, running. running 30 different ways. What if we got this? What if we got this? What if we got this? What if our top line's going to be this? Are there different ways that we could try to argue defense versus non-defense security versus non-security? It's all different ways of trying to argue your position. But that's the key point. What you're doing is you're arguing and you're trying to come to an agreement. Appropriations are always bipartisan. It takes 60 to pass anything through the Senate. That means this time you need at least... seven Democrats to say yes. That's the only way to make this happen. And instead of working to try to find common ground, Ross about is out here punitively. harming only democratic states, right? Like the exact opposite of what you'd be doing. Yeah, because it sounds like the negotiations that you would be doing, I presume, would be with, you know, not with not with the president, not with your fellow Democrats, but actually with Republicans trying to find a way through this where everybody got a little something, everybody lost a little something. Yeah, that's right. We, you know, we at the White House would always say, okay, here are our key priorities. You know, we tended to have tier one, tier two, tier three priorities. And we were obviously advocating for all of them, but we were pushing really hard to make sure what our red lines were, making sure that our key priorities were hit. We were talking directly to Republican staff to try to make sure that we could come to something everyone could agree with. And it got enough of what we cared about. And of course, they were trying to make sure that they could get enough of what they care about. That's how appropriations work. You don't get everything you want, but you got enough of what you care about that you're willing to go forward. That's how compromise and that's how negotiation works. And that's the exact opposite of the approach the White House is taking right now. Which is what I was going to say. Do you have any sense? I mean, because I've seen all of these stories about Russ Vought. And he was, again, he was one of the key architects of the project 2025 that Donald Trump said he knew nothing about, wanted nothing to do with. Now he's running OMB. And it sounds like he's pretty much doing. whatever he wants, claiming it to be illegal, whether it is or not, have you seen any suggestion that vote is in any way reaching out to Democrats in Congress or anywhere else? Reaching out only to be petty, right? I mean, not to actually work to try to find common ground. The Republican position right now is you should. You Democrats should accept exactly what we've written exactly as is, or we will, you know, we'll harm the country, we'll stab ourselves and everyone will be worse off, right? So what's the fire, the mass firing of the folks that we are?

expecting to see maybe today, maybe tomorrow. A lot of notices we're expecting to go out. That's something that harms the Trump administration's ability to carry out its own objectives and its own agenda and harms the United States ability to effectively and efficiently carry out the things that it's supposed to do. These are career experts with very niche expertise. And I guess I would put it this way for anyone listening. If your company... wanted to do something, whatever it is, would you fire everyone who'd been there for 30 years and then try to replace them and get fresh blood? Or even if you wanted to eventually phase people out, would you do it all at once? Or would you work to try to maintain expertise and train up the new people? You'd never do it this way. It's a purely punitive thing. It's something they've wanted to do for a very long time. And one thing that you should know about this is the act. of firing people the way that they're doing it, what are called rifts, these reductions in force, they take weeks and sometimes months to go through kind of all the paperwork necessary to carry it out. So if we're going to get a bunch of notices, today or tomorrow or the next day, it means they've actually been working on this for a very long time, right? And this is something they've wanted to do anyway, and they're just using the shutdown as a pretext for it. And let's go further. Then they take 60 days after you get the notice to actually happen. I think the government's going to be open within 60 days from now. If they fire the people anyway, it just shows they're just doing what they wanted to do anyway. Exactly. I mean, it seems to be that's what they have already been doing. They've been doing these mass layoffs, these riffs, et cetera, for the past. whatever it is, eight, nine months now. I played Trump during the intro there, claiming essentially that a shutdown now allows him to do things that he couldn't do otherwise, including things that he claims that are permanent and cannot be done. Do you have any idea what he's talking about there? And does a government shutdown give any special powers to the White House of the OMB that it wouldn't otherwise have when the government is up and operating as usual? It's actually the opposite. You are allowed within reason to riff people when the government is open. Doing it when the government is closed is actually extremely illegal. It's an anti-deficiency act violation. The technical term is you're incuring an obligation when the funding has lapsed. There are four accepted categories during a government shutdown when you are allowed to. here to allow to do something even though you don't have funding and the white house asserted today that carrying out rifts hits what hits one of those they said that it's a constitutional power uh much like conducting foreign policy which is of course absurd um and so Therefore, this action that they're going to be taking is illegal. And it actually carries a criminal act. It carries a jail term. But of course, the Trump administration won't prosecute itself. So it'll be yet another lawless budget act that the White House does. And these people, by the way, who if they do move forward with these layoffs, you know, claiming, oh, we have to lay them off as JD Vance seems to be suggesting, oh, we have to lay them off because we're out of money.

I mean, you could furlough them without pay. There's a reason this has never happened before. It's because you don't have to do it. They're doing it because they want to do it. And again, there's no special power to do this. It's, it's illegal to do it during a shutdown because the act, the work necessary to make it happen is not work that's allowed. to happen under a shutdown, but they're just doing it anyway, right? That's it. That's it. They're just doing it anyway. Well, they're doing it anyway. And they're going to have to, if they do it, they're going to then when the government, if the government ever reopens, they're going to have to move forward with the government without all of the people that they need to run the government. They've already been hiring back or trying to hire back hundreds of officials at a whole bunch of agencies where they laid people off earlier this year. Aren't they ultimately? only hamstring themselves once the government reopens? Yeah. I mean, we all have seen what happens when a government is filled with people who are not effective at actually running it, right? We've seen the difference between natural disasters when you have a civil workforce, you know. effectively and efficiently trying to handle the situation and ones that are just a bunch of yes men and a bunch of lackeys who are not who are not up to the task right you harm the United States ability to actually carry out the things that it does and while it's true a lot of it is typically in the background I always say that the government's sort of like a soundtrack in a movie you notice it if it is extremely good And you notice it if it is extremely bad. But otherwise, it's just kind of there in the background. And the real... I mean, the real risk that we have here is that we can be venturing into the extremely bad, right? You can have more outbreaks. You can have less oversight that leads to, you know, more kind of bubbles popping up and bursting in the economy. You can have, you know, more, more dangerous food outbreaks. That sort of stuff that's all, we all don't really think about because the government is working towards it. We don't think about all the dangerous products that didn't get to market. because of the government. We only think about the ones that made it in spite of the government. But that's the risk that we have when you hollow out the civil service and all the expertise. So, you know, with all of that said, Bobby, as you see it, is this the funding of health care for tens of and perhaps hundreds of millions of Americans, especially I think that the Dems, especially if they sharpen their messaging on this, as I mentioned at the top, to make clear what this is all about, preventing Republicans from doubling your health care costs next year. I think they are right to do this. But with all of that said, as you see it, is this the right?

issue for Democrats to go to the mattresses on to, you know, to plant their flag on, in your opinion? The purpose of government is to help ameliorate suffering. Like, that's it. That's why we do government. There are lots of things in life that are unfair. You don't get to pick if you're born healthy. You don't get to pick if you're... born to supportive parents. You don't get to pick if you're born richer or poor. You don't get to pick whether you're even born smart. There's a lot you can do, you know, to study and everything. But, you know, your natural kind of brain, and you can work on your brain. But the natural kind of ability of your brain, you don't get to pick that. You don't get to pick that. You don't get to pick that. You don't get to pick that. You don't get to pick that. It's unfair about life. But the point of government, is to help ameliorate some of that unfairness, is to help people. What we secure in a government funding bill is nutrition for the poor. It's housing for the poor. It's education, right? It's all sorts of things. It's grants to make sure that our water is literally potable and safe. It's all sorts of things that we all rely on to make the world a little less bad. So absolutely. Behind that, making sure that people can afford their health care is a really legitimate thing to care about. It's a policy fight. Government funding fights are about policy. It's about deciding how we are going to distribute our resources. That's a natural thing to fight about in a government fight. I just say the other part of this, though, that doesn't get talked about much is that I just said government funding fights are about policy. It's about deciding what we're going to do. The second big ask that Democrats have, here, even if they're not saying it quite as publicly, is that once they come to a deal, whatever it is, whether Democrats get more of what they want or less of what they want or whatever, once you come to a deal and you say, okay, this is what's going to happen, this is how we're going to distribute our resources. You have to actually stick to the deal. You can't shake, you can't look someone in the eyes, shake hands, say we have a deal and then immediately change it. But that's what Russ Vought has been doing all year long. That's what he's been doing all year long. And so how can you actually come to a deal with someone who then retains and reserves the right to immediately ignore the deal? So in the Democratic CR, they had provisions that go after the ways, many of the ways in which Russ Vought has been illegally not spending money and not carrying out budget deals. And that's a key part. Like how can you actually make a budget deal if Russ Vought is going to ignore the budget deal? And if they're going to come, whether it's Russ Vought ignoring it, or even Congress rescinding that money with just a simple majority, they're asking Democrats to help them get over a 60 vote filibuster in the Senate. But there's no promises that they won't say thank you. We appreciate that. We'll keep the government open now. And we're going to rescind all the stuff that you guys had us add in five minutes ago. Yeah, that's exactly right. And so because of that, you know, making sure that you actually have to adhere. to what you just agreed to is a fundamental ask. You cannot do government appropriations if the appropriations are optional and everything you thought you secured. You didn't actually secure. You just got there potentially. Now, on the ACA subsidies specifically, Republicans claim that they're interested in negotiating on restoring the ACA premium subsidies, but that this is not the right time for that, that Democrats should just vote to keep the government open now and then they can discuss.

ACA subsidies later this year. Now, Those subsidies come to an end at the end of this year, and the open enrollment period is beginning now. There's actuaries actually trying to figure out in each state, trying to figure out what the premiums are going to be for your level of income and so on and so forth. They need to know those numbers now. This can't be kicked down the can. Am I missing something here? Doesn't this, in fact, this negotiation have to already be done by now in order for people to sign up for... for health care plans beginning, I guess, November 1 on the open exchanges? That's right. As you say, the open enrollment begins on November 1st. Notices are going out. like within a week. People are window shopping now. They're working on the stuff now. If you took the Republican CR goes through November 20th. If you took that CR and then worked on it, it would be too late at that point. Right. So, and even if you, even if you did maybe a two-week CR, like you've really missed a lot of it there, it would be like incredible amount, it would be incredibly chaotic and disruptive to try to then change it after that. So it really is an immediate thing. I think, you know, if we were having this discussion three months ago and they would, and they. said like let's say the government funding deal instead of october first we're actually july first there would be an argument to say well it doesn't actually need to be july first right we could do this later but that's not actually that's not actually true anymore it is now actually quite pressing yeah i mean this is happening now and by the way i think um You know, one of the reasons that, and I'm wondering your thoughts on this, one of the reasons that Republicans may seem sanguine about all of this, that, oh, yeah, we're fine, we're not worried about what this is going to cost us. I think it's because those numbers have not yet come out for Americans, and that in the very next few weeks, if not already, like you say, you can go to the exchange sites and shop around. You're going to see your costs absolutely skyrocket in many states, at least according to all of the experts. I don't think that has sunk in yet for the American people because they have not yet seen those numbers and realized, oh, man, the monthly premium that I was paying this year is now going to be done. next year. It seems to me that Republicans have a real stake in this, that in some respects, Democrats are doing them a favor by demanding these subsidies get extended because Republicans are going to pay a huge price for it. It seems to me, your thoughts? Yeah, that's right. I mean, there are 24 million people who use the exchanges, and of them, 22 million of them.

rely on these premium tax credits. It's about 90% of them. And of those people, right, of that about 22 million people, the average increase is 136% right. That's more than doubling. And so exactly as you say, Republicans will be blamed when people's premiums go up on average 600 bucks. Plenty people won't, right? If you are not someone who relies on the premium tax credit, you won't, you won't, I mean, risk will be a little bit different. So that can hurt you. But you're not going to see your premiums go up that that much. But for these people, it's the difference between affordable health care and not affordable health care. It's going to push millions and millions and millions of people out of being able to afford insurance. you know, that's bad for America. And Republicans are going to be the ones in charge when this happens to the ones that get blamed. Democrats are begging Republicans to let Democrats help Republicans politically. Yeah. But because they believe in actually helping the American people, you know, can we believe it? And, and. One of the things that has come up was that, oh, maybe the Republicans might come around to agreeing to extending them for one year. But again, that seems like, you know, if they're not made permanent, if they're only made for one year, that seems again like it's going to potentially harm. Republicans next year because it will be right around November when people are buying their new plans for 2027 that they're going to see those prices going up again. I mean, I wonder how much Democrats should be begging Republicans to work with them at all at this point because it seems like they're going to be really costly for Republicans politically. Yeah, I think it'll absolutely be costly their Republicans. But of course, you know, we just saw a couple months ago. I think it's like it's the end of material politics. There were some Republican districts where like half of their district was on Medicaid. And nonetheless, the member voted to obliterate Medicaid. So. I guess I would just say that, you know, there were a lot of Democratic members of Congress who voted for the ACA knowing that it was the end of their career. And obviously they felt sad that it was the end of their career, but they were willing to do it because they believed that it was worth losing their job to help. millions of people get health insurance. And on the flip side, you see some Republicans who might believe it's worth losing their job to help rip health insurance away from people. Apparently so. By the way, I mentioned at the top the Republicans could keep the government open.

All by themselves. They've got majorities in the House and the Senate. They could vote to nuke the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. If they really, really wanted, if they were really, really worried about what a shutdown would do to the American people, they could just keep the government open all by themselves, couldn't they? It always nuked the filibuster. There are some things you could do through reconciliation. You wouldn't be able to do all the bells and whistles you wanted to, but they obviously gave a lot of money to defense and DHS and, you know, in other places, DOJ inside of reconciliation. There are lots of things that you can do if you have the majority. But they weren't interested in doing that. And as I say, they're not really interested in compromising. Instead, it's just they're interested in using maximum leverage to get what they want. And that's kind of been the way that they've been operating for a long time, right? Maximum leverage all the time, always. And that sort of thing can sometimes work in the short run, but in the long run, it ends up kind of breaking the fabric of how everything works. Yeah, that sounds about right. That sounds about where we are. Let me ask you one more thought here, Bobby. None of this, it seems to me, needs to happen. As I understand it, other countries... Real countries simply adopt a government budget for spending that simply stays in place until there is a move to change that budget. In fact, I guess we do that on a big portion of our budget. Any idea, though, why we do it this way with essentially fiscal cliff deadlines at the end of each fiscal year? And should we be looking at changing that model in the future during maybe Reconstruction Part 2 when and if it's a night? I think we'd have to change a couple other things, right? In other countries, if you win an election, you get to do your agenda. But here you could be like, oh, I won the presidency, but not the House or the Senate, but not the House, but not the Senate, but not the House, but I didn't get 60. And so most of other countries, if you win an election, you just get to do your agenda. Elections have consequences. You get to do what you want. And then the first thing they try to do is pass a budget. And if that fails, Many of the other countries have the ability to hold another election. So you try to pass a budget if that fails. You just say, okay, we give up. We're dissolving parliament. We're going to hold another election. See if this works a little bit different. And if it does, then we'll be able to pass the budget that time. And then they're able to pass your budget. They're able to do it because they have successful majorities. And the U.S. is a weird system where... you know, where you can win an election, kind of. So it's a little bit different this time because Republicans kind of control everything. But imagine a scenario where Harris had won but had lost the Senate in the House, right, which was a theory or had won the House. Harris had won and Democrats had won the House, but it lost the Senate, right? That could have been an earth to a different possibility. And there you could see government shutdowns and you'd say, well, part of the problems are political system. We have a unique structure.

where we have two-thirds of the budget, three-quarters of the budget on semi-autopilot or full autopilot. Right. And then we fight about a quarter every year. No other country does it our way. No other country should do it our way. If we were totally reworking everything, we would, you know, if we were starting from scratch, we'd never build it this way. But that takes a constitutional change. And I don't know what, I don't know how long it'll be before we get a constitutional change over budget process and elect. Yes. And as you may have heard, we're not allowed to change the Constitution anymore for some reason. I don't know when that happened. But at some point, we just stopped changing this document that was actually built to allow for the changes that we need. That instead now somehow we pretend that it must be revered and there's nothing. It's perfect document. We cannot change it. And we're stuck in this mess. Thank you, Bobby. Really appreciate talking to you here. I knew I was going to talk to you. As soon as I saw, man, we're going to do this. We're going to do this shutdown thing again. We may be calling on you again for advice or just your good spirits, which are greatly appreciated. Bobby Cogan is the Senior Director of Federal Budget Policy at the Center for American Progress. He was previously advisor in the Biden Harris White House in the Office of Management. and budget. And prior to that, the senior budget analyst at the U.S. Senate Budget Committee. Thank you. Oh, you can find his work at Americanprogress.org, and you can find him on both the Twitters and the Blue Skies at B.B. Kogan. Thank you, sir. Brad, thanks so much for having me on. You bet. All right, let's take a quick break and I want to come back with a frankly chilling story out of Chicago, I'm sorry to say. And it's suburbs. That and Desi Doyen's Green News report are all straight ahead right here on the broadcast. I'm Brad Friedman.

The Bradcast and the Green News Report are 100% independent, 100% listener supported. But we can't do it alone. We need you. Please help us bring real facts to listeners at independent stations around the nation. Please drop by Bradblog.com slash donate. That's Bradblog.com slash donate. And thanks. Hey, this is Brad. You're listening to an encore presentation of the Bradcast. So your brother's bound and gag, and they've chained him to a chair. Won't you please come to Chicago just to sing? In a land that's known as freedom, how can such a thing be fair? Won't you please come to Chicago for the help that we can bring? That's a... That's a little on the money, isn't it? Yes, sadly. Welcome back to the Bradcast, Brad Friedman from Bradblog.com. My thanks again to Bobby Cogan. He's great. He mentioned the fact that among those federal workers who would not be laid off or see their agencies shut down temporarily or otherwise. During the shutdown are law enforcement agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and the Border Patrol and ICE, et cetera, because those departments were funded, apparently, via Trump's so-called Big Beautiful Bill earlier this year, which turned ICE and other DHS agencies into literal armies. larger, in fact, than the complete militaries in many countries. So while the government may be shut down, the military-style raids and roving round-ups of supposed criminal migrants will continue apace, seemingly no matter how long this shutdown may go on. Stick a pin in that for a moment. I'll get back to it because it does now look like we are at the beginning of the secret police banging your door down and dragging you out in the middle of the night part of this autocratic takeover of America by Donald Trump and the Republican Party. Folks in the legal world on social media these days, according to TPM's David Kurtz, this morning, are now referring to something called Brett Kavanaugh stops. The reference, he notes, arises from Justice Brett Kavanaugh's recent concurrence in the Supreme Court's emergency ruling last month that permitted the Trump administration to resume so-called roving ice raids out here in Los Angeles based on little more than the language someone speaks or the color of their skin or how they dress or where they hang out, etc. Basically racial profiling. Yes, and completely in contradiction. to longstanding interpretations of, you know, constitutional rights in modern times, at least apparently until now.

Armed federal agents in military fatigues busted down their doors overnight, pulling men, women, children from their apartments, some of them naked, residents and witnesses all said. Agents approached or entered nearly every single apartment in the five-story building and U.S. citizens were among those detained for hours. Naked. While they were sleeping in the middle of the night. This did not happen in a third world country. This happened in Chicago this week. When he got home from work, Jay Jones said that he entered his unit to find all of his electronics and furniture was missing and all of his clothes and shoes were thrown on the floor. The Department of Homeland Security said federal agents with Border Patrol, the FBI, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms arrested 37 people in that raid. DHS said some of those arrested, quote, are believed to be involved in drug trafficking and distribution, weapons crimes, and immigration violators. The feds also claim the South Shore neighborhood was, quote, a location known to be frequented by Trendaragua members and their associates. But DHS gave no evidence to support that assertion and authorities did not confirm that any of the people who were arrested were actually members of the Venezuelan gang. Roderick Johnson, 67 years old. He's one of many residents who were detained that night on Tuesday by federal agents during the South Shore raid. A U.S. citizen, Rodney Roderick Johnson, said agents broke through his door and dragged him out in zip ties in the middle of the night. He said he was left tied up outside the building for nearly three hours before agents finally let him go. Or, as Brett Kavanaugh might say, you know, he was briefly detained before being sent on his way. A mere inconvenience. Quote, I asked agents why they were holding me if I was an American citizen and they said that I had to wait until they looked me up, said Johnson. He said, I asked if they had a warrant and I asked for a lawyer. They never brought one. Video taken near the 75th Street and South Shore Drive building showed federal agents in large vehicles gathered on the street near the building. Some were U.S. Border Patrol uniforms. Others had FBI logos. The ABC News affiliate talked to a resident who reported a similar mistreatment. Partissue Fisher, a woman who lives in the building, said that ICE agents put a gun to her face. Took everything and everyone in the building, including her, and asked questions later. Fisher said she came out to the hallway hearing the noise in her apartment complex in her nightgown around 10 p.m. on Monday only to find armed ice agents yelling police. She said she was handcuffed before she was finally released around 3 a.m. A mere inconvenience.

Is that the kind of reasonable suspicion that Brett Kavanaugh had in mind? Has anybody dragged him out of his house in the middle of the night with heavy weapons and masks leaving him naked on the street for hours without explanation or attorney? Do you suppose that he would have written the very same concurrence that he wrote just a few weeks ago had that happened to him? The raid is one of the largest operations executed since Trump's administration announced the launch of Operation Midway Blitz on September 8, bringing a flood of federal immigration officers to the Chicago area to conduct raids and arrests apparently like this. A similar raid was carried out in suburban Elgin, Illinois, outside of Chicago, when agents... led by U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, herself. I'm guessing the cameras were rolling. They rode in a military vehicle and blew down the front door of a home where they detained six people, two of whom were, yes, U.S. citizens. I'm guessing neither of those citizens were Brett Kavanaugh and his wife. Too bad. In the South Shore raid, neighbors said federal agents used flashbang grenades to burst through the building, and several drones and helicopters were deployed. A neighbor who lives across the street said it, quote, looked like hundreds of agents were outside her front door. She saw what agents dragging residents, including children out of the building in the night, without any clothes on. And into U-Haul vans. Kids were separated from their mothers, she said. It was heartbreaking to watch, she explained, even if you're not a mother, seeing kids coming out buck naked and taken from their mothers. It was horrible, she said. Sounds horrible. But it's happening in our cities right now. Brandon Lee, a spokesperson for the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, said the group was working to identify those who were taken in the raid. He said, quote, it was a violent show of force in the middle of the night. Taking families out of an apartment building in a residential neighborhood like that is harmful, it's traumatic, and that is not something that people can easily recover from, he said, whether they themselves were taken or whether they witnessed it.

I suspect it isn't. And yet, that's where we are now. In case you're wondering, that's where we are right now, even if they have not yet used a flashbang to open your door, your front door in the middle of the night. Yet, Kristi Noem herself has not shown up. to drag you away in the middle of the night, a mere inconvenience, a brief stop, nothing to worry about. That is where we are right now in these United States. Other than that, in brighter news, I guess, we'll see. Let's take a quick break and we'll come back with our Green News Report. I'm Brad Friedman and you are listening to the Bradcast.

Hey, this is Brad. Please consider supporting whichever progressive media outlet is supporting you and the things that you care about. Most, just like us, do not receive corporate or political support. We all need your support to counter the powerful corporate media echo chamber. Right now, as much as ever. If you choose to support us, you can do it really easily, safely, and quickly via brandblog.com slash donate. From Desi Doyan and myself, thank you. You're listening to an encore presentation of the broadcast. Well, no pressure. Des, but I suspect you're going to, as usual, cheer us up with your latest Green News Report. Well, after everything that we've already covered, it seems like it will be a bit of a cheer up. See, it's not that bad. Very slightly, but no, not really. No promises? Well, we'll see in our latest Green News Report. Does announcing that today mean that you guys are going to squeeze Chuck Schumer's home state until he blinks? After Republicans shut down the government, Trump pulls funding for New York infrastructure projects. No more climate change worship. Defense Secretary ignores 40 years of Defense Department climate threat assessments. Plus, listen to the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor. Pope Leo rebukes climate science deniers for contributing to the destruction of creation. All of that infallibility and more straight ahead from Bradblog.com. I'm Brad Friedman. And I'm Desi Doyen. Stand by for six minutes of independent green news, politics, analysis, and snarky comment. No more climate change worship. We are done with that shit. Cool, bro. But climate change ain't done with you. This is your Green News Report.

Okay, Desi Doyle, we needed to start today, unfortunately, with a sad passing of a, well, climate champion. Yes, renowned conservationist Jane Goodall passed away this week at the age of 91. She revolutionized primate research, animal rights, and environmental advocacy. Here she is one year ago calling for people to vote for climate. You must vote for the person, the candidate who you feel. has a better chance of promoting protection for our planet. She will be greatly missed, but also fondly remembered for a very long time. Yes. In other news, as we go to air, the federal government has shut down after Republicans who control the federal government and could reopen it if they wanted to fail to pass a short-term funding bill without Democratic votes. Some agencies will remain partially open, including the National Weather Service, FEMA, and the National Park System, already struggling to maintain public states. safety and operations after the Trump administration's mass layoffs. Bloomberg News warns that the government shutdown will curtail or halt some climate disaster preparedness programs and funding for the National Flood Insurance Program has lapsed, halting new policies and renewals from being issued with major implications for homeowners. One bright spot, the shutdown slows down Trump EPA chief Lee Zeldin's rollbacks of major police. and climate rules. Well, there's that, so long as we don't have a hurricane or a flood in the next few days or weeks. The Trump administration is using the shutdown to harm New Yorkers. Politico reports that the White House budget director Russ Vought said Wednesday the administration will withhold more than $18 billion in federal funding for a major rail infrastructure project and the Second Avenue subway project, citing the state's DEI policy. but also explicitly in direct retaliation against congressional Democrats for the shutdown. Of course. Separately, the state of New York sued the Trump administration for canceling $34 million in already appropriated federal security grants for mass transit from a post-9-11 security fund explicitly withheld to punish the state for its immigration policies. Meanwhile, Fox News TV host turned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in his bizarre lecture to top U.S. military leaders this week in Quantico, Virginia, denied the reality of man-made climate change, pledging to ignore more than 40 years of U.S. defense and intelligence assessments, warning that climate change is a threat multiplier that directly affects U.S. international security. And the accelerating impacts on U.S. military operations and bases, like high tide flooding, now affecting the naval shipyards in Norfolk, Virginia, and the billions of dollars in damages to military bases and equipment in recent years from extreme storms and floods. Well, why listen to military experts when we can listen to Fox News Guy?

In sharp contrast with the Trump administration's efforts to dismantle and deny climate science, American-born Pope Leo the 14th delivered his first major climate speech on Wednesday at the Vatican. Pope Leo cited the disproportionate impacts of climate change on the poor, who did not cause the climate crisis, and he rebuked those who deny climate change who are contributing to the destruction of creation. Some have chosen to derives. the increasingly evident signs of climate change, to ridicule those who speak of global warming, and even to blame the poor for the very thing that affects them the most. Poblio called on citizens of the world to push their own governments to take action. The most effective solutions will not come from individual efforts alone. but above all, from major political decisions on the national and international level. I got to say, it is great to have a Pope who speaks English. Yes. It's really quite helpful. For much more on all of those stories and the ones we couldn't get to today, check out our website at greennews. Bradblog.com. I'm Brad Friedman. And I'm Desi Doyen. And this has been your Green News Report.

Papa's got a friend It is nice to have a Pope that cares about the climate and the environment and the poor. I think it's very interesting that all of these very, very public Christians who now run the Trump administration don't seem to care about any of those things. Well, let's make clear. So did Pope Francis. He was a great champion of climate as well. And they also didn't care then. Well, they didn't care then. And one of the things I said, it's nice to have a Pope who speaks English. It's not that I have anything against people who are not, you know, don't speak English or are not American. But the fact that, yeah, now they get to hear from the Pope directly, these jerks, these deniers in the U.S., who claim to be, yes, great champions of religion and religious freedom. And Christianity and all of that. So now you can hear him in English telling you, no, no, that's not right. But will they listen? No, of course not. Of course not. Anything else? Is that it? No, that's it. Can we get the hell out of here? Yes, please. All right. We will. Thanks again to my guest today, Bobby Cogan. Thanks, of course, to our producer, Desi Doyen, and of course to all of you for spending a portion of your day or night with us. It's always an honor. It's always appreciated. And it's always thanks to you, at least those of you who hit one of those donate buttons over at bradblog.com, where if you missed any portion of today's show, you can always download them all. free. There is no paywall. Again, thanks to you who hit that donate button. We really do rely on you. Not kidding. At bradblog.com or go straight to bradblog.com slash donate. to help us out. Thanks in advance. Drop me email if you like. Always good to hear from you. I am Bradcast at bradblog.com. You can find me on the social medias, especially blue sky, where I am the Brad blog. You can also find Desi Doyen over there. She hangs out there a lot more than I do. What's your address again over there? Green News Report. Find her there. Bother her all weekend if you can. She loves it. All right. Follow us both. And thank you. That's it. We'll see it all of the above. Until we see you here next time, I'm Brad Friedman. Good luck, world.