This week, the House voted to release Justice Department files on Jeffrey Epstein. Hours later, the Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent, sent it on to the president, and he has now signed that bill into law despite months of refusal to do so. None of this would have been possible without a quartet of Republicans, three of them women, including Marjorie Taylor Greene.

I was called a traitor by a man that I fought for five, no, actually six years for, and he called me a traitor for standing with these women.

Now the question is, are these cracks in the MAGA coalition durable? And can Democrats keep their momentum into next year's midterms and beyond? To help answer these questions, we have Jonathan Martin, politics bureau chief at Politico. I'm David Chalian, CNN Political Director and Washington Bureau Chief. And this is the CNN Political Briefing. Stay with us.

Jonathan, thank you for being here.

Thanks for having me, David.

So for 10 years, a lot of us have been asking this, like, futile question that is just like, oh, is this the thing that's going to break Donald Trump's hold on this party? Or is this the thing where Republicans are going to... I do think that, and I realize Epstein here was the catalyst, but I'm not sure it's just Epstein, that we are in a moment where we saw Donald Trump having to sort of reverse course and come in behind his party leading the way somewhere rather than him dictating the state of play as he wants it for his party and that that's just an unusual thing for Trump.

Yeah, no, it really is. And it's hard to remember any other moment where he had to back down. Now, he obviously spun his backing down, David, by really jumping to the head of the parade. But as you and I know, it was a climb down because he had no choice. He was going to lose that vote on the House floor. And I think he recognized, or his staff recognized, the only way to avoid losing the vote was to change your stance on the vote. And I think it does say something about what is for now kind of a rump coalition, right? It's an odd mix, but as you know from studying this stuff and covering it for the last three decades, David, that's often how this stuff happens. I think about, you know, when people like George W. Bush started losing some of their mojo, and of course it's not the front bench crowd, it's usually the back bench crowd first, right? And the hairline fracture, if you will, that you can barely make out and just squint at it close enough you see it, but the hairline fracture gets deeper and wider. After starting as a barely noticeable crack, or to borrow a different metaphor, that little small dent in the windshield caused by the rock starts to get bigger and bigger until you can't avoid it.

I think there's sometimes a temptation to be like, well, so many things we thought had been a little dent in the windshield before perhaps and it just seems if I can string together a few data points just in these last few weeks, right? Obviously there were the election results a couple of weeks ago.

Yes.

Where, not only was it just sweeping victories for the Democrats, Jonathan, but as you know, some of the key pieces of Trump's coalition, this is successful coalition just a year ago, whether young men or young people of color or Latinos broadly, like key parts of what he put together in '24 just had swept away, like in reverse direction towards the Democrats. Add to not just and obviously we just discussed Epstein as a real catalyst here but also you're hearing concerns from some maybe they are backbenchers as you noted or what have you but his lack of focus on affordability as a major issue you are hearing concerns from even people like Steve Bannon who still you know advise them on the outside saying you know perhaps you shouldn't be so focused on foreign affairs, Mr. President and focus. You know, so there are there are things and and we are seeing his lowest approval ratings of this term and it's not just his overall job approval rating it's even he's upside down Fox News poll this week, extraordinarily so on the economy, on inflation, even on immigration, like only border security is the issue he's right side up on and everything else he's well under water on. So this does, and again, I think it's a little much to be like, oh, he's a lame duck. I mean, obviously constitutionally, he was a lame duck as soon as he swore the oath of office in January. But I do think he is in a moment of political weakness here. I'm not suggesting it's permanent, but this is a moment a political weakness for him.

'And I think it's one that doesn't reverse. Much like the aging process itself, political aging tends not to turn around when you're the president, unless there's an event or an action, which dramatically can shift things. But let's just think about second-term presidents in modern history. Once things start going south, they don't typically get better, right? They tend to borrow the Haley Barbour line: good gets better, bad gets worse. And it's hard to see how things would appreciably improve absent some kind of a major event. Let's take the economy, for example.

Yeah.

'Which I think is more than anything the reason he won. By the way, Donald Trump agrees with me. I mean, how many times did he say the word groceries? He believes groceries caused his election. Hard to snap your fingers and make prices go down, especially when you're engaging in a major trade war. And also hard when you're hectoring the Federal Reserve for lower interest rates, which, I was a history major, David, but I understand that when the Fed lowers interest rates that typically is better to address maybe the unemployment issue, but actually can have the opposite effect when it comes to inflation. So I'm just not sure how he gets out of this spiral necessarily. I'm with you, like the idea of, oh, this is the big one, the party's gonna turn on Trump. Like, we're past that, this his party. It's degrees at this point. But, you know, the fact is the competition is what it is, lame ducks are what they are, and it's difficult to turn the economy. It's not a speedboat, it's an ocean liner. So I'm just not sure how this necessarily gets a lot better for him, especially David, if we can just be totally candid here. He's mostly interested in doing what he wants to do. And it's hard to tell Donald Trump, Mr. President, we have this schedule for you for December. You're going to love it. You're going to do a small business tour of manufacturing facilities in Saginaw, Green Valley, and La Crosse, and then we'll pop you over the border and we'll have you go to Duluth, Minnesota as well. Donald Trump would look at them and say, have you lost your mind? Like, he's not gonna do that. He wants to play golf on the weekends, hang out at Mar-a-Lago and have parties and receptions and mostly do like West Wing general contracting work, which is what he's passionate about.

And maybe strike some like Middle East business deals for his family on the side.

'And then when he's not doing that stuff, he wants to either go overseas or greet and host foreign leaders in Washington in pursuit of a Peace Prize. That's what animates him this time around. You know, most second-term presidents turn to foreign policy. It's easier to do that without Congress. He turned to foreign policy, like, within minutes of his second term. I think this is right, David. I think he's gone to more foreign countries already than he has American states so far this time around in the last 10 months.

That is an interesting stat.

'And because, look, this is not specific to him, they all want a legacy in the second term. It's just that he's much more invested in getting that recognition as fast as he can, and he's not terribly interested in any legislative agenda. Could you or I sit here and come up with Donald Trump's post-Big Beautiful Bill legislative agenda? I don't think we could, right?

No. There has not been one, I mean, not really. Where he finds himself right now seems to be irking him. So I agree with you. He might look at the advisor and say, I don't know what you guys are talking about. Like that is nuts. I'm not going to go do that schedule. And yet you can sense from him a real frustration. I mean he's, you know, lashing out at reporters or you could just see in the last week or so that he seems not all that thrilled with where he finds him.

Yes. I couldn't agree more. And I think the reason the press catches the grief is because it's the one party that intrudes on his bubble, everybody else he talks to and deals with in daily life is basically telling them what he wants to hear or at least, you know, talking to him deferentially, it's the only people that actually intrude on his bubble. And so I think that that matters. Yeah, I think there's something else going on too. You know, Trump is more guided, the only checks on Trump are really two things and you know this the press coverage and the markets. That's really how he measures himself. He measures every everything in everybody is are they winners or losers how are they being covered? What's the perception? And then also is the economy going well or not? That's the market, right? And clearly the market is not in great shape, now that could change, but this broader idea that there's a bubble because of the AI trade, it could really, I think, anger him even more because Donald Trump's view is that the market is the economy. And you and I know that's more complicated than that, but if the market isn't doing well and the rest of the economy doing well, what has he left?

Yeah, which is what I found so intriguing today, Jonathan. I know you were former Vice President Cheney's funeral earlier, but while that was ongoing, J.D. Vance, the current vice president, was doing an interview with Breitbart in a public setting. And I swear, Jonathan, if you, if I like put blindfolds on you and you couldn't hear it was J. D. Vance's voice, you might have thought when he was talking about the economy that it was Barack Obama in 2012. He took a different approach than Donald Trump has been taking to your point. I think he does have a sense that the market and the real field economy for Americans are not the same thing. And he was pleading for patience.

And even though we've made incredible progress, we understand that there's a lot more work to do. And the thing that I'd ask for the American people is a little bit of patience.

He seemed to have more of an understanding instead of a denial of what people were feeling, which seemed to me tonally and substantively different than what Trump has been saying.

David, I think you have just played the role of New York Times assignment editor, and I think either the front page of the Friday or Saturday paper, we will see an analysis or White House memo capturing the different approaches on the economy between the president and the vice president, because you're totally right. Vance today was making the case of, this thing's getting better, but we need more time. Just bear with us, folks. Trump's case is, we're the hottest country in the world, man! This thing's on fire! Everybody wants to buy American now, and we're doing great! I mean, those are two very different messages, right?

'Very different things and to me when you talk about the hairline fracture or the moment that we're in of there is a conversation about a post-Trump Republican Party and obviously JD Vance is at the center of that conversation and so it's an intriguing moment given this time that Trump is in to hear JD Vance taking this slightly different approach. I'm going to pick up on that with you in just a moment we're going to take a quick break have a lot more with Jonathan Martin in just a moment.

Welcome back, we're here with Jonathan Martin of POLITICO and one of the biggest brains observing American politics. And so Jonathan, we were talking about JD Vance. I mean, I would argue he is the front runner for the 2028 Republican nomination.

Yes.

And so what does it mean for him in this moment if indeed, Donald Trump's at a moment of political weakness. There are some folks in the party who are sort of questioning whether he's got the right focus. So where does that leave an opportunity or a complication for JD Vance to navigate here?

Vance is going to have to own the Trump White House and presidency, which includes his behavior and conduct, but also includes his economy, right? And this is a more delicate issue for Vance than it is for Trump, because Vance is the one who has to be on the ballot again, assumedly. And so he's going to to sell this economy. And I think that's why it's a delicate matter. Vance has got to say, Biden left us behind the 8 ball here. We're trying to come out of this thing, but it's not easy. I think Trump just wants to do Trump, salesmanship, which is just sell, sell, sell, and everything is now going great guns and the country's never been hotter. It's a much heavier burden, I think, on Vance. And also, don't forget, Vance's biggest challenge is whatever you do or say, you can't anger Trump. So if Trump tells Valce tomorrow, no, no the economy's doing great. You just go say that, what choice does Vance have?

'And to your point about, you know, the Haley Barbour-ism of, you know, bad gets worse. And if indeed history applies here and we are seeing the beginning of an irreversible or decline for Trump here in terms of his political standing, that is going to have a weight on Vance too. And in my, I will here be candid about this, for much of this year, I was thinking, I'm not even sure if there's going to be a robust GOP primary for the 2028 nomination. And now I'm wondering, well maybe there will be a little bit more of a competition there than I was initially anticipating in these last 10 months. Do you think this, you know, if indeed Trump remains in a truly unpopular place and there are more fractures, let's say, to come within his party, doesn't that give an opening to someone who's not tied to him like his vice president?

Yeah, I've said this for months that I think Trump's approval number will dictate just how robust the Republican primary is in 2028.

Exactly.

'If Trump's in the mid-40s, which for Trump is like 60, right, if he's in the mid 40s, this is '88 and Reagan tapped have Bush and Trump will have like a ceremony that's like one part apprentice, one part of the bachelor and have them all like parade on the South Lawn and he'll give one of them the rose and like the other like the half the rose. So like Trump wants to form a ticket. He doesn't want to have a primary, right? Like Trump wants to do this. Trump wants to avoid being a lame duck 'til the last possible second, which is why he'll troll the third term. He'll try and pick the ticket to avoid be a lame dog. But, David, I agree, man. I think Trump falls into the 30s and it's the low 30s at some point. I think 30 is probably his floor, given how robust his support is. But I think that makes the nomination more up for grabs. And look, don't take my word for it. Look at the junior senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, has been moving around picking issues selectively, but purposefully. Tariffs, the free speech issue, the matter of Israel, and picking his spots because he wants to run for president again. And if you're Ted Cruz and you're forever plotting, Senator, we say that with only homage. But you're forever plotting, then you're thinking maybe this is a '28 play, maybe this a '32 play. But boy, the last couple of weeks, David, you're right, it feels more '28 than '32.

It's interesting that you cite Ted Cruz, because he's been one sort of picking the fight with folks like Tucker Carlson, who, yeah, on a bunch of those issues.

'That's the big, I mean there's a big reckoning coming in both parties, right? These parties that have for a decade defined themselves by being Trump or being anti-Trump are going to have to define themselves by what they're for rather than what they are in opposition to or basically sublimating themselves to. Trump was a personality candidate, he wasn't a policy candidate, right? So if you're a Republican, like, are you a Bush, Cheney, Reagan party still, mostly? Or like, you know, you're European style, blood and soil nationalist party, a la Steve Bannon, Nigel Farage, and the rest, like right now, those factions are living under the same roof uneasily. They're not sharing the same bed, they're on different floors of the house, but they're still in the same house. Like, at what point do they figure out who they are going forward? That to me is the '28 question, and also for Democrats, we'll talk about this for an hour if you want, but, like, are they the Clinton-Obama left-of-center party? Or are they a more progressive, almost socialist coalition going forward? Like, those two questions loom over '28, because no longer can they define themselves by being an anti or pro-Trump.

'So you just took me to the Democrats and we can close our conversation out with the Democrats because you had a piece about, Let's Say What It Is, that Gavin Newsom is the Front-Runner for the 2028 Democratic Nomination right now. Great piece.

Thank you.

'In your mind, does he fall in the Clinton-Obama left of center world, I assume?

He doesn't want to say. Because Gavin Newsom is a politician through and through. And I asked him directly that question. He said I want this to be a Mamdani to Manchin party. Which is a good line, of course. Very nice line.

Alliterative and everything.

'Exactly. Allerative and everything. I said, so where does Gavin Newsom fall on that axis? He said, where he's always been. Where's that? Hard-headed pragmatist.

He did not want you to succeed at getting him pigeon holed into a...

'No. Are you a progressive twice? He didn't answer either time. So, he's not going to define himself as progressive. He's not going to run to the center and be the DLC candidate of 2028. He wants to be the anti-Trump coalition leader for as long as he possibly can. Now, you and I know there's different schools of thought among Democrats about how long can you ride the anti-Trump horse and at some point don't you have to say what you're for? I think you can ride it pretty damn far because Trump's going to be the central animating force in American politics until the day he leaves. But at some point you do have to say what you're for. So you know, it'll be fascinating how Newsom defines himself at some point. But I think for now, it's just all orange man bad. You know, that's the whole deal.

And I saw, you know, I saw Biden senior advisor, Donilon, talking to my colleague Elix Michaelson.

I saw that too, David.

Did you see this?

Of the people that are being talked about now, or maybe people that aren't being talked about now, who's the most natural successor to President Biden?

'I think one of the people who is really underestimated, who would have a really powerful candidacy would be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

You think she could win a general election, though?

Yes.

'To your point about the conversation that the Democratic Party's going to have to solve. Donilon, remember, who just ran a candidate who dispatched with the left-wing Bernie Sanders of the party in '19 and '20 and emerged, he is floating AOC as a potential nominee. What did you make of that?

Well, he also went nuclear on his own party for having the temerity to push Joe Biden out of the race after that horrific debate.

Although that complaint was less new to me than all of a sudden his affinity for AOC.

But that caused the social media eruption that like reverberated. We haven't heard of the common explosion at USC since, like, Reggie Bush was with football there. By the way, the event where Donald was speaking was at USC, hence the reference to the land of Troy. But no, no, it was a great, great get by our friend Elix Michelson. And I was struck by both Donilon's continued denialism about the events of '24, but also that he sees the talent out there in AOC, David, I think you and I share this view. Politics has changed, primaries have changed. The barrier to entry, the table stakes, if you will, is can you break through on an iPhone, on a phone? Can you go viral? Can you become a celebrity? I just think if you can't do that, don't bother running for president. That's what matters now. I don't say that with any joy. I just that's why people like Newsome and AOC have got, I think, a real opening because of their capacity to break through.

Even though they may represent, to your point, I think, Jonathan, it may be less of an ideological debate. And to your point the fact that the two of them could occupy a space perhaps you wouldn't normally think of as its own kind of lane in the attention economy, but connected to some kind of authentic appeal.

Yeah, that's right. And if it is the two of them, and they're the ones that can see people's attention, then maybe ultimately it does get the more ideological ground ultimately, because they obviously would have a different vision. But you're right. I just think when you talk about who's going to get to the political version of the Final Four in 2028, it's people that can break through online. And that more than whatever ideological esteem you take, I think, matters, at least in the early going, up to getting past the initial states.

Thank you for indulging me in November of 2025 for talking through some 2028.

'By the way, Patrick Gaspard, the former Obama political director in New York, Spengali, the hidden hand behind Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, chastised me for having the gall to talk about '28 in calendar year '25. I said, Patrick, we're already in the '26 cycle, so it's not too far down the road.

So it's not too far. Patrick Garpard, the political director who Barack Obama told that he would be a better political director for himself than Patrick Garpard will be, right?

Well, and fairness to Obama, he said he'd be a better everything. Campaign manager, press secretary, ad man.

Exactly.

Well, I'm not sure if he told Reggie Love he'd be a better power forward.

There you go, there you go.

Jonathan Martin, thank you for your time, sir. Appreciate it. Take care.

See you, David.

That's it for this week's edition of the CNN Political Briefing. We'll be back with a new episode next Friday. Thanks so much for listening.