The things that he's doing have fascistic overtones to them. And he seems to be accelerating his desire to, as you say, not just exercise the power he has, but grab power that he doesn't.

David Axelrod is CNN's chief political analyst and former senior adviser to President Obama. President Trump has been busy this week firing a Federal Reserve governor, pushing aggressive redistricting plans, and threatening policing takeovers in U.S. Cities. We wanted to get David's take on what these moves mean for American politics right now, how serious are these threats, and are Democrats equipped to respond effectively, or are internal divisions holding them back? I'm CNN Washington bureau chief and political director David Chalyan, and this is the CNN political briefing. Stay with us.

David Axelrod, thank you so much for spending some time with me, I really appreciate it.

Of course. Always fun to spend time with you, my friend.

'Let's start with what I think any observer of history might say that the last sort of ten days to two weeks, we've seen something different in American governing, and that is Donald Trump, across a whole array of actions, is taking a maximalist approach to seeing how much power he can exert and that he clearly sees no independence. From his executive authority and that has come with going after a political enemy with his DOJ with John Bolton, going and firing Lisa Cook at the Fed, ordering Republicans to do mid-decade redistricting to pad his majority, and of course the takeover of policing of Washington DC and threatening to do so in Chicago. So that's just the last 10 days or so, two weeks of this administration. And my question is, how should Democrats respond to this? What is the response to this, what should it be?

Well, let me first say the question really should be how Americans should respond to it, because we have gone from zero to Hungary very fast here. If you look at what happened in Hungary, they had a functioning democracy that in many ways is a democracy in form only now, because the leader there, Orban, who is a model for Trump, as Trump has held him up as an iconic figure, basically did all the things that Trump is doing, went after the news media, went after the lawyers and the courts, went after universities, and basically canceled out all sources of oversight, of accountability, of dissent. And you see this president trying to accomplish the same thing.

Okay, so start there. How do you see Americans responding to this?

Well, I think, look, I think in fairness, people are trying to live their lives. I think Americans should be alarmed about this. I'm sitting, I've got the Declaration of Independence right over my shoulder as it happens. I'm at the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago. Americans should be concerned as we celebrate the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of independence from a mad autocratic king. We should not want to create another. And we should not take for granted what was always a speculative project, which is, can people govern themselves? Can we have a system of checks and balances that works? Can we keep an overweening executive from seizing too much power? All these questions, we've lived with them from generation to generation, and we have obligations as citizens to stand up for that. But for Democrats, I think. You know, Trump is very artful at setting up situations where he tries to force Democrats into a choice where they either submit to him and his will, or they get accused of supporting a status quo that is not working well for large numbers of people. And, you know, I think, for example, that in Chicago, I mean, I'm very angry because Chicago is a great city. I live downtown. The amount of activity and you know, joy, frankly, that I've seen, just on a typical summer day is really something to behold on the beautiful lakefront here and so on. Does Chicago have a crime problem? Absolutely. And there's no denying that. And you can't jawbone people into believing what they don't experience in their lifetime. There's too much crime here, as there is in other cities. And, you know, the president, his support and assistance in dealing with that should be welcome, but does that mean sending in the National Guard, or does it mean rescinding the cuts in violence interruption programs that have been successful? Or does it means sending in FBI, or what are they going to do? Are they going to get serious about interdicting guns, for example, which has been a huge problem flowing in from Indiana and surrounding states in crimes here? There are things that the federal government could do, were doing in some ways that help reduce the level of crime from its peak. And he's not doing any of those things. And it makes you wonder, what is this really about? And Democrats should ask that question, not deny the fact that Crime is a concern for all citizens in Chicago, and we wanna always do better for it. I think that's where Democrats should be. I mean, it's a bit like the economy, and I think Trump's gonna run into problems on this, David. You can't jawbone people into feeling good about the economy if in their lives they have to confront cash registers, rent checks, credit card bills, mortgage payments, and so on.

Ask Joe Biden and Kamala Harris about that.

Exactly. One of the worst mistakes that Biden made was going out there and touting the economy because he so wanted credit for what he had done.

Ideanomics is working!

Yeah, and we experienced it, honestly, in the Obama administration. We learned very quickly that even if you were making progress, if people weren't feeling it in their lives, they were going to reject that kind of messaging. And I know Donald Trump thinks he can sell anything to anybody if he just repeats it enough. I think the cash register doesn't lie and he's going to run into problems on that, but crime is the same way. So, for Democrats, I think the idea is not to be the stalwart defenders of a status quo that people don't think was working. But it's also not to accept his premise and it's to present a real alternative to his interpretation of what we should do and what exists.

So David, I take your point. You focused the conundrum on the issue of crime itself and what Trump is doing with the National Guard, but in all the things that I listed at the top, right? I mean, there are some of these, you know, if defending the status quo is defending the rule of law or small democratic norms, is that something Democrats should be doing?

Absolutely Democrats should be doing. Listen, you know, I probably will get all kinds of grief for saying this, but the things that he's doing have fascistic overtones to them, and he seems to be accelerating his desire to, as you say, not just exercise the power he has, but grab power that he doesn't. And I think that has to be resisted, that has to be contested. In the courts, frankly, the Congress, even Republican members of Congress, should be willing to provide the kind of guardrails that the Constitution suggests they exercise. But fear is a powerful tool, and that's part of the tool of the autocrat is to make people afraid to stand up on issues of constitutionality and on the rule of law. Uh, I don't know what case they obviously got a judge to give them warrants. So I don't know what they have against John Bolton, but the timing is unmistakable and the situation over at the fed, uh, where this, uh one governor suddenly became a target, uh based on an allegation that's so far unproven. Uh, and he fires her. We'll see what the courts have to say about that. You know, he did say, in a kind of glancing, well, you know, we have to have, you know, 100% above board behavior on the part of governors. He's not above board when he says that because in other places, he says, you know, we can have a majority on the Fed. And you know Donald Trump is about as subtle as a screen door on a submarine. I mean, he...

He kind of gives the game away, right?

He does. So he'll say he'll touch the base this sort of later. This is the cover story. But let me tell you what this is about is power. And I want to take control of the Fed. And if we just can kick this woman off and replace her with one of my people, then I'll have power over the Fed to keep interest rates permanently low. But it's an interesting thing here, David. Just think about this. He's positioning Democrats to stand up for what is lawful. And for the independence of the Fed, but kind of challenging them to be in a position to say, so we want the Fed to have the ability to keep your interest rates higher. And so it's a clever, clever political stratagem. There are ramifications of it. I mean, if Donald Trump is control of the Fed, you know what he's gonna say is, keep interest rates as low as we can for as long as I'm president.

What basically would any president would say if they had control of the Fed, but they haven't had control of the Fed.

For a reason.

Exactly for a reason, we're going to take a quick break. We're going have a lot more with David Axelrod, as you've laid out the conundrum, the real bind he puts Democrats in it's how do Democrats solve that problem?

Let's take a break so I can think about.

We'll have a lot more in a moment.

David, I was reading your former colleague, and I guess my former colleague too, at one point he did a stint here at CNN, but Dan Pfeiffer, former White House communications aide during the Obama years...

Yes.

'He wrote a post on his sub-stack that sort of said that, he believes there is a real divide that is presenting itself within the Democratic Party. And the divide is over how Democrats should respond to Trump. And he sort of held up the Gretchen Whitmer example, governor of Michigan, who's met with Trump multiple times in the seven months he's been in office and able to work with him to get some federal dollars and help in her state versus Gavin Newsom now as that sort of avatar of total Trump resistance after he pushed back on the president, in the aftermath of the wildfires, and then certainly in leading this redistricting battle in California, you know, which one of those models needs to be sort of fought out inside the party? What do you think of of how Democrats are processing that argument?

Listen, I think that there's a larger issue for the Democratic Party that the Democratic party has to confront, which is because the thing that helps Trump enormously is the Democratic brand is degraded. Now, part of the loss of support can be explained by Democrats who are angry that Democratic leaders aren't being more in what they believe more effective in confronting Trump. And Newsom has found a device through this redistricting fight to do it. You know, the problem for democratic office holders is that, particularly if they're in Congress, there are limits to what they can do. And so they look feckless even as they rail against. The present governors have a little bit more latitude and this redistricting fight handed Newsom the opportunity and he is taking advantage of it. And I think he's doing the right thing just from a standpoint of the common wheel in addition to his own uh, politics.

Not unlike the opportunity that the threat to send the guard into Chicago offers J.B. Pritzker in your home state.

'Exactly. Except he has less control over this. This is something Newsom has control over. And so long as he delivers on it, which is an open question, that is a victory for him in an environment in which victories for Democrats over Trump have been few and far between. But I think the party has to examine this question. How did the party of working people become seen by so many working people, including Hispanic Americans and some particularly young or black voters, how did they come to be seen as a party of elites and failed institutions? And if Democrats don't seriously think about that and understand where that disconnect came from, it's going to continue to profit Trump. He's going continue to use the party as a foil. The truth is the Democratic Party has an obligation to challenge a failed status quo and to ask the question, how do we in the future move forward with a party that genuinely responds to the day-to-day concerns of working people in a way that they can make a living, pay their rent or mortgage, pay their insurance, for their groceries and put something away and set their kids up to have more success. You know, millions and millions and tens of millions and perhaps hundreds of millions of Americans, they don't feel it. That's not their experience today. And so Democrats need to have genuine answers to that, that are more fundamental than the ones that they've offered. And secondly, Trump is tearing everything down. He's doing a teardown. We all agree on that. Some of what he's tearing down is disastrous, some of what he's tearing down probably deserve to be at least re-examined and reformed. So Democrats should be the party of radical reform rather than the party neolism, which is what Trump represents. So the real question is, are you the party of restoration? Cause that's a loser. Or are you a party of renewal? And you have a real vision of something better that you can build that challenges the orthodoxy of the democratic party and the extremism of and the sort of neo-fascism of Trump.

'Yeah. I mean, if you look at the long-term and this is pre-Trump demographic shifts in the coalitions that make up these parties, uh, Democrats are much more reliant now on college-educated voters.

That's a problem.

'And guess what? Guess what, what there are more of in the country, non-college educated voters.

'I think related to that as the college-educated metropolitan voters became more numerous in the Democratic fold, the Democratic Party started approaching working people, non-college-educate voters, rural and small-town voters, more in the spirit of missionaries and anthropologists than as peers and allies. And the message is, the message has been, we're here to help you become more like us. And we know what you need and we're fighting for what you need. We're here. To work with you guys and we want to know what you need. We want to what's going on in your lives. And you are an essential part of this country. You know, David, when we had a pandemic, I had the comfort of making a living sitting in front of my computer as I am right now. There were half the country that had to go out or more and earn a living. And much of what they were doing were making things, shipping things, protecting us, caring for us. And we hailed them as essential workers. And then the pandemic went away and they became invisible again. Well, let me tell you something, if they were essential then, they're essential now. And they ought to be treated like an essential part of our society and our workforce. And that ought to the democratic party because Donald Trump panders to people's resentments, but when you look at what is happening in our economy, things are actually getting worse and not better despite what he says. He said he was going to improve the prosperity of the American family and so far he's started with one and the family's name is Trump.

Yeah. So on that point, first of all, it sounds to me, tell me if I'm misrepresenting you, it sounds to be like you're sort of in the Rahm Emanuel camp of if you're going to try to fight these elections on democracy, you're already talking to people that are converted to the democratic cause. And so like stay focused on economic matters. And I'll just say, if you look at Abigail Spanberger's campaign in Virginia and Mikey Sherrill's campaign in New Jersey, if you looked at all the advertising going on, every one of their daily messaging events. You will not find them talking about John Bolton, or the Fed governor...

Yeah!

Or even the crackdowns of ICE enforcement or taking over with the National Guard of policing. What you hear them talking every single day are like kitchen table economic issues, affordability...

Yeah, yes!

And those are the people that are on the ballot this year. And I would say, Mamdani in New York City.

Yes. I think that's overlooked, you know, it's overlooked is that Mamdani's almost singular focus has been on affordability and the cost of living.

I guess my question, David, is how do you hold these things together?

I think that there are ways in which to resist what Trump is doing in the proper forums, in the courts, in the Congress, even if you are fighting a losing battle in the congress. Governors certainly have that capacity and so on. And you should do those things. That's part of the job, standing up for the rule of law and for the integrity of our institutions, if not the performance of them. And, you know, that is part of a job. But people vote on the basis of their lives. Trump said, and I hope that he's wrong, that if you can improve people's lives and they can help them make a better living, then dictator doesn't sound too bad, which is what he believes. That's what most autocrats believe. I don't believe that. I think Democrats should accept that. But they'd better make a convincing case that people's life will be better or can be better. And I think beyond that, that in fact, despite what, you know, Trump's salesmanship, the cash register doesn't lie and people's lives aren't getting better and maybe getting worse as a result of the tariffs and other things. I think that they have to play this out in a way that respects the concerns of the people they're trying to represent and not just as a political tactic, but as a governing matter.

Right. So looking ahead to the midterms, another thing Trump said yesterday is he said 2026 is going to be about crime and safety and law and order. I know that's what he wants it to be. Do you believe next year's midterm election is gonna be decided on crime and law in order?

'Listen, and remember in 2018, Trump said the election was going to be about the caravan and immigration, and that issue faded like the day after the election on his agenda. He wants the election to be about issues that he thinks he can win on, and he thinks he can will that, but the reality is that he got elected in 2020 for, you look at these numbers day in and day out. And you know that the economy and the failure, the perceived failure of Biden on the economy was a big part of Trump's victory. He can't escape that. The only way that he can potentially escape that is if Democrats are derelict and don't make the case against him and for something about the economy and how they're gonna help improve the economic situation for people. But in this case, I do think there's an overlay and the overlay is like, if you don't like these economic policies, don't give a blank check to a guy who is single-handedly running the economy now. Don't give them a blank check. Make sure that your voice is heard and your Republican representatives, they've sacrificed their ability to make the case. I mean, imagine being a Republican representative from uh these farm states and sitting silently as these tariffs go in which have been punishing american farmers and there are lots of examples of where trump's policies have encountered the interests of individual members of congress uh districts of individual republic members got but they don't have the freedom or latitude to do anything about it they can't stand up because they're afraid of losing their seats in a primary. I mean, that's the conundrum they're in. And so Democrats have to keep focused on the, someone said the main thing needs to be the main thing and the main is, how are you doing? And Trump may think that he can jawbone people into feeling like they're doing better or, and it seems to me he's decided this, he can do two things. He can try and stack the deck in the election through redistricting, through changes in election law, through methods of voting and so on. And he can try to change the subject. And make it about crime and immigration, which are issues he thinks he can win on.

David Axelrod, I greatly appreciate your insights. It is always so good to hear from you. Thanks for spending some time with us.

Always good to be with you, my friend.

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.