In This Episode
- Check out Gerrit’s piece – https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/11/23/trump-maga-division-tech-ai/
- Call Congress – 202-224-3121
- Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8
- What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast
Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/
TRANSCRIPT
Jane Coaston: It’s Monday, December 8th, I’m Jane Coaston, and this is What a Day, the show that welcomes the new overlords of college football, Indiana University? [music break] On today’s show, the long-standing hepatitis B vaccine recommendation for newborns in the U.S. is in jeopardy. And what rights do babies born in the U.S. have anyway? We’ll find out now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments for ending birthright citizenship. But let’s start with artificial intelligence. Just a few years ago, the promise of AI was largely hypothetical. It was either going to save the universe or kill us all, and nothing in between. But now it’s pretty much everywhere. You may have asked an AI chatbot to help you write an email to your landlord this morning, while your boss used an AI program to maybe decide if you have a job next year. And the Trump administration has gone all in on the promise of artificial intelligence. Even though, as we learned in October, it’s not quite clear if President Donald Trump knows what AI is.
[clip of President Donald Trump] Everybody wants AI because it’s it’s the new internet, it’s the new everything. It’s one of the biggest things anyone’s ever seen. So everyone wants it. Yeah, I mean the only problem is if you don’t get it.
Jane Coaston: It doesn’t hurt that the biggest backers of AI also happen to run the biggest companies on earth and also happen to have given Trump’s presidential campaign, inaugural committee, and even his fancy new ballroom millions of dollars. So it stands to reason that the White House has tried to do the AI tech barons a favor and ban state level regulations on artificial intelligence. But those attempts, both in the budget deal passed earlier this year and in the national defense spending bill, have failed. Because it turns out that while Trump and his billionaire friends love AI, a lot of Republicans don’t. Republicans like Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, who told right-wing pundit Steve Bannon back in September that the AI tech overlords were using America’s working class for their own gain.
[clip of Senator Josh Hawley] They’re using AI to shorten the lifespans of working people by taking away their jobs, taking away their livelihoods, and they’re turning around and using that same AI to try to make themselves immortal. It would be crazy if it weren’t so dangerous. And the ideology that these people have is that they should have all the power, working people should have no power, they should run the country, not the people. That’s not what we’re founded on, Steve.
Jane Coaston: But the White House is still trying to push Republicans to support their efforts to get rid of pretty much any AI regulations. So to talk more about Trump, AI, and why Republicans aren’t sold on the wonders of chatbots that love M dashes just yet, I spoke to Gerrit De Vynck. He’s a tech reporter for the Washington Post covering the AI boom. Gerrit, welcome to What a Day.
Gerrit De Vynck: Thanks for having me.
Jane Coaston: So first things first, why is President Trump so all in on AI?
Gerrit De Vynck: AI is the biggest thing going on in the tech world right now. And it’s the biggest thing since, you know, mobile phones, some say since the internet, some even say since electricity itself. And so the tech industry is very serious about this and and they need government support. And and they really got ahead of you know, the election by sort of getting close to President Trump, donating to his campaign. And they’re able to give him something that he really wants, which is all these mega multi billion dollar investments, which really helps him push his story, his narrative that he is bringing jobs back to America. He’s reindustrializing America by sort of cajoling all these multinational corporations to invest here in America. And a lot of these investments would have happened whether, you know, President Trump was president, whether Kamala Harris was president. These were planned, the AI boom would have happened regardless of what happened politically. But the companies have realized that if they sort of stand next to him, make these announcements at the White House, it also reflects very nicely on them. He’s a very transactional president. And there’s been this alliance now between the tech industry and, you know, Donald Trump that we’ve seen play out throughout his presidency.
Jane Coaston: So to be extremely cynical about it, it kinda reminds me a little bit of how Trump in 2021 was like, I don’t really know what crypto is and it sounds kinda bullshit and then the crypto industry gave him a ton of money and suddenly he’s like, I love crypto. It’s the coolest thing ever. Would you say that’s kind of similar to the AI conversation right now?
Gerrit De Vynck: Yeah, I mean, I think definitely it it depends exactly. You can kind of dial up or down your cynicism. I mean on the one hand, these people are the richest people in America. They’re the ones who, you know, he needs them in order to fund his political aspirations. And I’ve also heard people say, you know, Donald Trump is convinced he thinks AI is as big of a deal as the tech industry says it is. And he thinks that it’s gonna be part of his legacy to make sure that America continues to lead technologically, especially when it comes to China. And so there’s some people who argue, you know, this alliance with the tech industry is actually coming from him believing that AI is a big deal and he wants to make sure he doesn’t get in the way of AI development.
Jane Coaston: Now AI became part of the conversation so quickly. What regulations have we seen at the federal level so far?
Gerrit De Vynck: There is pretty much nothing at the federal level. Um. Former president Joe Biden, he had an executive order on AI that sort of directed federal agencies to, you know, use AI, but also to develop standards for how they use it, make sure they weren’t breaking existing laws. He uh you know, directed the government to set some standards that tech companies would adhere to when it comes to testing their AI before launching it. But that’s pretty much all we had. And literally the first week of Trump’s presidency, he got rid of that. And so I won’t say that this government necessarily wants zero AI regulation, but they are not necessarily chomping at the bit to pass any regulation federally to, you know, encourage specific bills. And there’ve been attempts by various people in Congress to do that, and we haven’t seen anything concrete actually go through the House yet.
Jane Coaston: But states have still been implementing protections and regulations. What have they been hoping to accomplish with those?
Gerrit De Vynck: Yeah, so sort of in the absence of federal rulemaking on AI, the states have gone kind of ham when it comes to AI regulation. Every single state has at least a bill regarding AI. Over half of states, and these are Republican states, these are Democrat states, have passed AI regulation and and that really runs the gamut. There’s, you know, a big one in California that sets transparency requirements for AI companies. You know, they have to sort of make sure that if they are concerned about some of the negative impacts of their AI, that they actually have to tell the government about that. It has whistleblower protections for AI workers. There’s also you know, landmark legislation in Texas that says the government can’t use AI to discriminate when it comes to social services. And so you see all sorts of legislation, and that’s kind of triggered a response from the tech industry and their allies in the White House uh who do not like to see all this legislation blooming all over the country.
Jane Coaston: Yeah, it it was really interesting to see that the Trump administration was trying this big effort to stop states from adding new AI regulations. And they had a lot of support, obviously, from a host of big AI backers. But then you saw a host of people within the GOP, the so called America First movement, saying, like, why are we doing this? And it’s interesting because you can see that there’s the Trump supporters who are super rich and like him because he’s working to make them richer and doing a great job. But then there’s also the MAGA base, many of whom supported him because he was supposed to lower prices and drain the swamp. When did that rift first start to show?
Gerrit De Vynck: I mean you saw it pretty much right after the election on a different issue and that was on skilled immigration. A lot of the–
Jane Coaston: H1Bs yes.
Gerrit De Vynck: Exactly. H1Bs.
Jane Coaston: The the Christmas blow up that only people who were very online remember.
Gerrit De Vynck: I mean we should not be on our phones during that period and that just proved the whole situation.
Jane Coaston: That was the lesson I learned. This is on me for being on my phone.
Gerrit De Vynck: Yeah, but I mean I really see AI as sort of, you know, the second version of that same blow up. I mean, AI has has grown very, very quickly. And I think covering it closely over the last three years, I mean, my experience is that most people were like ah, is this actually a thing? Like I used it and it it didn’t really work. It it kind of made a mistake. And, you know, is this just another thing that Silicon Valley’s telling me I need and I don’t actually need it, you know, like Facebook, for example.
Jane Coaston: Yeah, there was a real moment where I was like, is this turning into Google Glass again or something like that? But then it became something that, you know, I’ve been using not at work, just like to figure out the dimensions of my apartment and what furniture fits. And the moment that something like that becomes a tool you use in your daily life, that’s when that shift happens, I think, for everyday users.
Gerrit De Vynck: I think that’s right. And I think there’s two major issues. People had that experience. They said, wow, there’s actually something here. Um. I’m using it for, you know, random tasks, essentially a Google search replacement. Plus, could my boss use it to do some of my job? You know, even if it’s not as good as me, maybe my boss thinks it is. Uh. The other major issue I think that really got into people’s heads was concerns about children and teens using. I mean, we saw some really tragic stories about, you know, teenagers taking their own lives, you know, doing self-harm after having long convoluted conversations with chatbots, and there’s actually some lawsuits playing out. So those are very high profile cases that people take very seriously. And so I think some of these populist Republican politicians have realized that their constituents are not on the same page as the president when it comes to AI, are way more concerned about it. It’s also an affordability issue because AI data centers take up a lot of electricity and people are seeing some of their electricity prices going up and they’re blaming AI.
Jane Coaston: Where does the Trump administration stand on AI right now? And do you think it’s going to continue to be like trying to protect AI?
Gerrit De Vynck: I think that they are still pretty serious about their agenda, which is that, you know, we need to remove regulation. Uh. We need to get rid of what they might call red tape or bureaucracy for AI innovation. And, you know, they’re gonna support what the tech industry is is asking them to do. Um. I mean, it’s also a very traditional Republican position to say, you know, we want to get rid of as much regulation on business as possible. Of course, over the last several years we’ve seen that shift in in in unexpected ways. And now a lot of Republicans, you know, they they don’t like big tech. It big tech is one of the enemies. And, you know, I will have to say, like, President Trump also used to, you know, beat up on big tech all the time. And I think it’s probably a little bit jarring for many of his supporters to say, wait, I thought Google was the enemy. I thought Meta was the enemy. Why are you suddenly standing up next to them at the White House, you know, slapping them on the back and and praising them? But I do think for now, the White House is still pretty set on its agenda. I mean, we’ve been hearing, you know, rumors over the last week that they want to continue to push a new executive order that would essentially direct the Department of Justice to sue states that are, you know, putting out AI legislation that the federal government doesn’t like. And so that’s really doubling down, even though some of the legislative attempts have failed. And so I think for the short term at least, there’s not really any sign to me that Donald Trump is is starting to listen to those people in his party who are saying, hey man, you need to slow down on AI, stop supporting these people so intensely.
Jane Coaston: We had this conversation last week about how President Trump has been more isolated this term and how not doing these big rallies and basically being very siloed has taken him out of touch with what his base wants. But this week he’s scheduled to go back on the road to promote his economic policy. Do you think that being exposed to real time feedback from his base could actually change his approach to AI? Or is he so bought in, and I mean that literally, that nothing’s going to change here?
Gerrit De Vynck: I mean, it’s a really good question. It’s I I think it’s kind of, you know, for for for my reporting over the next six months, maybe the the biggest question that that I’m asking, I’m thinking about, I really think it could go either way. I also think it depends on, you know, where AI goes. I mean, if essentially say AI does actually start to seriously affect people’s jobs, you could see a real backlash. You know, if AI kind of just sort of continues on the trajectory it’s on, and you know, it’s something we use more and more, but it’s not necessarily something that is economically disruptive in the short term. I think it could potentially fizzle out and you know, Trump’s voters and his base will allow him to continue to be close to the AI industry. But, you know, I really think it could go either way. And I think, you know, Donald Trump is sort of being tested on a few issues about whether he leads the MAGA base or the MAGA base leads him. And from his perspective, you know, he is MAGA. What he decides, what he thinks is what the movement stands for. And we’ve seen on a couple of issues, you know, the Epstein files, for example, that he’s actually had to sort of step back after, you know, holding a very, very strong position for a very long time. So I definitely think it’s possible that he could flip on AI in the the coming six months or so.
Jane Coaston: Gerrit, this was super helpful. Thank you so much for joining me.
Gerrit De Vynck: Of course it’s great to be here.
Jane Coaston: That was my conversation with Gerrit De Vynck, tech reporter at the Washington Post. We’ll get to more of the news in a moment, but if you like the show, make sure to subscribe, leave a five star review on Apple Podcasts, watch us on YouTube, and share with your friends. More to come after some ads. [music break]
[AD BREAK]
Jane Coaston: Here’s what else we’re following today.
[sung] Headlines.
[clip of Adam Smith] It seems pretty clear they don’t want to release this video because they don’t want people to see it, because it’s very, very difficult to justify.
Jane Coaston: The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee said Sunday that surveillance video of a U.S. Military strike in the Caribbean was quote, “deeply disturbing.” Washington Representative Adam Smith spoke with ABC this week about the infamous second strike during an American attack on an alleged drug trafficking boat in September. The second strike reportedly killed survivors clinging to boat wreckage. The attack is part of the Trump administration’s campaign against boats it claims are carrying drugs in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. Reporting on the double attack has landed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in hot water. But Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, the Republican chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he believed the survivors were trying to flip over a piece of the boat and keep fighting, making them justifiable targets, which makes no sense whatsoever to anyone who has ever seen a boat or the ocean. And Representative Smith said that video does not support that justification.
[clip of Adam Smith] When they were finally taken out, they weren’t trying to flip the boat over. The boat was clearly incapacitated. A tiny portion of it remained, capsized the bow of the boat. They had no communications device. Certainly they were unarmed. Any claim that the drugs had somehow survived that attack is hard hard to really square with what we saw.
Jane Coaston: Democrats are calling for the video to be released to the public. Secretary Hegseth said Saturday the Defense Department is reviewing the tape.
[clip of Debra Houry] No new science and no new safety signals and many of the clinical organizations tonight called that into question. Why was the committee revising a vaccine that’s been safe and effective for 30 years? And there’s no good answer to that.
Jane Coaston: Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Debra Houry, told CNN the latest recommendation from the CDC’s Vaccine Advisory Committee puts more babies at risk for developing hepatitis. The committee voted Friday to end the longstanding recommendation that all babies get the hepatitis B vaccine on the day they’re born. The decision was no surprise because the current members of the advisory panel were appointed this year by Health and Human Services Secretary and everyone’s favorite vaccine skeptic, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The advisory committee chose to recommend the birth dose only for babies whose mothers test positive and in cases where the mom was not tested. The CDC’s turnabout hit loads of backlash. The recommendation still needs to be accepted by the acting director of the CDC. And oh, by the way, that would be Jim O’Neill, a political pick with no science or medical background.
[clip of Patrick McHenry] I think birthright citizenship has been the case in the United States from the very beginning. And we don’t judge people based off of of their parent their parents, their parents’ good qualities or bad qualities or where they’re from.
Jane Coaston: Former North Carolina Republican Representative Patrick McHenry, aka the Bowtie guy, told Bloomberg Radio that Trump does not see birthright citizenship as quote, “settled law.” Well, the Supreme Court is going to actually settle that for us soon. The High Court agreed on Friday to hear arguments over whether Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship is constitutional. On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order declaring that children born in the US to undocumented parents or to parents who are in the country temporarily are not American citizens. His order would upend precedent confirming that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions. For what it’s worth, the executive order has not taken effect anywhere in the country. The Supreme Court is likely to issue a ruling by this summer. First, streamers like Netflix disrupted old Hollywood. Now, those streamers are consuming Hollywood. Netflix announced Friday that it will buy Warner Brothers Discovery for $72 billion. The Netflix deal is the latest in a wave of major entertainment consolidations in the streaming era, and it could reshape the industry. Analysts warn that the combined company would likely slash TV and film production, and entertainment unions worry it could slash jobs too. And us viewers won’t be spared either. Analysts predict higher streaming prices as rivals turn out cheap content to keep pace with Netflix’s hugely expanding library. Federal antitrust regulators could stop the deal, but there could be a plot twist. Apparently, Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos could have already gotten a tacit nod from President Trump himself. Sources told Bloomberg that Sarandos met Trump in mid-November to discuss the sale. Trump reportedly said Warner should go to the highest bidder, and Sarandos left the meeting thinking the White House would not oppose a sale to Netflix. Trump has had a history of attaching strings to corporate sales. Remember that the administration got a golden share concession during the sale of US Steel this year. So if Trump really did give Netflix a green light to buy Warner, we might not be surprised to learn that there are strings attached. And that’s the news. [music break]
[AD BREAK]
Jane Coaston: That’s all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review. Contemplate that House Speaker Mike Johnson thinks that women can’t compartmentalize their thoughts and tell your friends to listen. And if you’re into reading, and not just about how the speaker and his wife said on Stephen Miller’s wife’s podcast that men’s brains are like waffles, with little sections for things, but women’s brains are like spaghetti, where everything is combined. And no, I am not making this up. Like me, What a Day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe at Crooked.com/subscribe. I’m Jane Coaston, and I’m able to compartmentalize discussing speaker Mike Johnson and thinking that’s the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard in my life. [music break] What a Day is a production of Crooked Media. It’s recorded and mixed by Desmond Taylor. Our associate producers are Emily Fohr and Chris Allport. Our video editor is Joseph Dutra. Our video producer is Johanna Case. We had production help today from Greg Walters, Matt Berg, Sean Allee, and Caitlin Plummer. Our senior producer is Erica Morrison, and our senior vice president of News and Politics is Adriene Hill. We had help today from the Associated Press. Our theme music is by Colin Gilliard and Kashaka. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. [music break]
[AD BREAK]
