DOJ civil rights chief Harmeet Dhillon resigns | What it means

...administration announcing their resignation, specifically Harmeet Dhillon. She was the Department of Justice Civil Rights Chief under the Trump administration. She made headlines earlier this week by sending about 1,000 federal monitors, she said, to make sure there was no non-citizen voting happening. That was something that was criticized by a lot of election analysts. regular voters but now she's announced she is stepping down from the Trump administration. I imagine she's the first of several people who will be leaving the administration in the coming days and weeks, correct? I would think so. Typically, when you have a president in power and they lose a midterm in a big way, and that was a big loss for Republicans on November 3rd, you get a lot of people who leave the administration, usually because at that point, the administration kind of becomes politically toxic, meaning people don't want to be associated with that administration if they want to win future elections or hold future office. So in that way, this departure is not that abnormal. I think what is different though about the Trump administration is Trump has made it clear in his second term that he's open to the idea of pardoning people in his administration. And he set this precedent with Pam Bondi, the former attorney general during the Epstein files, where she was supposed to testify to Congress, but she had been relieved of her position. And so the Trump administration's opinion was, well, if someone's no longer in that position, Congress shouldn't be able to call them for testimony. Now, of course, that breaks with all historical patterns. But I feel like a lot of these people are going to step down now because they're going to use that as leverage to say, hey, I'm no longer in the administration. I don't have So maybe as a preemptive move to give them some political cover, because do you expect a lot of people are expecting there will be a lot of congressional hearings with members of the Trump administration once the Democrats take control of the House and Senate in January? I think so. I think you're going to get a lot of hearings. I think Democrats are debating right now about which hearings and which investigations they think are best to perform, which ones they may want to hold off on. But I think the public wants to know more about what Elon Musk was doing during the early days of Doge. They want to know what Hegseth was doing in regards to the Iran war. I think they still want to know more about the handling of the Epstein files. And one of the Voters told pollsters on Election Day one of their biggest reasons for voting was their fears of corruption. And so I think they're expecting the Democrats to do some investigations to determine what levels of corruption happen to the Trump administration and hopefully hold folks accountable. There's been a lot of discussion even before November 3rd about what's next with the 2028 presidential election. The day after the midterm losses for the Republicans, Vice President J.D. Vance kind of broke from his constant alignment with President Trump and publicly said the reason the GOP lost so badly was because of the Iran war. Is he setting himself up to further distance himself from the president and run in 2028? I do think so. I think that comment was the first shot of the 2028 cycle. You know, I think that really kind of kicked things off. You know, one of the things Trump does pretty well as a president is if there's any policy that the public turns against, he likes to attach it to someone in his cabinet and then fire that person and blame them. He did this to Pam Bondi with the Epstein files. He did this to Kristi Noem with the ICE raids. And it looks To a lot of us observers, like he was trying to do this with the Iran war with J.D. Vance. You know, I think Marco Rubio was smart enough to distance himself from the Iran war, knowing it was going to be unpopular. But J.D. Vance has been a part of the negotiations. He's been a part of the meetings with officials from Iran as well. And so I think he's starting to get scared about how this very unpopular war is going to be attached to him. And so he came out against it. I will say he also, by blaming the Iran war for the loss on November 3rd, kind of gave some cover for the Trump administration because, yes, it's true, the Iran war is unpopular and everybody who I know is connected to the high gas prices, which frustrate a lot of voters. But other things that also contributed to the poor economy, the tariffs, the fights with other countries, people were also frustrated about ICE and the perception of Corruption. So to boil down the election, just the Iran war seemed very convenient for J.D. Vance. But I don't think voters are necessarily going to buy it. You mentioned Secretary of State Marco Rubio as seen as another possible contender in 2028 on the Republican ticket. Do you think he is positioning himself already for that? And there's also a report from The Independent that he is thinking about resigning. Some speculation out there that he's taking those next steps. Marco Rubio is a very adept politician. You know, I've watched his entire career, and he had a little bit of a rough start in the national stage. But since then, he's really become a skilled politician. And, for example, a lot of his worldview stands in stark contrast to Trump and MAGA. But he knew there was an opportunity for advancement, and he could even get some of his agenda passed, particularly a more hawkish. Um, policy toward Venezuela. And he's been able to stick with the Trump administration, get some of those concessions of things he wants. And he's intelligently distanced himself from a lot of the negative aspects of the Trump administration, whether it be Iran or ICE raids or Epstein. I wouldn't be surprised if he steps down now. He's got those, um, two years serving in the executive branch, which he will point to coupled with his time in the Senate to say, Hey, I'm a good contender, uh, to be the Republican party presidential candidate. And I think he's Can he come out of this unscathed though, because he is a member of the Trump administration and if the voting results from November 3rd were a rejection of the Trump administration and its policies, how can Rubio or Vance for that matter really separate themselves from it? Well, you know, I'll say right now, 2028 seems like it's really close, but in political terms, I mean, it's very far away. For example, we've been talking about the Iran war and how it affected the election here in November. I don't think anybody thought two years ago that a foreign war with Iran was going to be dominating the election cycle. So who knows where we are in I do think of twenty twenty eight is a. decision on MAGA and the Trump administration, that's going to be pretty bad for Rubio and J.D. Vance. But I think Rubio will have an easier time, it's not going to be easy, but easier time disentangling himself from the Trump administration because he's really stayed out of the limelight. He's stayed away from a lot of the negative topics, issues, policies, the Trump administration. Where J.D. Vance, I think, is going to have a much tougher time. He was in those Oval Office meetings that were broadcast by the media with, say, like Zelensky with Ukraine. He's been a part of the Iran situation and the negotiating team. So for J.D. Vance, I think it's a much bigger lift than Marco Rubio. And if those two political figures... Try to actively distance themselves from the president. Are they going to face retribution from the president? Because we know in the past Trump doesn't like it when anyone opposes him, especially publicly, especially someone seen as being within his own political orbit. Yeah, I think this is a really important point that you're bringing up here because a lot of folks have made comparison to Trump, to George W. Bush, who was also a lame duck in 2006, meaning he could not run for president again, but he was going to be president for two years and he was unpopular with Democrats controlling Congress. The difference between the two, though, is George W. Bush would allow certain senators and congresspeople to come out against him because he realized it was good for them and their race and good for the party, even if it was bad for him in that moment. Trump doesn't strike me as the type of person who's going to allow people to come out against him, and that's going to be really difficult for both J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio. A couple of that with the fact there's a lot of reporting behind the scenes that Trump likes to play games with both Rubio and J.D. Vance, trying to get them to guess who out of the two, if either, he will endorse. So I think, you know, there's going to be a question about how bad they want that endorsement as we get into 2028. And if they do indeed want it, they're going to have to be very nimble in how they distance themselves from a very unpopular administration. I'm keeping an eye on the market today because we've seen the numbers really reverse themselves, wipe out the post-election gains yesterday. And I was reading some of the analysis behind it. It seems as though chip stocks, AI stocks, anything connected to data center and data center infrastructure is not doing well on Wall Street. There's a political connection here, right, with the Democrats coming into office in January. I think so. So, you know, the stock market is kind of more of a chart of how people are feeling about the economy versus how the economy actually is. A lot of investors have said the Democratic Party may offer stability where the Trump administration doesn't. And that might be why you saw some temporary gains in the economy. But while you're seeing, I And I think a decline in places like tech and chips. Is the Trump administration has really opened up the floodgates to say, like, let all the speculation around AI continue. Let's not engage in any form of like regulation that may stop this speculation, which is turning into what some folks think is a bubble. Democrats, on the other hand, won in a lot of places where people are really frustrated with big tech, particularly data centers. I think data centers went something like 0 and 41 or something like that on recent ballot measures. So it's very unpopular. I think the industry knows that the public wants. Both transparency and regulation around A.I. You know, they want to know, is A.I. going to take my job? Is it going to end the world? They have these large questions and they'd like to see Congress put together a regulatory framework that addresses those. And Democrats are rode that desire into power. And so I think that a lot of people in industry are afraid of what's coming down. Is the Dems actually going to do some regulations that may temper this bubble, a temporary reduction in the amount of profits being made, but deliver on some of the regulations? Demands of the public. There's been a lot of questions and debates so far about what the Democrats should do as some of their first legislative priorities once they regain control of the House and the Senate. If you were advising them, what would you tell them to focus on? I was literally just going to come. I would tell them to focus on having a balance. You know, I think one thing that people want to see because corruption was such a major issue for voters, you are going to need to do some some investigations and hold people accountable, but I I would tailor those investigations and the people held accountable to folks who are engaged in behavior that actually matter to people's lives. So go for corruption that negatively affects voters, corruption people care about. Don't get into some Washington infighting game that most voters don't care about. That's exactly what voters have said they're sick and tired of, is people in Washington fighting and seemingly not doing anything for them. But holding people accountable is not just enough. Again, they don't want to see the hyperpolarization. You need to actually pass some legislation. That's going to necessitate either reaching out to Republicans to get a veto-proof majority where you can override the president, or working with the president himself. And look, President Trump has said he is willing to work with people. You can look at folks like Zoran Mamdani, who is a mayor of New York, or you can look at some foreign leaders. They found that if you play up to his ego, you compliment him, you make him feel like it was his idea, and it's going to benefit his legacy. He'll work with you. And so I think some Democrats who find, you know, Trump beyond the pale are going to have to find a way to perhaps suck it up to see where they can work with him, if at all. That would be my advice. Do you think there will be more Republicans willing to cooperate with a Democratic Congress for a veto proof majority? Does the specter of President Trump's retribution no longer hold going forward? I mean, at this moment, yeah. Trump is a very weakened political officeholder. Like, right now, I don't think anybody is really excited to get an endorsement from Trump, for example, because he's polling at so historic lows. If that continues, especially as we get closer to 2028 and some of these congresspeople are running in maybe tight races... I wouldn't be surprised if they break with the president, maybe vote for a bill that's popular, even if it's one that Trump vetoes, just so they can say, like, hey, I supported X, you know, more access to health care or something like that or more access to affordable education. They're going to want something like that in the campaign trail, wherein 2026 back in the primaries, like in May and June, really what they wanted was Trump's endorsement. They want to say I'm on Team MAGA. You know, that was a really big as Tom Massey found out the hard way. Right. I don't think that's going to be the same thing in 2028. I think folks are going to be looking outside of Trump for how to kind of signal where they are in their race. Regardless, that means for the Democrats in the next two years, they have two years to deliver on certain promises and show that they have been able to get something done. Otherwise, you're going to have a lot of one term wonders on the Democratic side in 2028. I think that's right. And unfortunately, we've seen this show over and over again where the Republicans under Bush have a big victory and it looks like they're going to run the country for decades. And then it's Obama and then it's Trump and then it's Biden and then it's Trump. I think the country is really hungry for the political class to have some vision and try and execute it over time. And Democrats with the smashing victory on November 3rd have an opportunity to start that process so they can pass some substantive legislation that communicates to voters that, hey, Washington actually cares about you. are doing some things to make your life better. You can then put that into the next election and win a bigger majority and get bigger ticket items. I think that's what Democrats in the country really need to do. All right. Political analyst Nolan Higdon coming to speak with us once again on Fox Local San Francisco. We always appreciate your time and your insight. Always an interesting conversation about what's ahead politically in the days, weeks and months, even years ahead.