If I told you on the 3rd of January 2027 that Democrats had the House, how much would that move your estimate that a defence bill is law by the 31st of March?

we decided by the beginning of January that they did have the majority, that the Democrats had the majority.

Look, I think I start from the question of whether or not it's likely in any scenario for a full year defense appropriations to actually be passed and passed in some sort of timely fashion.

And I think You know, experience in recent history, five, ten years, would suggest that's unlikely in any event, no matter what the configuration of the political system is in Washington.

They've sort of settled into this habit of governing and spending by continuing resolution, which is to say they just kick the can down the road over and over and over again because they can't quite agree.

That said, I think that Dana's right.

There is going to be an enormous amount of pressure on the Democrats to do anything they can to block anything that Trump wants to do.

do you think he would want a visible fight over the pentagon's budget this time or does he need this one quiet for some of the reasons that you've both outlined

Uh, the rapid approval system, how did it come to be, and how has the Interior Department responded?

Yeah, so I did a story in June that found, uh, y- reviewed other, uh, National Park Service documents that showed about $800 million less was being spent at parks outside of DC and $100 million more in DC.

And I, uh, it, it struck me odd at, odd at the time 'cause there was a gap there.

Congressional funding has basically been level during that time.

One of the things that's really d- dragging all of this down is that Doge came in, and there was a huge reduction in contracting workforce.

A lot of the contracting officers at the parks were moved up into the Interior Department.

And I got documents for this story that showed, uh, you know, in one, in one case 133 projects were ready to go outside the country but weren't being done.

But this seems to be, uh, an excruciatingly difficult get creative moment given personnel restraints, but also just trying to get onto a list [laughs] that is prioritized or White House related seems to be the make or break here.

Mm-hmm

... and then added to that you had the projects the president was already doing at the White House and around the White House.

And, and as a result, you know, well more than, uh, uh, uh, $100 million has gone into, uh, the Washington region for a whole lot of projects.

You know, some of the projects that, that I mention in this current report are not just actual, you know, monuments or buildings.

They're hiring 450 new park police as part of the safe and beautiful effort.

And so they're getting new tasers, new body armor, uh, new flock cameras for, for the DC area, uh, to, to basically build up this federal police f- force i- in the Washington, DC area.

Th- th- there's been p- uh, a request made for a new helicopter for the park police, a new boat for the park police up, uh, in New York.

Michael, can you pick up on the point that Angelo's making there about the long tail of all of this?

What does he think has changed?

I think there are a couple of emotional reasons that, uh, might have prompted this move as well as some pragmatic ones.

I, I think the emotional ones are, one, his children.

Uh, Me-Meghan and Harry have expressed a desire to have the children have some connection to Harry's homeland, to, to Britain, uh, and not just be raised as, uh, as Americans.

They've spent m- almost all their lives, both of the kids, in the United States.

And so I think there's that emotional connection.

And I think the other one is, um, is, is the king.

Uh, and so, you know, how far the British state should pay for them, and also actually, maybe a broader question, is what non-working royals are actually gonna do in the United Kingdom?

Why, why sit on the sidelines when the future, uh, security, their future security i- is, is at stake? It's, it's an interesting sort of sense of impotence playing out in real time.

Right.

And I, and I think, uh, there's probably lots of answers, but I think one of the big ones is that Trump has engineered, um, leverage for the United States that makes the other countries around the world, actually, but, but especially in Europe, um, feel like they have even less power than they, they probably felt they had before.

So the fear of, "If we interfere with what the United States wants, uh, President Trump is gonna, you know, post something about tariffs, or he's gonna, you know, uh, take away some, leave some sort of deal that we had arranged already." I mean, there i-- He is more willing than any other president that we've had, certainly in recent times, to wield levers of power that, that aren't o- obviously relevant from one to the other, and, and that has put all of these other nations on the back foot.

You know, s- so why do they not get involved? Why do they let Trump, you know, um, steer the ship, essentially? I think, I think in part because they're afraid of, of the consequences if they, if they step out of line, in his view.

I, I would also add two other points to, to what has already been said.

One, I think there, you know, to Susan's point about what this deal is and isn't, in essence, what this quote-unquote deal is, is solving a problem that didn't exist before Donald Trump himself started the war.

So what do you think the Pope is actually trying to accomplish here, and how is it landing in Washington?

Uh, how did we get to what happened today?

today?...

Yeah, I mean, it's a good, it's a good point.

I mean, look, the, the, um, the media environment here is pretty rabid.

We have a culture, uh, the British newspapers are, many of them are tabloids.

Uh, they're like a dog with a bone, and I think, um, the reaction in these last few weeks to, uh, what Tara and you have described as this, you know, onslaught of documents and, and revelations, has been pretty relentless.

And so I think, uh, there came a point in the last, you know, couple of weeks where the King acknowledged finally that, uh, uh, in a statement, that he would cooperate fully with the police if there was an arrest.

W- I mean, does that- I, I, I ne- I guess you need to understand the baseline of how the royal family is held, what his place in it is, and whether or not this damages the brand, if you will, of, of the modern royals.

Right.

What would be unheard of is if it goes to the end of the road, as David said, especially in a court where, you know, six of the nine recently ruled in Trump's favor in Trump... In the, in the, um, election interference, uh, uh, case and, and three of them, he appointed. So if he, if he defies this court, that will be a remarkable moment, I think.

Mm-hmm.

It's also true that a lot of the things his administration wants to do, it needs the Court to change c- current legal interpretation to do. He needs judges. He- either he's gonna go, you know, totally r- rip up the Constitution and go it alone or he's gonna do what they've said they're going to do, which is to challenge birthright citizenship, to challenge the Impoundment Act, to challenge all these laws that are on the books right now, they're interpreted as legal right now that he doesn't think are legal. And- and so I think a way of looking at what this is... What- what he's doing here and he did in the first term is he's- he's threatening judges. He's saying, "Look. I'll make your life hard if you defy me. I'm gonna call you out. I'm gonna make everything difficult around you." And he's- he's doing a Bobby Knight. He's throwing the chair, you know, into the middle of the basketball court.