Brooks and Bouie on economic warning signs

Geoff Bennett:

From today's weaker-than-expected jobs report to the president rebranding the Pentagon, it's been another jam-packed week of news.

For analysis, we turn now to the analysis of Brooks and Bouie. That's David Brooks and Jamelle Bouie, both columnists at The New York Times. Jonathan Capehart is away this evening.

It's good to see you both.

So, as we reported, the August jobs report is out today, and the numbers are fairly bleak. The U.S. economy added just 22,000 jobs last month, well short of forecasts. The unemployment rate ticked up to its highest number in four years, a setback for President Trump, David, but it could, on the other hand, bolster his argument that the Fed should cut interest rates when it meets later this month.

How do you see it?

David Brooks:

Well, inflation is still over what the Fed wants. It's 2.9, and they set a target of 2. So they're in a bit of a pickle. They might cut a little bit, 25 basis points, but it's hard to see them cutting a lot more because of the inflation threat.

This is caused by — as Austan Goolsbee sort of suggested earlier in the program, I think it's caused by uncertainty about the tariffs, but then also the cuts in immigration. 2025 could be the first year in American history where America loses population. And immigrants, whether you like high immigration or don't, they're an economic boon to the country.

And if you take away all that labor, you're taking away a source of economic strength. One of the things that was more interesting about the report was that the number of manufacturing jobs lost last month was 12,000, and that brings the total number of lost manufacturing jobs under the Trump administration of 78,000 people.

That's not what he was promising when he was running. So he's really not helping. And, finally, the most depressing thing for me and the most concerning is attitudes about what's happening. The Wall Street Journal had a poll out earlier this week where they asked people, do you think there's a chance, any chance, your living standard will go up? Only 25 percent of Americans say that.

That's the lowest level since 1986. Something weird has happened about people's view of the country and the economy. There's a way to predict how people will view the economy based on economic statistics. And up until COVID, the statistics and the consumer sentiment rose and fall together.

After COVID, they're totally diverged. The economic statistics look pretty good, but the people's view of the economy is cratering. And that's just a generalized loss of faith, the growth of pessimism.

Geoff Bennett:

Yes.

And, Jamelle, for the first time since 2021, there are now more unemployed Americans than job openings. What does that tell us about the direction of the labor market and how does it shape the larger political debate?

Jamelle Bouie, The New York Times:

Well, the labor market is clearly weakening.

And I think that it is something that is going to be a real challenge for the administration. It's, I think, important to recognize that Trump won reelection or won this second term on essentially an economic argument: I will lower the cost of goods and services. I will ensure prosperity.

And he won narrowly on that basis. And if — his term thus far has been characterized by job losses, by slowdowns, by rising inflation, by the exact opposite of what he promised. This, to me, signals that the administration's and the president's party is simply in trouble going into the end of this year and the beginning of next year and the beginning of midterm elections, say nothing of the upcoming elections in New Jersey and Virginia, where we will start to get a sense of where the public stands with regards to Republican governance.

Geoff Bennett:

The president seizing on these jobs numbers to hammer the Fed and to hammer Democrats, how effective is that line of attack?

David Brooks:

I think it probably pleases people to hammer the Fed. I mean, they're unelected. A lot of people don't like it. Republicans don't like it.

But just to give Jerome Powell credit where it's due, never before in American history have we brought down inflation without recession. And he did it, along with the other Fed governors. So I think what they have achieved over the last several years to me is kind of remarkable. But no president likes the Fed because he wants the Fed to pump up the — or pump up — or pump down interest rates, if you can pump down something…

(Laughter)

David Brooks:

… and in order to goose the economy for an election. But that's precisely why we have an independent Fed.

Jamelle Bouie:

Right. Right. Right.

Geoff Bennett:

Well, on that point, I mean, President Trump's nominee for the open Fed governor role, Stephen Miran, at his confirmation hearing this past week said he wouldn't fully resign his position at the White House while filling this vacant seat on the Federal Reserve's board, if confirmed.

So how troubling is this dual role arrangement for the institutional independence of the Fed?

Jamelle Bouie:

I mean, I would call it very troubling. It's very clear that the president wants to undermine Fed independence, and he's trying to do everything he can to make that happen. The accusations against Lisa Cook, the supposed firing of Cook is part of this.

And I would consider this another attack on Fed independence for exactly the reasons David described. He wants to lower rates. He wants essentially the Fed to act as a kind of backstop to his own irresponsible set of economic policies with regards to tariffs and immigration.

Geoff Bennett:

Well, say more about that, this notion that the president is treating independent economic bodies as tools of political strategy, rather than tools of technocratic governance.

David Brooks:

Yes, I mean, he's a personalist. He thinks the office of the presidency is not something that belongs to the American people, but it belongs to him.

And this has been a pretty consistent theme, in fact, amazingly consistent theme, throughout his entire administration. And we relied on the idea that some things are sacred, some things you just don't do. There are lines. We all have these — like, in journalism, we're not going to be journalists and also run for office as a Democrat and Republican. We're just not going to do that. There's a line.

And the fact that they didn't — weren't intuitively and instinctively appalled by the idea of crossing that line shows that just the norm has gone away.

Geoff Bennett:

As we reported earlier this evening, President Trump signed an executive order today renaming the Defense Department the Department of War, his latest move to project military toughness. You can see the old sign there at the Pentagon coming down.

Jamelle, what does this rebranding suggest about — rather, how should we understand the symbolize — symbolism behind all of this as we also look at the administration's policy and its approach using the military?

Jamelle Bouie:

Yes.

(Laughter)

Jamelle Bouie:

I — part of me wants to say that this is just kind of silly. I mean, first of all, the executive order specifically says you can call the Department of Defense Department of War as well if you want to, but officially it is still the Department of Defense, right? That's established by congressional statute. That's not something the president kind of just changed unilaterally.

I suppose you can say that, beyond whatever P.R. thing he's looking at, it's supposed to signal the return of, as secretary of defense — I'm not going to call him secretary of war — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth says, maximum lethality.

And I suppose it's demonstrated by the recent attack on the boat allegedly of Venezuelan drug dealers. But as has emerged out of that, what we see are a lot of questions about the decision-making that went into that, about the legality of that strike.

This recommitment to lethality appears to also be kind of a P.R. thing. Like, I don't see anything strategic or interested in the national security interests of the United States. What I see here is a president who understands the entire world as a kind of television show, and secretary of war sounds better for TV than secretary of defense.

Geoff Bennett:

Do you see a through line here, the rebranding of the Pentagon, the deadly strikes on this alleged drug-running boat off the coast of Venezuela without congressional approval, the president sending federal troops into L.A. and D.C. and threatening to do the same in Chicago?

I mean, what story is the president trying to tell about himself and the power of the presidency?

David Brooks:

Yes, I don't think it rises to TV. I think it's more "Call of Duty."

(Laughter)

David Brooks:

And, you know, the Pentagon was renamed in the late '40s. And the people who were there when it was renamed were people like James Forrestal, who was secretary of defense, and then later George Marshall. And the Joint — chairman of the Joint Chiefs was Omar Bradley, literally the guys who won in World War II.

And they did not have anything to prove about their machismo. And I found that the people I admire who really have shown toughness in combat, men and women, they don't need to brag about it. They don't need to say secretary of war. They're like, no, I'm not going to do that. You will never hear one of them say, hey, let's lock and load. They just don't talk that way.

And this crew — to go from George Marshall to Pete Hegseth, that's a long way. And I'm conservative. I believe government should be careful about assuming what it knows, because the world is really complicated. And sending a missile at some ship where you don't know what's on the ship, that's just foolish.

It's killing people, potentially — well, absolutely, when you don't even know what they're doing. There's a reason we board ships, because you want to have some evidence that you're actually going after drug dealers, rather than whatever, some random 11 people on a boat. And so the targeting of ships using acts of war what should be acts of law enforcement really does cross a line to me.

Geoff Bennett:

In the time that remains, I want to talk to you both about the New York mayor's race, largely because the mayor, Eric Adams, said tonight that he is going to stay in the race and run for reelection. This is amid the reporting that the Trump administration is considering nominating him to serve as ambassador to Saudi Arabia to prompt him to exit the mayoral race and consolidate the opposition to the Democratic socialist candidate, Zohran Mamdani, potentially benefiting Andrew Cuomo.

Jamelle, why is Donald Trump so invested in making sure that Andrew Cuomo is the next mayor of New York City?

Jamelle Bouie:

I think Donald Trump, first of all, if he could have had anything in his life, it might have been to be mayor of New York City. I think in a lot of ways he's a big city mayor that escaped containment.

(Laughter)

Jamelle Bouie:

But I think he sees the elevation of Mamdani to the mayorship as just something he thinks is bad for New York. I suppose he believes it's bad for the country. He doesn't see it in its political interest and wants to see an ally, Cuomo, who has given every indication that he would cooperate with the administration, especially with immigration enforcement, in the New York mayor's office.

I think that the strategy here is probably misguided. New Yorkers do not approve of Trump. And giving Mamdani an opportunity to basically run against Trump, which is what Adams doing — Adams dropping out would do, I think would only be down to Mamdani's benefit.

Geoff Bennett:

It's striking. You have got a right-wing populist in Trump targeting a left-wing populist in Mamdani in this political era that, as you so often say, is defined by the rise of populism.

David Brooks:

Yes, though I do like sending people to ambassadorships to get them out of the way. This is a sacred tradition.

(Crosstalk)

(Laughter)

David Brooks:

I think FDR sent Joe Kennedy away. I think John F. Kennedy sent Adlai Stevenson. There was talk, I think, of sending Chris Christie during the first Trump — let's send him to Australia. So this is not the first time somebody's used an ambassadorship as an attempt to get rid of someone politically inconvenient.

Geoff Bennett:

David Brooks, Jamelle Bouie, it's good to see you both. Have a great weekend.

David Brooks:

Thank you.