The Archive

IN THIS EDITION

What Trump’s Washington might look like

Senate GOP leadership race kicks into high gear

How election week played out

Why tech is hunting for Trump team names

THE TOP

What Trump’s Washington might look like

Welcome to The Readback, our weekend digest featuring the best of Punchbowl News this week – a quick roundup of all our scoops, analysis and Capitol Hill insight you won’t find anywhere else. We’ve also included a few of our favorite outside reads from the week.

As we said in Wednesday’s Punchbowl News AM, it’s now Donald Trump’s Washington.

Trump’s resounding victory, coupled with the GOP capturing the Senate and likely retaining control of the House, will give Republicans an all red D.C. for the first time since 2018.

So what will it be like to be in Washington for a Trump presidency? Here are a few observations from the Hill.

1) Trump’s word is all that matters. Period. There were several times during the last Trump presidency when his administration negotiated legislative compromises only to find out that the president wasn’t supportive. You can only believe what Trump says. Nothing else.

2) The information flow is a gusher. Trump talks to everyone at all times. He calls members of Congress directly and has them down to the White House at all hours of the day. If you’re a reporter or a Hill aide, you should pray you can keep up with it.

3) Republicans will fall in line with most everything Trump wants. The ride will be bumpy at times, but Trump is the most popular figure in the party’s history. It will be in Republican lawmakers’ interest to line up with the president.

What I’m reading: I’m re-reading “Who Is Michael Ovitz” by legendary talent agent Michael Ovitz. I read this book years ago when it came out. I picked it up a few weeks ago for reasons not entirely clear to me.

– Jake Sherman

Listen to The Readback Podcast! Enjoying a behind the scenes look at how the biggest stories of the week came to be? Punchbowl News’ Max Cohen unpacks a key story of the week with fellow reporters in our newest podcast: The Readback. Tune in today!

Senate GOP leadership race kicks into high gear

Election Day kicked off an eight-day sprint for the Republicans vying to succeed Mitch McConnell as Senate GOP leader. In just four days, we’ll know who will serve as majority leader in the next Congress.

But leadership races aren’t sprints. They’re marathons. The three Republicans running for the job have been laying the groundwork for years — long before McConnell announced in February that he’d be stepping aside.

Despite all of that, many Republicans are still mulling who to support. It’s also unclear whether President-elect Donald Trump will weigh in. Some want him to, others don’t.

Covering a leadership race is the ultimate game of inside baseball. Lawmakers often compare them to popularity contests. There’s a good deal of truth to that. But there’s also a ton of work — especially from senior aides — that goes into it. Votes are courted not just in Washington, but also on the campaign trail.

All of that will be put to the test this coming week, when Republicans will choose between Senate Minority Whip John Thune, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.).

You might be surprised to know that, even at this late stage, most GOP senators are undecided. They’ve long known this was coming, but the election results were always going to have an impact. And some senators are torn between Thune and Cornyn out of a belief that there are few differences between the two.

One thing that’s consistent across the GOP conference, however, is that pretty much everyone wants a departure from McConnell‘s way of doing business.

To that end, all three candidates are proposing varying degrees of changes to the conference’s rules in a way that would empower the rank-and-file on everything from appropriations to the amendment process on the Senate floor.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), who’s been whipping for Thune, said McConnell has always been too focused on pushing his own perspective to the conference, rather than making a decision based on what a majority of the conference wants.

“I get along with Mitch so this is no backhand to him at all,” Mullin told us in an interview this week. “But he has a lot of ideas and would try to sell his own ideas.”

Senators “want that backwards,” Mullin added. “They want the members to have a say on the way forward before the leader makes his own mind up.”

In just a few short days, we’ll know who will get the unique and rare opportunity to chart a new path forward for Senate Republicans.

What I’m watching: Eagles-Cowboys. Tomorrow. I know the Cowboys are banged up, but the Birds need a decisive win. Let’s get it!

— Andrew Desiderio

How election week played out

The 2024 cycle came to a close this week, with Election Day capping a wild campaign season. On Tuesday night, the Punchbowl News team gathered at our Capitol Hill headquarters to track the results.

We loaded up on pizza from Wiseguy (cheese, buffalo chicken, pepperoni and a gluten free pie), tons of snacks (Lays, Sun Chips and Stacy’s) and a whole lot of adrenaline.

It was my first real election night spent surrounded by colleagues and my first presidential election in a newsroom. In 2022, I was the lone Punchbowl News representative at the House Republican watch party at a D.C. hotel. Expecting a substantial red wave, GOP leadership gathered reporters and supporters for what they thought would be a comfortable evening. That night didn’t go to plan, and it wasn’t until 2 a.m. that then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy declared victory.

In a reflection of the fine margins of this cycle, no campaign committee or party leadership team held a D.C. watch party with media this time. So many races were too tight for any campaign arm to project confidence.

Entering the evening, I spoke to NRCC Chair Richard Hudson and DCCC Chair Suzan DelBene to hear their takes. Both sides projected optimism. Looking back, Hudson’s predictions appeared to be on the nose as House Republicans are on the verge of retaining their majority.

In Iowa, Hudson dismissed the Ann Selzer poll that had Democrats up as “flawed” and said both vulnerable GOP incumbents — Reps. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Zach Nunn — would win. Both are on track to prevail. Hudson also said Republicans had a “good shot” at defeating Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.), who lost in one of the night’s biggest shocks.

As results started pouring in, we immediately began hearing from nervous Democrats who didn’t like what they were seeing in Vice President Kamala Harris’ performance. Former President Donald Trump locked up Georgia and North Carolina, while the Blue Wall states followed into the early hours of Wednesday morning. The race was called for Trump soon after.

Republicans won tough Senate races, knocking off incumbent Sens. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.). And the House map looked promising for Republicans, leading to an increasingly likely GOP trifecta.

As votes trickled in throughout the week, we began hearing theories from disillusioned Democrats on why the party fell short. Some blamed an erosion of support from working-class voters and suggested reviving the Blue Collar Caucus. Others said the party’s left-wing voices were toxic in swing districts.

Overall, Democrats really thought they could win the House and came to terms with the fact that it was looking unlikely. But there wasn’t as much anger as one would expect from an internal Democratic caucus call on Thursday. While the mood was somber, some lawmakers took solace in the news that their candidates outperformed the top of the ticket in many cases.

What I’m reading: The New York Times delivered a comprehensive postmortem of the presidential race. The captivating story featured an eye-opening anecdote about how a Trump ad on transgender issues moved voters toward the GOP.

– Max Cohen

Why tech is hunting for Trump team names

The first time I covered a Donald Trump presidential transition, I started by standing in the press pen at the lobby of Trump Tower and trying to recognize people taking the elevator. Honestly, I didn’t get much farther than that.

Back in 2016, the once-and-current president-elect had a small campaign and few connections in the policy world. Better reporters than me got details on potential personnel and priorities.

There was a lot of confusion for all of us, though. In the first days after the election, we kept hearing that companies didn’t even know who Trump allies or points of contact were. They also had no idea what the president-elect wanted.

Not so much anymore.

This week, I wrote about tech’s first moves on AI and digital trade following Trump’s win, which include trying to rekindle some first-administration efforts. I also discussed Michael Kratsios and Gail Slater, alumni from Trump’s first administration who, we’ve learned, will be leading the tech policy aspects of the transition.

The story reminded me what names can tell us about what’s next.

Take Kratsios, who was U.S. chief technology officer under Trump. Like Vice President-elect JD Vance, Kratsios comes from the Peter Thiel corner of the venture capital world. When Kratsios was in Trump’s first administration, he was already working to get ahead of China on AI and quantum computing.

Kratsios may not necessarily be Big Tech’s guy, but his initial priorities may well match the industry’s hopes for investment in tech and focus on AI.

Then there’s Slater. She previously worked at the Internet Association (the defunct trade group for platform companies) and at Fox Corp. Few tech policy experts have done stints with Big Tech and Big Content the way Slater has since the industries were at each other’s throats for most of the Obama years.

So, both camps may be comfortable enough with Slater, though Big Tech is probably a bit unnerved by her current position with Vance too. After all, the Ohio senator is fond of anti-corporate, pro-antitrust pronouncements.

I’ve heard the transition wants to hear from all kinds of tech stakeholders. It’s still connecting with key lawmakers on the Hill and collecting names for positions too.

Knowing who’s leading the process is not the same as knowing how it ends up.

After all, Trump has the final say but is unpredictable and scanty on policy details. Knowing who he previously hired isn’t quite as helpful either. He’s unlikely to bring on officials from his first administration who denounced him as unfit to take office again.

Still, names like Kratsios and Slater give a glimpse of what I wished I’d been able to find out in 2016. Tech, I bet, feels the same way.

What I’m reading: On the work side, I’m bummed to catch up on the layoffs at OpenSecrets.org, the database on money in politics that is a secret weapon for so many reporters. On the fun side, as the proud owner of a new set of stand mixer pasta attachments, I’m going back to my Marcella Hazan cookbooks.

– Ben Brody