Transcript of GOP Pushback On Trump, DNC 2024 Election Autopsy Report, Trump's Interest In Cuba New

Congress left Washington without meeting the president's deadline to pass immigration funding.

Money for his ballroom was blocked, and even some Republicans are questioning his anti-weaponization fund. Is a new chapter of GOP pushback beginning?

I'm Steve Inskeep, with Leila Fadel, and this is Up First from NPR News. Democrats released a long-delayed report on their 2024 election defeat. Their data is inconclusive and the economy is only mentioned a few times in the whole report. Are Democrats learning the right lessons?

And President Trump is hinting at military action in Cuba.

Other presidents have looked at this for 50, 60 years doing something, and, uh, it looks like I'll be the one that does it.

The US charged former Cuban President Raúl Castro with murder, and it's drawing comparisons to the capture of Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro. Stay with us. We'll give you the news you need to start your day. The week ends with what appears to be growing discord within the GOP.

House Republicans called off a vote Thursday night on a resolution that would have restrained the president's war powers. House Speaker Mike Johnson wanted Republicans to defeat that measure, but he couldn't round up enough support to do so, so he didn't allow them to vote at all. Both the House and Senate left for a week-long recess, also without meeting President Trump's June 1st deadline to pass his his top priority. That was funding immigration enforcement for the next 3 years through what's called a reconciliation bill.

Why the impasse? And what does it say about the state of congressional Republicans' relationship with Trump? Here to help us answer those questions is NPR congressional correspondent Barbara Sprunt. Hi, Barbara.

Hi, good morning.

Was the immigration enforcement funding pushback because of anything related to immigration?

No, I mean, reconciliation is complicated. It's a delicate process, but that's not what's actually causing the drama this time. Senate Republicans seemed poised to pass that funding, and then President Trump made some new demands, and a critical mass of GOP senators just couldn't stomach some of them.

Was the ballroom one of the demands?

Yes, one of them. This has been a priority for the president for some time. Originally, he said it would be funded through private donations, uh, after the shooting at the Correspondents' Dinner. The framing around the the ballroom shifted into making it a secure facility, and it has since ballooned to about a billion-dollar project, and the president wanted Congress to pay for its additional security. That portion did not adhere to strict reconciliation rules and had to be taken out. And then number 2 is a nearly $2 billion anti-weaponization fund, which basically is aimed at giving money to people who claim that they've been wronged by the government, uh, and that could include funding the people who ransacked the Capitol and attacked police on January 6th. There were a number of Republican senators who right out of the gate said they were blindsided by this. Of course, this is money that hasn't been appropriated by Congress, and enough Senate Republicans were alarmed over the plan and wanted to address it before they passed this immigration funding.

What do you think this says about the state of the relationship between the president and senators in his own party?

You know, I think to say like tension is brewing, that's an understatement. Um, this last week alone, the president endorsed primary challenger Ken Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, against sitting Republican Senator John Cornyn, who the president likely needs to get his agenda items passed. He's also worked to oust other Republican incumbents like Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who ultimately lost his primary election. And what happened after that? Cassidy came out publicly against the ballroom funding. He gave the key vote to advance a stalled war powers resolution that would compel the Trump administration to pull back from the conflict with Iran. And he criticized this anti-weaponization fund. So what I'm curious about is, does this mark a new chapter, and not just a few pages, of an emboldened group of Senate Republicans who up till now have been much more hesitant to push back on the president?

Now, Congress is out next week for the Memorial Day holiday. What happens when they come back?

Well, one interesting thing is a bipartisan effort in the House to kill that anti-weaponization fund led by Democratic Congressman Tom Suozzi and Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick. And we expect reconciliation will still be dealt with in some way or another. The The question that I'm thinking about and what I'll be watching to see is, does the president reconsider what he's pushing for here?

That's NPR's Barbara Sprunt. Thank you, Barbara.

Thank you.

Democrats have been trying to understand what went wrong for them in 2024, although apparently some aren't really sure they want to look.

The Democratic National Committee commissioned a review of the 2024 election to see what lessons they could learn. That review has been ready for months but was not released until Thursday.

The autopsy, though, raises more questions than it does answers. NPR's Stephen Fowler covers the future of the Democratic Party and is here to answer our questions. Good morning, Stephen.

Good morning.

So political parties often seek out those introspective reviews after major defeats. What's different about this one?

Well, for starters, the fact it wasn't actually published at first. To recap things, DNC Chair Ken Martin commissioned this autopsy. It was delivered in December 2025, and he shelved it, saying at the time that basically, uh, we've learned we're winning in special elections. We just had the successful November general election. Let's focus on the plan. That plan centers around year-round organizing, investing more in state parties, and finding a message beyond just being anti-Trump, which is included in this report. However, Martin said that while he disavows this report, he apologized for not releasing it at the time and for not being more transparent about that decision.

If a lot of what's in the report is the same as Martin's current plan, why does he disavow it?

Well, the report as delivered was incomplete, full of incorrect claims that were also impossible to verify, but the DNC said that they would put it out anyway, and put it out they did. All 192 pages, each one stamped with a disclaimer that the DNC was not provided with, quote, the underlying sourcing, interviews, or supporting data for many of the assertions contained herein. The tentative title for the report, Build to Win, Build to Last, was constructed on shaky foundational information, the DNC asserts in numerous red line annotations throughout this document. And in what is a fitting metaphor, there literally is no conclusion included.

Oh my gosh. So there's so much that's not in here, but it's almost 200 pages. What is in the document?

Well, if you were looking for any sort of discussion about key issues voters said were important, like the cost of living, Gaza, Biden's age, you're not going to find very much there. Biden's name is mentioned only a small number of times. The White House is blamed for not preparing former Vice President Kamala Harris enough. There's a lot of talk about paid media strategies and advertising, random factually inaccurate things about the North Carolina governor's race. The economy is mentioned just 6 times, the word affordability just once.

Okay, so that election was 2024. This report was done in 2025, and now it's 2026. I mean, how much does this matter?

It depends on who you ask. There's a contingent of folks who have not been happy with the leadership of Ken Martin as DNC chair the last year and a half. They want the party to raise more money, do more to push back against the Trump agenda. To the average voter, uh, they know why they did or didn't vote for Democrats in 2024. We know that Democrats have been overperforming in 2025 and are poised to have massive victories in 2026, but the average voter could not tell you what the DNC does or notice anything different with how it's run. Here's where it does matter though. It points to this disconnect where people don't like the national party brand and party leaders but love their local Democrat. That dynamic means the national party is probably going to be pretty weak heading into the 2028 presidential nominating process where it actually does matter and have a lot of sway.

That's NPR's Stephen Fowler in Atlanta. Thank you, Stephen.

Thank you.

The Trump administration's words and deeds about Cuba have drawn comparisons to this year's strike on Venezuela.

A U.S. aircraft carrier has arrived in the Caribbean Sea. The Justice Department, which acts on the president's preferences, obtained an indictment of former Cuban President Raúl Castro. And the president says he wants to, quote, "open Cuba for Cuban Americans." "Other presidents have looked at this for 50, 60 years doing something, and it looks like I'll be the one that does it." NPR White House correspondent Franco Ordoñez is here.

Good morning.

Good morning, Lynne.

So tell us more about why this indictment might be a prelude to a military operation.

Yeah, ever since U.S. forces captured the Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro, I mean, Trump has been threatening military action against Cuba. I mean, he's gone as far as saying he can do, quote, anything he wants with the country. And Emily Mandrella, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State covering Cuba, told me that the indictment fits into a pattern of events that really have echoes of that operation against Maduro.

It's hard to understand exactly what the consequence of this indictment could be unless you look to Venezuela and the predicate for a U.S. military action in early January, where there was an indictment of Nicolás Maduro that the U.S. government used as its justification for engaging in that military action.

And she says the comparisons also include increased surveillance, high-level meetings between the two countries, and a buildup of military assets. Steve, of course, mentioned the aircraft carrier.

How different is the situation with Cuba from Venezuela?

Well, I mean, it's very different. Cuba does not have the same petroleum reserves that Venezuela does. It doesn't have petroleum reserves. The governing model is different. I spoke to John Bolton, who served as the National Security Advisor in the first Trump administration. And he says it's certainly in America's interest and the interest of the Cuban people to see the regime removed from power. But he says the Venezuela model just won't work in Cuba. And he questions whether the US is prepared for actual regime change in Cuba and what that would really involve.

And we need to know we've got the capability to do that and have thought through how to do it. In particular, have we really communicated with people in Cuba who would be responsible as the Castro regime collapses.

I mean, he's concerned that the US hasn't adequately coordinated with dissidents who would really bear the greatest part of the risk if this does go forward, including the brunt of repression if it doesn't work out.

Does Trump's interest in Cuba make sense?

I mean, maybe not politically because it's another example of foreign intervention. In this case, there's no oil to obtain or a nuclear weapon to stop, but it does make sense from Trump's lens of a personal legacy. As we heard at the top, he likes to say that he's done things that his predecessors were unable to do, and it's something his friends and allies are very interested in, including his Cuban American supporters and some aides. I mean, he lives in Florida and is surrounded by staff who are passionate about this issue, and of course, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been a driving force in this effort. He's the son of Cuban immigrants and has spent a good part of his his career pushing for regime change in Cuba.

That's White House correspondent Franco Ordoñez. Thanks, Franco.

Thank you, Leila.

And that's Up First for Friday, May 22nd. I'm Leila Faldun.

And I'm Steve Inskeep. Today's Up First was edited by Kelsey Snell, Megan Pratz, Luis Clemens, Mohamed El Bardisi, and John Stolmes. It was produced by Ziad Batch and Nia Dumas. Our director is Christopher Thomas. He points, we talk. We get engineering support from Stacy Abbott, and our technical director is Carly Strange. Our executive producer is Jay Shaler. Join us Monday.