On Thursday, I sat down with Hakeem Jeffries, the House Democratic leader, to discuss a range of topics, from his legislative agenda in 2026 to his plans to take back the speakership, and what Democrats can actually do to fix the country’s affordability crisis and address healthcare costs. We also talked about whether members of Congress and their families should be banned from trading stocks, and whether he’ll push to shut the government down again in January if Obamacare subsidies haven’t been extended.

A MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSOR

Big Pharma likes to boast about prescription drug discounts rather than the actual cost of their drugs. Of course, an 80% reduction sounds impressive until you realize it’s off the original price that could be millions of dollars per dose.

Pharmaceutical companies could lower prices anytime but choose protecting their profits instead. They strategically inflate prices, then blame others in the healthcare industry for affordability issues.

Don't be fooled by their percentage games and messaging. This isn’t real transparency, its calculated misdirection designed to maintain their bottom line while appearing generous and on the side of the American people.

But before all that, Jeffries went in on Vice President J.D. Vance, calling him a liar over his characterization of an Oval Office shutdown meeting in October, during which an aide plopped a “Trump 2028” hat onto the president’s desk in front of Jeffries and Senate leader Chuck Schumer. You can read what went down below the fold—and about why Trump told Jeffries that the vice president “needs more training.” The following, excerpted from my Snap show, Good Luck America, has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Peter Hamby: J.D. Vance said this week at a Breitbart event—and I think he was sort of making a joke about this—that during shutdown negotiations inside the White House, you were in the Oval Office with Trump, Vance, and Chuck Schumer, and Trump threw a MAGA hat at you and then made a photographer snap a picture of you. The implication being you were spooked and caught off guard, and that’s how Trump does business. Is that how that moment went down?

Hakeem Jeffries: Of course not. J.D. Vance is lying. Or he’s just confused. What actually happened was, in the middle of the meeting—and this is just evidence of the fact that Donald Trump is both deeply dangerous and deeply unserious at the same time—Schumer and I were talking about the need to decisively address the Republican healthcare crisis, beginning with extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits.

And out of nowhere, some random person shows up in the Oval Office, and he’s got two red hats in his hand. Donald Trump says nothing to this random person, who drops one hat in front of me, one hat in front of Schumer. It’s not a “Make America Great Again” hat. It says “Trump 2028.”

Now I’m like, Something is really wrong with this guy. So then I turn to J.D. Vance and say, “You don’t have a problem with this?” And I pointed at the hat. And Vance is like, “No comment.” And then Donald Trump jumps in and says something to the effect of, “Perhaps he needs some more training.”

About J.D. Vance?

Yes. And then everybody just moves on. Now, it was clear that Trump was determined to try to catch Schumer and me off guard and spook us in some way, shape, or form. But the only person who got spooked in that meeting was J.D. Vance, because his boss was saying, “Apparently you ain’t ready for what may come in 2028.” And I conveniently pointed that out.

The other crazy thing is, a photographer did randomly show up to try to catch a photo, apparently, that could be weaponized against myself and Schumer. But we didn’t touch those hats. They clearly had bad angles, and there was a lack of interest in Schumer and me engaging with these hats beyond pressing J.D. Vance about the Trump 2028 dynamics.

We just came out of this government shutdown in which Democrats made the fight about healthcare, but the Senate cut a deal to reopen the government without your involvement [or] guaranteeing an extension of Obamacare subsidies. Plenty of Democrats out there are asking if you guys have what it takes to really stand up to Trump when it matters. So what cards do you have left to play moving forward?

On the healthcare issue, our view in the House is that this fight is not over. We’re just getting started. We were able to raise the issue at such a level that it is now clear—the American people know—that Republicans are the ones responsible for jamming them up on their healthcare. They’ve created this healthcare crisis and now they refuse to fix it, including by burying their heads in the sand as it relates to extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits.

Our view is that the clock is still ticking. The A.C.A. tax credits expire on December 31. We’re going to continue to press the case in the House, working with our colleagues in the Senate, as it relates to getting something done. In the House, we’ve introduced a discharge petition that now has over 200 signatures that will force an up-or-down vote on a three-year extension of the Affordable Care Act tax credits, so that tens of millions of people don’t experience dramatically increased healthcare costs.

A MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSOR

Big Pharma likes to boast about prescription drug discounts rather than the actual cost of their drugs. Of course, an 80% reduction sounds impressive until you realize it’s off the original price that could be millions of dollars per dose.

Pharmaceutical companies could lower prices anytime but choose protecting their profits instead. They strategically inflate prices, then blame others in the healthcare industry for affordability issues.

Don't be fooled by their percentage games and messaging. This isn’t real transparency, its calculated misdirection designed to maintain their bottom line while appearing generous and on the side of the American people.

If you get to January and this funding bill runs out, would you refuse to vote for a bill that doesn’t include Obamacare subsidies, even if it shuts the government down again?

In my view, it’s the Republicans who made the decision to shut the government down because of their my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing from the very beginning of Donald Trump’s presidency. We’ve said that we’re willing to find a bipartisan path forward on any issue as long as it relates to a spending bill that makes life better for the American people, particularly as it concerns driving down the high cost of living. But at the same time, as Democrats, we’re unwilling to vote for a bill that continues to gut the healthcare of the American people. So we’ll have to evaluate the spending agreements that will be under discussion in January, which will include the part of the federal budget that relates directly to healthcare.

Obviously, Election Day was good for Democrats. You’ve been talking a lot about the cost of living, bringing it down, saying that Trump has been driving it up. So fast-forward to January 2027. If you’re speaker, give me a specific bill—give me two specific bills!—that you would put on the floor that could immediately address the high cost of living for people of all ages and demographics who are frustrated with their inability to get ahead in this country.

In other words: What are you going to run on in the midterms next year? What are you promising for 2027 and beyond?

We’re definitely promising a relentless focus on driving down the high cost of living, particularly in three areas: housing, healthcare, and grocery costs. We know that those are the three areas that are most directly impacting the American people right now. There are a variety of different things that we can do about it.

First of all, the federal government has to get back into the business of affordable housing, because we’ve basically walked away from it over the last 40 or 50 years. We certainly have to build more housing. We have a supply-demand problem that’s not just focused on the coasts, in New York or San Francisco or L.A. or Washington, D.C., or Boston. It’s all over the country. That provides us with an opportunity to try to actually lean in, make it easier.

What does that mean, though? Does that mean providing more federal money to build the supply of housing?

You have to be able to ensure that there are public-private partnerships to increase the supply of housing. We should also be using the tax code to help support individuals in being able to purchase homes for the first time. You’ve had Republicans pass their One Big Ugly Bill, where they enacted the largest cut to Medicaid in American history, ripped food away from the mouths of hungry children, seniors, and veterans—and all of this was done so they could enact massive tax breaks for their billionaire donors, which they made permanent.

Our view is that we can use the tax code to actually help working-class Americans, younger Americans, middle-class Americans, and everyday Americans afford to live the good life, which is what should be happening in America. Work hard, play by the rules, live the good life. Good-paying job, good housing, good healthcare, good education for your children and for your family, and a good retirement. Shouldn’t be too complicated in the wealthiest country in the history of the world. So we need to lean in on housing.

We need to lean in on healthcare, including by making sure that we extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits. We’ll work to get that done very early on if, for some reason, Trump and the Republicans continue to bury their heads in the sand. I think these Trump tariffs are raising prices on groceries and everyday goods, and we’ll work to eradicate them on day one. That could help alleviate thousands of dollars in additional expenses that the Trump tariffs are causing everyday Americans.

There’s a bill in the House right now, it’s got bipartisan support, about banning congressional stock trading. It’s called the Restore Trust in Congress Act. Do you support that specific bill? If you become speaker, would you bring that bill to the floor?

That’s a very important bill in a very important area. That specific bill, which was introduced by Seth Magaziner and Chip Roy, is certainly worthy of consideration. There are a few other bills: Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has got legislation in the pipeline; Pramila Jayapal has legislation in the pipeline; Zoe Lofgren has been working on this issue. So we’re undertaking the process to figure out how we can synthesize the legislation.

But congressional stock trading should be banned. Not a single member of the House or the Senate should be able to trade stock while they are serving. Period. Full stop. It’s something that we’re committed to doing as part of our “clean up corruption” agenda.

What about banning their family members and kids from trading stocks?

I’m personally of the view that direct family members should not be permitted to trade stock. Because that’s a loophole that you could drive a freight train through. There are other people in Congress who have different perspectives, and we’ll have to work through that. But a stock ban is a stock ban is a stock ban. You shouldn’t have loopholes that aren’t the exception—they basically become the rule.

I want to ask about artificial intelligence companies. There’s a big A.I. super PAC out there called Leading the Future. They’re funded by people from Palantir, OpenAI, Andreessen Horowitz. They’re attacking one candidate so far in New York, in the 12th district, and promising to go after more. As these companies become more powerful and the Trump administration gives them a green light to pretty much do whatever they want, do you think the Democrats should be the party of A.I. regulation in response?

We need responsible regulation in the artificial intelligence space, as is the case in every other area, particularly when you have dramatic, groundbreaking change. This should be a bipartisan issue where Democrats and Republicans come together to try to figure out two things: First, how do we harness the benefits of artificial intelligence, particularly as it relates to the possibilities of medical breakthroughs and significant societal change—which also may include the ability to close the education and achievement gaps in many traditionally under-resourced communities? How do we leverage those benefits for the good of everyday Americans—the least, the lost, and the traditionally left behind—while making sure that there are guardrails in place to prevent bad actors from seizing on this transformational technology to promote bad ends?

Last question. You’re a big rap guy. I looked this up: You wrote an essay once where you said, in high school, you either wanted to be a point guard for the Knicks or a rapper, and that as a kid, your M.C. name was Kid Fresh. So what would your M.C. name be today in 2025?

Great question. Maybe “Hak the Conqueror.” That’s what comes to mind immediately, so don’t hold me to it. But together, we’ve got to conquer this Republican majority, take back the House, and make sure that we begin the process of decisively ending this national nightmare and continue America’s march toward a more perfect union.

I’ll check that out on SoundCloud. I’m sure it’ll be fire. Thanks for joining me.

Need help? Review our FAQ page or contact us for assistance. For brand partnerships, email ads@puck.news.

You received this email because you signed up to receive emails from Puck, or as part of your Puck account associated with {{customer.email}}. To stop receiving this newsletter and/or manage all your email preferences, click here.

Puck is published by Heat Media LLC. 107 Greenwich St., New York, NY 10006