Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of the show.
This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.
So if that is something that's important to you, please go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints dot com.
Welcome to our recurring segment Get to Know a Senator. The previous guests have been JdE Vance, Ted Cruz, Alyssa Slotkin, Jeff Markley, who else.
We let's see see Bernie. We've had Bernie.
Oh, we had Bernie.
Yeah.
Anyway, So if your boss hasn't been on there yet, reach on out to us. But today we're talking to Senator Chris van holland Senator Van Allen.
Thank you so much for joining us here.
I really appreciate it's great to be with both of you. One thing and this was kind of the bait to get you into the studio that I wanted to talk to you about was and I don't know if you remember this, many many years ago I mentioned to you that before the Iraq War, I had been among twenty thirty people at a talk you gave at the University of Maryland where you laid out in incredibly prescient detail like why we should not invade Iraq and what would
happen if we did. Unfortunately, as Penties know, as we did and those things happened. With the helpier staff, we actually found evidence that this happened. If we can put up this element on the screen. This is from the Diamondback, which is the student newspaper for the University of Maryland. So Monday, March third, twenty two thousand and three, this is an advertisement for a talk that Congress and Chris van Holland would be giving from twelve to one thirty pm.
You had just been elected November of two thousand and two, so you're sworn in in January of two thousand and three, and the war starts within within two months. So just briefly lay out for us, like how did you see what others didn't and what did you think was going to happen?
And well, thanks for bringing that up.
And I actually remember that speech on the House floor because it's one of the earlier ones.
I'd just been elected.
Well and you gave a speech on the House floor like a week later. Yeah exactly, yeah exactly. And look, this sort of brings us to the moment where in now with respect to many challenges.
But when it came to Iraq, I mean, we all recognized that Saddam Hussein was a bad dictator. I would have liked to see him go. But the question was how do you most successfully do that? And the Bush administration's answer was you invade Iraq. And the problem is when you go in and break stuff, you really need to know what's going to happen next. It's easy to go in and break stuff. It's building stuff back that's
really hard. And nation building is something that is I think we've learned the hard way that we should not be engaged in.
So yeah, look, so that was opening.
I called it Pandora's box, right, because what we did was when we went into Iraq, we unleashed all these forces, right, the different sectarian forces within Iraq and then we tried to put a cap on them, and that didn't work, and the result was American forces on the ground for a long time, thousands of Americans killed, thousands and thousands of Iraqis killed, and the end result was actually to strengthen Iran right by getting rid of remember saying we
strengthened Iran because they had been mortal enemies. I mean, they'd fought a war against one another. So the biggest beneficiary from the US going into Iraq was Iraq.
Yeah, you know, I when I expressed a lot of admiration for you and the courage that you've had on Gaza, you know, I know that was very difficult, especially under the Biden administration, going down to a Olsavador with kilmar bergo Garcia at a time when there were other democrats ors.
Oh, we shouldn't talk about this. This isn't a good issue for US.
I'm curious how you sort of arrived at your worldview. I know you're born in Pakistan and your parents I think when was a state department one with Cia. You know, what has that journey been like so that you came to that place where you were able to see what many weren't on Irock and have continued to be able to see some things that people are either not willing to see or unable to see.
So you're right.
I grew up in a foreign service family career. My father was a career diplomat. He went into the Navy and then into the Foreign service. He married my mom, who was at the forerunner to the CIA. Okay, at the time, she was a Russian language expert. She was the daughter of an English teacher, but she became a Russian language expert. So look growing up overseas and it's kind of like a military family.
You go overseas, you come back. But it does get you thinking about what does America stand for?
And I was proud to represent or be part of a family that represented the United States overseas. It also causes you to hold up a mirror and say, are we as good at home as we say we are? And in terms of my worldview, I believe in the power of America's example in addition to the power of
our military. And I think it's really important that we recognize, especially at a moment like we're in right now, that that has really benefited us over time and we're throwing away the power of our example standing up for principles overseas. But it also you know, I remember very clearly in Sri Lanka because my father was posted in Sri Lanka going to a village and in the hut that belonged to the head of the village, there was a photograph on the wall and it's kind of hard to see was dim light.
It was a photograph of John F. Kennedy.
Why was that there because the Peace Corps had been to that village and help with their water and sanitation. So I've always believed that the United States can play a very important role around the world through the power of its example and not the overly reliant on the power of our military.
Now you would come to your knowledge of the sectarian situation in Iraq in a curious wave in the you get this story a little bit for our audience. So in the early nineties, you and Peter Gallbraith, who was actually a brother of a friend of mine, James Gallbrath, then happened to be the son of John Kenneth Gallbright, the famous twentieth century economists. You guys are hill staffers and do a very unhill staffer thing, which is sneak
into northern Iraq, the Kurdish region. Yeah, grab a whole bunch of documents and interviews with people there, and prove that Sodam Hussein had used chemical weapons that presumably we had sold him on the Kurdish people, Like how did you get in? How does the boss sign off on that? And what what did you like? How did that shape
your your politics? Knowing that our ally had done this with our I don't know, not with our backing, because but we kind of encouraged the Kurds to rise up and then we let him gas them with our chemical weapons.
Like yeah, so you've yeah, I'm glad you brought this up.
You're right. I was a staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations.
Committee in the nineteen nineties. Actually, I'm sorry, in the nineteen eighties. This is late nineteen nineteen eighty eightish, and Saddam Hussein had unleashed his chemical weapons on the Kurds in the northern part of Iraq, and so, yes, Peter Gabraith and I traveled to the Turkish Iraq border.
We crossed into Iraq.
Most of the interviews we did were with the Kurdish refugees who had fled into Turkey, and there were just these massive camps, and we actually camped out on the border. How we got permission to do it, I don't know, But we then interviewed a lot of the members folks in these camps who gave us sort of first hand accounts of Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons because a lot of people were denying it. And I remember to this day to your point on who provided the precursor chemicals.
It wasn't necessarily sold the chemical weapons with the material that was used.
I remember American chemical companies.
Lobbying against the legislation we proposed when we got back, because we proposed full sanctions on Saddam Hussein economic sanctions at the time, and we were able to ultimately get that out of the Senate that died in the House. But there's no doubt that the United States had sided with Saddam Hussein during that Iran Iraq war.
And so yes, the hypocrisy.
Of on the one hand, providing support to Saddam Hussein and then turning around and trying to condemn his use, which was right to condemn, is something that always stood out to me.
I love to get your sort of before we zoom in more specifically to the immediate moment. I love to get your sense of how we ended up here, I was saying earlier in the show, like at least then Bush neocons felt the need to make some public case and like gin up some fake story about weapons of mass destruction. Now we're so downgraded in the war propaganda that we get machine guns and you know, them just out and out saying no, it's for the oil. Like we're just we want the oil. We're going to run
the place. It's ours complete colonial project. But you know, people are also right in pointing out that, you know, we did do something similar in Panama, it had more sort of like moralism and justification wrapped around it. So do you see those past interventions over years sort of leading us to this place now where we just out and out are like global thugs that if you have something we want, we're just going to come in and take it.
So I think that when you're talking about going into Iraq, that was heavily pushed by the neocons, who stated public purpose anyway was to bring democracy to places in the Middle East, including Iraq.
At the barrel of a gun.
And if we've learned any lesson it should be that you cannot by force just transform in a whole society. In the case of Venezuela, it is all about the oil. I mean I came out very early and said, you know, this is all about the oil. And then Donald Trump gets up the next day and says, it's all.
About the oil.
And of course with this administration, the Trump administration, more than in any other earlier conflict, it's all about making money for Trump's billionaire.
Friends, like you know, and for himself and himself and his family.
I mean, if you look at what's happening across the Middle East and the Gulf States, I mean the corruption is just so gross. I mean, everything everything they touch, they're trying to transform into dollars for Trump and his.
Family and his billionaire buddies.
I mean, if you look at Venezuela, it's not necessarily so much the oil companies, although in the long run they they may benefit. But they're people like Paul Singer, who is this huge Trump donor who bought Citgo out of bankruptcy in November, and others like that who are huge beneficiaries of this and had sort of been you know, told about it.
I mean, they people, you know, they knew that this might happen.
So I will say that this administration, the corruption piece.
Is just prevalent throughout.
Yeah, so I'm curious, Yeah, how you view American power abroad given that these mask off moments that we've had, whether it's the Iraq War, whether it's going into Venezuela. And I'll put the question to you in terms of the country you do understand quite well, haven't been born there Pakistan. And in twenty twenty two, when the Russia Ukraine War breaks out, the Prime Minister at the time, in Ron Khan says that he's going to remain neutral
in this war. US wanted Pakistan producing shells for Ukraine.
US wanted Russia to be isolated. The State Department told him that they found that to be offensive and they called it a posture of aggressive neutrality, which is kind of a bizarre term to begin with, and told the ambassador that if a vote of no confidence was held and Immoran Khan was removed from power, relations between the United States would be better and quote all all would be forgiven was the phrase that this this one diplomatic I think you think, you know, Don Low would used
Since then the military has basically taken over a dictatorial control in Pakistan, and the and the US through Biden and then through Trump completely behind them, like no pretense of you know, support for Pakistani democracy, So that that's more of a mask on American power moment. So is is that like, is that who we are globally? Like, at what point do we say that the United States is this is this is just what we do. Sometimes we do it politely behind the scenes. Sometimes we do
it with with guns. Sometimes we do it with a delta force, sometimes we do it with an occupation force. How and how have you kind of confronted that as somebody who has kind of grown up in that in that in that where there's this belief among the Foreign Service that we are with the Peace Corps, were living up to these values around the world, Like are.
We so well, we're certainly not at this particular moment, and we've never been perfect by any means, But I do believe that if you talk to Foreign Service officers and others, you know, representing the United States around the world, supporting the principles of human rights, rule of law, freedom and democracy is an important part of what we stand for, and I would argue it's a very important part of why the United States does have influence.
Now. I know you did a lot of reporting on Pakistan. You're absolutely right.
If you look at Pakistan today, it's hard to call it a democracy. You know, they have the elements of the democracy, but in terms of how it's functioning, so much of the control right now, as you know, as in the Army chief of Staff and you know, I've written to the Pakistani ambassador here. He didn't love my letter pointing out that, you know, we need free and fair elections in Pakistan. So there's another example where we are saying one thing and doing another. Although I will
say with the Trump administration, they've thrown entirely overboard. Yeah, the idea that we represent these values, I mean, they think they're archaic. In my view, it's not that we it's that we should do better actually in implementing those values as part of our foreign policy.
I mean we see double standards across the board.
I mean, supporting the net Yahoo government you know, throughout the war and Gaza even as they violated not just international law but American law, and the Biden administration and the Trump administration as well, nothing about it. So that's a double standard, and that undermines our strength around the world,
especially in the Global South. But now you have an administration that just very explicitly has thrown the whole idea that America stands for these principles overboard in favor of you know, as Steve Miller said the other.
Day, we got the power, We'll do what we want.
Can you take us a little bit inside the conversations that you were having with the Biden administration during what we can get into, you know, I say it's a genocide. Agree with the international consensus. We can get to whether you agree.
With that or not.
But during the genocide and Gaza which is ongoing, what were your conversations like with the Biden administration, you know, when you were bringing to them information about the way that aid was being blocked, for example, after having been on the ground, how did they square that circle? How did they continue to hold this aspirational view that America is a force for good in the world at the same time that we're shipping the bombs that are you know, part of these horrific atrocities.
Well, you're right, that's.
An example of a clear double standard and contradiction. And you know, I reached out to them pretty early on in the Gaza where they abide administration to point out that, you know, the government of Israel was restricting humanitarian assistance, that we were witnessing and discriminate bombing, and that there were violations ongoing violations not just of international law but
US law. Right, we have a law in the books with respect to provision of humanitarian aid that if a country is you know, restricting humanitarian aid in a place where they're also using our weapons, that we cut off support of our weapon transfers. And they just tried, they bobbed and weaved, and in the end of the day, I really think they did great damage to our credibility around the world.
Let alone, you know, the.
Number of people have been killed in Gaza. We're witnessing this right now, not only in Gaza, in the West Bank. You know, I call what's happening in the West Bank slow motion ethnic cleansing. I mean, every day you're hearing more and more about violence, settlers taking more land belonging to Palestin Indians and essentially with impunity, and they're they're.
Backed up by.
The IDF, because they're backed up by people like Ben Giver and Smotrich, these very right wing extremists, and by Netan Yahoo. So this is a moment where, you know, the United States, the idea that we're standing up for principles has been thrown overboard. I mean, unfortunately it was done over a period of time, but now the Trump administration has made it explicit. I believe, if asking, I believe the United States actually does need to be consistent.
We're never perfect, but these are really important parts of who we are as a country. It's part of the American identity. I don't think it's entirely a myth. I think we we do stand for those things. Ronald Reagan talked about the shiny City on the Hill, and Republicans have now thrown that whole idea overboard.
So let me ask you. You have the International Association of Genocide Scholars who say it's a genocide. They join Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch. There are various Israeli human rights organizations like Budslom who agree with that. Do you accept the international consensus that this is a genocide?
So I think the overwhelming evidence points to the fact that this is a genocide. You've seen scholars, including many scholars of the Holocaust, your scholars at Hebrew University, Brown University, and others.
I've not made an independent legal conclusion.
I've made it very explicit that this is ethnic cleansing. But regardless of what you call it, it is.
You don't have to worry about a huge I have one one SoundBite we're going to play for you, as though.
Okay, it's a huge Watching what's happening is just it seems to me anybody with the conscience cannot stand by and watch what's happening without wanting to do something.
And how much do you think that the barbarism that we've all watched play out in Gaza has allowed this moment to emerge where we really do just you know, the Trump administration feels fine just saying hey, we're going to take over Gaza, right and continue in that direction. We're going to take over Venezuela because we want their oil. We're going to take over Greenland because we want you know, whatever they have to offer, and we're going to do
this wherever we feel like doing it. So they truly have actualized this like might makes right barbarism, not to mention the barbarism that we're all seeing in the streets with these you know, ice thugs and CBP and other mass goons that are in American streets. How much do you think that Gaza contributed to the unleashing of that level of sort of accepted law of the jungle barbarism.
Well, I think it contributed to it. I think you.
I think that Trump anddministration may well have jumped to where they are right now no matter what. But clearly Gaz is an example of where the United States did not stand up for our values, for our own laws, did not implement our own laws, and I do think that contributes to a complete erosion of international standards. You're also seeing that combined with an attack on multilateral organizations
and on the UN, and the Biden administration vetoed. I can't I lost count how many resolutions they vetoed when it came to the situation in Gaza. So I do think you have a pattern there. I think it's going to be the challenge for the next president will be to try to restore some credibility as to what we stand for. But you're right, I mean to bring this home and watch what we're seeing on our own streets.
You know, the reason I went down to El Salvador to try to, you know, find out whether Kilmar or Brago Garcia was alive was because of the lawlessness of the Trump administration here at home. So here at home and overseas they're taking the same view, which is they've got the power, they will do what they want.
That is a lawless administration.
And so just despite the criticism, the Biden administration did not change course, which we all acknowledge is absolute catastrophe, both for the US and for people in Gaza and maybe in the long run for Israel too. We'll find out what leverage do you think you had that you
didn't use? What could you have done that you didn't do, Like if you had to do it over again, like because the people trying to change Biden administration policy failed, Like was there was there a path to changing that policy or.
Was this just baked in? And did you talk to Briden directly this? I did raise this with Biden directly.
I mean not so much near the end of his administration, but even a couple on a couple occasions then I mentioned it to him. For example, when we had the collapse of the Key Bridge in Baltimore, he came to Baltimore, we spoke about the bridge. We also mentioned we got to do something to stop the killing in Gaza.
So you know, I tried to do everything I could.
The main thing we did was get the Biden administration to adopt what became known as NSM twenty.
So I don't want to go into all the weeds there.
I proposed an amendment to the build and included funding for Ukraine and Israel and other things that essentially would have blocked funding to any country that was violating American law. We didn't have the votes to pass it, but we were successful at getting the Biden administration to adopt what became known as NSM twenty.
It's a pretty long document.
It was fiercely negotiated, and it ultimately required them to provide some reporting on a lot of these issues, right in terms of the killing, in terms of the distribution of humanitarian aid. Unfortunately, when the report came out, I felt that it sort of whitewashed the situation. I said so publicly, if you interestingly, if you look at the amount of humanitarian aid going into Gaza. It did go
up just before the report was issued. And you know, the administration did tell me that they used that as leverage to improve the delivery of humanitarian assistance. The problem is, as soon as the report came out, right, they didn't stick with it. I mean, the Biden administration didn't stick with it. They did not use the levers of power that they have.
For a lot of rank and file Democrats, like ordinary odors, a PAC funding and position on the Gassa genocide has become a litmus test for any candidac they support, and in particular candidate support in twenty twenty. First of all, would you ever accept a PAC funding? And second of all, I'm curious, you know, do you have a litmus test for future candidates to represent the Democratic Party nationally?
So no, I don't accept a PAC money. I don't think anybody should accept a pack of money. You know, I remember when I proposed my amendment, it was written in a completely neutral way, in the sense that applied to any country. We just said that when the United States is providing military assistance to a country, they have to comply with these basic standards. APAC came out against that.
You know, the issue with APAC, as we know, is they essentially adopt the position of the government of Israel, and there are going to be times when the interests of the government of Israel in the United States obviously diverge. I don't think what Israel's been doing is in Israel's own interests, but that, of course is for the people of Israel to decide. But the short answer your question is, I do not think that anybody should be taking a peck money.
And I think that there does need to.
Be accountability in the Democratic Party for whether people stood up and challenged all the terrible things that were happening in Gaza during that period of time.
And now does that mean, Senator Schumer, do you think that do you think there should be new leadership in future congresses in the Senate well.
As to future congresses. That's going to be obviously something for the Democratic Caucus. But let me just say this with respect to the presidential race in twenty twenty eight. You know, my view is it's going to be important see whether the candidates are running for the highest office in the land.
Where they stood on this question of conscience.
Yeah, and I think that question of conscience obviously, you know, for me, one of the clearest dividing lines is around Gaza. But I think, you know, also the way that people have stood up or failed to stand up in this moment with the second Trump administration. You know, I mentioned before and you mentioned going to see whether kil Mahar
Brego Garcia was alive or dad. You know, I think the decisions that were made on the previous shutdown fight, you know, everybody was sort of behind you guys, and then you had tumor and a few breakaway Democrats decided, I know, we're gonna We're going to cave without getting anything in return. I know you're part of what's called the quote unquote fight club, you and some other Democratic members of the Senate. So how do you see, like, how have Democrats done in this moment and what should
they have done? How should they have conducted themselves differently?
So I think a lot of Democrats were late to recognize the danger posed by the Trump administration. I mean, you know, people would sort of say, oh, maybe they're not serious, this is just rhetoric. Even as the Trump administration engaged in lawless activity at home and overseas, and immigration.
Was one of the earlier ones. Yeah. Yeah, because we had this case of.
Kilmarraborgo Garcia, right, he was snatched off the streets of Maryland. He was sent to Seacott, this notorious gulag in El Salvador. And when I went down there, there were a lot of voices in the Democratic Party that said, no, don't do that, you know, don't don't focus it all.
I mean, they're Democrats above in this book record. Yeah, but not just there, but also around the country.
And it was like, you know, we shouldn't be talking about this because when it comes to immigration issues, the Trump position is popular. We should always change the subject to something else. I mean, here you have people being snatched. Now that's changed. Now we have people who are responding much more than they were before. But at that time, it was really very much a finger in the wind a kind of thing. And you know, despite the fact that you had this gross violation of the constitution and
things began to change back then. I mean, you know, when we had the Kilmar Brego Garcia case, folks like you know, Joe Rogan on his podcast, we're saying, you know, I'm not into this just denying people their due process rights in Constitution, and that's what this administration has been doing, just taking away.
People's due process rights. So I do think it's changed.
But to answer your question, I think there were a lot of folks who are very slow to recognize the real danger to our democracy, to our constitution, and to our country.
I guess my question is has that actually changed. There's a possibility of another shutdown fight, and you have some including in this part, I will need your ear piece and it to be in for Senator Chris Murphy indicating that we should use this opportunity. Democrats should use this opportunity to force changes at ICE in the wake of what I would call a murder of Renee Good, you know, being shot three times by this ICE agent as she's
there in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Let's go ahead and take a listen to Senator Chris Murphy make the case.
You're proposing sweeping reforms to DHS, from requiring warrants for rests, to banning masks during enforcement to limiting ICE's use of firearms and civil operations. Do any Republicans support your plan? Is it realistic that this could actually pass?
Senator Well Republicans need Democratic votes in order to pass a budget for the Department of Homeland Security. And what we're talking about I wouldn't necessarily categorize as sweeping, right, we're simply talking about, you know, essentially going back to the way that ICE was operating when they cared about legality, right identification of officers. That's something that has been standard practice in every law enforcement agency all across the country.
Is CBP who are supposed to be at the.
Border, protecting us at the border, operating in the interior with no training on how to deal with complex urban environments.
That's brand new.
So we just need to get back to a Department of Homeland Security that is prioritizing the law and prioritizing keeping people safe. And yes, I think that it's reasonable for Democrats speaking on behalf of the majority of the American public who don't approve of what ICE is doing, to say, if you want to fund the Department of Homeland Security, I want to fund a Department of Homeland Security that is operating in a safe and legal manner.
So is it appropriate do you support using this sort of rare moment of leverage that Democrats have in terms of government funding to force some changes at DHS and with ICE.
Yes, I've been very clear, I will not vote for one more penny getting rid of the pennies, one more dollar for the Trump Ice operation, and I hope we will use this moment for that purpose.
And this is why the Department of.
Homeland Securities appropriation bill in the Senate has been so hung up. I mean, we've passed other bills appropriation bills out of our committee, but some we've not. And this one is one that I will not support advancing without the kind of reforms that Chris Murphy's talking about.
And what's the end game then, because it seemed like that that's where Democrats kind of fell down last time. That all they kind of snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in that shutdown because it felt like they just kind of lost their nerve after the shutdown and going on so long.
So how do you avoid that this time? So we do have a different situation there.
We have already moved, for example, three appropriation bills like for the Department of Agriculture and a couple others.
There may be other bills.
Where we were successful at putting up safeguards around the funding.
The Commerce Justice Science Bill is one of those.
Where we completely rejected the Trump cuts to science and the National Science Foundation and NASA Goddard and things like that. So we may have a situation where we pass appropriation bills for certain agencies. Well, what I'm saying, I think Senator Murphy is saying, is that when it comes to DHS, we will not support any funding for DHS in lesson until we see these reforms.
And do you know where Senator Schumer is on that.
I think he supports reforms at DHS. I can't speak for him with respect to the actual strategy of not supporting that bill at this particular moment.
There was a memo that circulated in the kind of DC progressive world a month or two ago. I'm curious if you saw it that made the case for Chris van Holland for Senate Majority leader.
Did you see that memo?
I heard about the memo. Actually, no, you know I did see that memo. I know what you're talking about, all right, So what do you think of that memo?
And would you run if Democrats took the majority or if they or even if they don't, would you run for minority leaders, that's something you're open to.
So it's not something that has been top of mind for me.
And ultimately, you know, this is a question of the Democratic caucus. And if you go back, for example, to your point on the shutdown strategy unraveling, yeah, you can see it's it's not just about one person. So look, my goal right now is to fight like hell every moment we've got against the Trump administration, to work to win the midterm elections.
In the House and in the Senate.
And then I do believe I'm a strong believer in the fact that we cannot just be the party of know that we need to put forward a clear agenda for the future that makes a tells the American people we are not in the party of the status quo. Yeah, and that is going to be my main focus.
So you say it's a question for the Democratic caucus, is it also a question for the Democratic base though, you know, especially at this period in time when you're between president, there's no clear leader of the Democratic Party. So I think it's sort of an old fashioned way of looking at you know, Hookeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer's Oh, they just tend to the business of the House, or
they just tend to business of the Senate. The Democratic base and the numbers bear this out, are very frustrated with Jeffries and specifically with Chuck Schumer. They feel he is failing at the job of standing up to Trump. And I think I agree, and I think you probably agree that they have a pretty strong case that they could make there. So does their frustration matter at all in that calculus as well at a time when they feel like they're losing their country.
I yes, I mean their frustration definitely counts. It counts in leadership races. It will certainly count going into two thousand and twenty eight when it'll be a referendum within the Democratic Party on the direction that we want to take going forward. I would say that at this point in time, you know, and again, Senator Schumer, I think is now better reflecting the views of more of the Democrats across the country. That said, and you know, it
became public, so I can talk about it. As you know, the first rule of fight club is.
You don't talk about fight club, but somebody talks about it.
So there is a group of us who've expressed frustration not only about you know, the direction.
The clock has taken.
But also with respect to how the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has gotten involved in some of the Democratic primaries. That's really what what sort of triggered a lot of the frustration among this group. You know, I was, you know, I was quite clear how frustrated I was that you didn't have the leadership supporting mam Nani in New York for mayor.
What did he What did he say about that?
How do you how do you justify not how did he justify not supporting the Democratic nominee for mayor?
I can't remember what he has said publicly, but you know, all I know is the result. And you know, here you have a mayor who ran on the platform of affordability that everybody says we should be focused on and we should be focused on lowering the cost of living for Americans so people, you know, living paycheck to paycheck can actually get by, and we want to increase the
size of their paychecks too. And so that was, you know, that was an example where you know, if you want to have a big tent memorocratic party, and I do, then you can't say you're not going to endorse you know, the guy who is the Democratic nominee for mayor.
One of the grievances that this, according to the reporting that the Fight Club brought to Senator Schumer, was recruiting Janet Mills when Graham Plattner was already in the race and then clearly backing Haley Stevens even though they're they're claimed they or not, whether there's a competitive primary there, has the Fight Club thought about or talked about endorsing, like as a group against the Democratic establishment's candidate, Like where are you, Well, let's start with Maine, Like have
you spoken with Graham Plattner? Are you supporting him? And should the Fight Club like if they're going to fight, like they're gonna fight, So.
Okay, let's let's start with Maine. I've talked to both Janet Mills and Graham Plattner a.
Couple of times.
My view is that the Democratic primary voters should be the ones who you know, decide on that election. And you know, we got upset because that is an example where the d SCC did weigh in very strongly on behalf of one of the candidates in the primary, and it was our view and it remains my view that you know, that's a question for Democratic primary voters.
And the same was true about Michigan.
Right with respect to Haley Stevens, that they were weighing in on behalf of her to the exclusion of the other candidates. So our basic message was, we need to you, the d SCC, need to stay out of these races. Now, we did make an exception in the case of Minnesota. We together have endorsed Peggy Flanagan, who's the lieutenant gugnatorial candidate there, and that's because we also sense that the d s CC was weighing in on behalf of in this case.
Right, So then okay, so if you're weighing in Minnesota, what will it take to get you into Maine?
I don't know where where.
I think our main reaction in Maine was that the DSCC went in. So we're look I continuing to look at these races, and I don't know.
I do think that we're stronger.
When we can take sort of collective action, and we were able to get a consensus on that when it came to the Minnesota Center race.
Center, I'm curious why you change your mind on medicare for us? And I was very happy to see. But I'm just wondering if your views have evolved on where we should be economically and what it's going to require to you don't give working people a shot in this country.
Yeah.
So the short answer is my view has not changed on that fundamental question. I mean, I've been very much supportive of getting eventually to medicare for all, but I had taken the view earlier that you know, I was one of the people is for the public option when it came to the Afordable Care Act, and then we didn't get the public option even though the House had
been supportive of it back in the day. And you know, at some point, with Republicans continuing to try to just attack, attack, attack the Affordable Care Act from every angle, and just looking at the healthcare system overall, the amount of money that we spend on overhead and administration and bureaucracy and insurance companies, I just reached the conclusion that we didn't we should move now right's And so I supported the bill.
I had supported the idea of getting the Medicare for all, yeah, always, But what I said was this bill is the way to do it over a four year period.
This is Bernie Sanders' bill, and I've also long supported adding to Medicare coverage, you know, dental vision and hearing, and I think we should move forward on that now. But you know, I would say that looking at our healthcare system, we spend, as you know, about eighteen percent of our gross national product on healthcare, and we are definitely not getting our money's worth in terms.
Of the public health.
And so my view is that we should move now, and I think that bill lays out the right roadmap and not try to go through a public option for the Affordable Care Act and an even more incremental approach.
I think we should just pass the build and do it.
We talked about Senate leader, but you've also been talked about as potential presidential candidate. I mean, first, would you see any pushback from being born in Pakistan?
Is there any argument that, hey, they you can't do that?
Or do you get the John McCain exception there? You know in the Senate they say everybody, all senators wake up in the morning, look in the mirror and see see a future president?
Do see that? Or when the where are you on that question?
So my big focus right now, beyond the midterms is really coming up with what I think the Democrats should stand for. It kind of goes to your point when you asked about medicare, you also said, you know, how about you know.
Working people around the country.
And I've long believed that's the fundamental crisis that we're facing in America, which is the inequality of wealth and power in the country. So this is why I'm going to continue to I've been proposing major tax proposals and we'll be reintroducing another one soon, which essentially, you know, addresses the problem we've got, which is we have a tax system that's rigged to favor people who make money off of money as opposed to people who make money
off of hard work. I also support incentivizing employee ownership of companies, and then I think we should make sure that on the cost side, for example, that these huge, these AI companies, the richest on the planet, you know, aren't essentially free riding off of rate payers when it comes to the additional electricity that needs to be generated in the costs.
Of all of that.
So what I'm saying is that is my focus right now. I don't know what the Democratic field will will look like.
Iowa, I am Carolina. I did get invited to go out.
I was the Iowa Steak Fry, Poe County Steak Fry. You know, we had a back and forth with another candidate about you know, yeah, anyway, I was. They asked me to come out, especially after the Kilmar Brego Garcia situation, and and I did give a speech out there laying out what I think the Democratic Party needs to focus on. Beyond taking on Trump, which we need to do every single day to protect our democracy, we do need to you know, I think that we've been much too tied
to special interests, yes, and corporate special interests. And so my my view is the best way to regain some of the confidence of the American people is to show that we we will.
We want to break with the status quo.
I mean, it just was my mind that Donald Trump was the guy who said he was going to change, you know, Washington, and people thought that that might be changing in a good way.
They just wanted they want to change. Yeah.
Now I think you know, people are seeing i mean, including on the immigration front, but the fact that Trump is not focused on bringing out costs or anything like that. They don't like what they see. But I'm going to I intend to be front center in this debate.
How do you reign in these tech oligarchs? And you mentioned the concern about electricity rates, that's one thing. They're
also deep concerns about AI and taking jobs. There are existential concerns about AI and destroying human civilization, like how are you thinking about that constellation of issues and specifically on the question of how you reign in You know, these would be trillionaires who want to basically operate in a completely unregulated environment and be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want.
So I agree with your analysis.
I think we're in a really difficult place because you have the richest people on the planet and they're getting richer, and with that comes a lot of power, and they're using their power. I mean, we see this with Elon Musk obviously, you know Trump made him the head of DOGE. We also see this with the concentration of media power and traditional media, which is why I do encourage everybody to watch independent media channel.
Grey, appreciate, but like and subscribe. But I don't have I will. I will tell you I don't have an easy answer to your your question.
I've been longtime supporter of you know, significant campaign finance reform. You know, we obviously want to roll back Citizen United, but you know how hard that is because the Supreme Court decision. I am the original author of the Disclosure Act that we've got past the House of Representatives. When I was back in the House, it failed by one vote in the Senate on filibuster. So I believe in campaign finance reform and we need to fight like that.
And whoever's you.
Know, a Democratic candidate for president or even you know, Congress should be fighting for those things. But I'm open to people's ideas on how you reign in the AI companies. And we never were successful at getting a sort of a oversight when it came to the social media universe. And they're obviously all sorts of important questions around First Amendment,
all those sort of things. But in terms of the concentration of power in AI, you know, again, I have a tax approach to that, but in terms of reigning them in, that is something that I believe we need to do.
I agree with your analysis.
I'm open to any ideas people have as the best approach to that.
You're colleague, Elizabeth Warren a fight club, another fight club member, I believe, giving a speech today at the National Press Club in which she's really taking aim at the abundance argument and making the case generally and read the entire speech that abundance in some ways as a stalking horse for old school deregulatory hands off, just let the oligarchs and rule the roost and.
Things will happen.
And she's coming directly at that and saying no, like, we actually need to get these people under control so that we can really unleash all of the American people, not just the oligarchs. Where are you on this abundance conversation within the Democratic Party?
So I really don't think it's either or on abundance versus you know, going after.
But Donnie stole the word, mom, Donnie stole the word. He called himself he's an abundance.
Some of us first executive.
Look, I mean, I think we can acknowledge that, you know, we need to build more housing stock, we need more affordable housing, and that there are many cases where especially local regulations or an impediment to that. What can the federal government do to incentivize changes? I mean, there are limited levers at the federal level. It is also true, obviously that some of these transportation projects take way too long, So I.
Think there is there's merit to that argument.
That doesn't mean that we should not also be focused on, you know, making sure that we break up monopolies, because you know, monopolies obviously undermine the whole idea of you know, for those people who believe in free markets, you should be anti monopoly obviously, So I think it's not I really don't think it's either or when it comes to abundance versus the sort of anti monopoly, anti trust approach.
So you talk some about accountability electoral accountability for Democrats who close their eyes to human rights abuses in Gaza and failed to stand up to President Trump. Do you think there should be criminal accountability for members of this administration under a future you know, if you or someone else were to run for president, Should charges be brought against people who committed crimes in the content context of this regime.
I think people need to be held accountable under the law, and so to the extent that there are people engaged in criminal violations of the law, then they need to be held accountable.
Does part of that accountability we talked earlier about renee Good and about Kilmara Brego Garcia, and ICE is sort of the tip of the sphere of this lawless administration. Do you support abolishing ice? There's some sixty nine percent of the Democratic base that has come to that position at this point.
Well, let's put it this way. I support abolishing Trump's ICE. In other words, this kind of operation that's going on right now needs to come to an end, and it needs to come to an end now.
So I support raining in ICE.
I think ICE has an appropriate function when it is, when it is conducted and operated in you know, in the way that it was I think originally in visioned. But I think Trump is sort of put ice on steroids. And this is why, as we discussed earlier, I'm in favor of you making sure we don't provide any funding for Trump's ongoing ICE operations.
Let me let me push a little bit on that, because this is not like an ancient it's not a Jeffersonian agency like you were literally in Congress when this was created, right, I think it was two thousand and three, Like when they reorganized Homeland Security in twenty nineteen, we covered and I think pro public.
It did too.
When AOC and I think it was Rashida to leaving Alanomar went down to the border, there was a report, multiple reports about this ICE Facebook group that had hundreds, if not thousands of ICE agents and commanders like this is top to bottom, where they were threatening violence against AOC and these other members of Congress who were coming to the border. Their job was they were supposed to
protect these members of Congress. There were also all of this over the top, like sexual harassment and sexualization of these members going on.
You read through these and this is basically public.
It was a private group, but it's you know, when you're in the thousands, it's basically public on Facebook. You read through those and you get a window into a rogue agency, which is how I saw it at the time. So this is Trump's ICE, but it's twenty nineteen, like we're now many years deeper into Trump's ICE. It already to me felt rogue, like outside of democratic control, that it was its own thing, And I think predictably we're
now getting the kind of expressions of that. If an agency is that far gone, why not reorganize it and take the parts that we need. You know that if the government needs to carry out and give them to agencies that are under the control of the federal government.
So clearly we.
Have a problem with the culture of ICE right now for the Trump administration, and we had that in the first Trump administration as well.
There may have been abuses under Obama, under Biden. I have to go back and look at that.
So, look, I don't The question is the function, right, not the name, And so I do believe that that.
Function requires dramatic reform.
I mean, if you look at you know, some of the recruitment that's going on right now now, if you look at the black standards in terms of training, we are seeing huge abuses. So look, I don't I don't really care what you call it, but that the function is something that I think needs to be maintained in the sense that there has to be some agency that
is responsible. For example, when somebody is here who is undocumented, someone who's here illegally, that they and they commit a violent crime, there has to be somebody in the peral government that addresses that.
And that's currently ICE, so it was before.
So but again, the function, I think when people say they want to get rid of ICE, it's sometimes people may interpret it as getting rid of that function. You know, again, my view is we shouldn't be funding Trump's ice operations.
How scar do you think we are when you look at the lawless and zoo, when you look at the mask off foreign policy, when you look at I mean ice agents, pepper spray a baby, assault random people, illegally arrest American citizens, and now shoot remaining good three times in the face, Like, how do we put any of this back together? Given how far we've gone?
Is it too late?
Or do you think that we can sort of come back from this moment of rising fascism and lawlessness in this country and abroad.
So I do believe we can come back. I think there's been a huge amount of damage. I think it's going to require a lot of repair, both in terms of you know, here at home as well as you know, our foreign policy. But I do believe ultimately that the American people don't like what they're seeing with respect to what Trump's doing, including his ice operations, and I think
that you will see changes in the midterm elections. Now, you know, given the fact that you ever rogue president who doesn't care about the constitution will remain a big, big challenge until twenty twenty eight. But look, lots of damage done. Do I think it's irreversible? No, But I
think that depends on all of us. I mean, I really do think the answer to your question depends on what the American people are doing and what's been So, you know, heartwarming about this even terrible moment is to listen to the whistle brigades right out in Minneapolis, the neighbors coming out to defend their neighbors.
Seven million Americans.
Going out on No King's Day, I mean in Maryland, you know, I I went all over the state.
It was heartwarming to see thousands.
Of Marylanders coming out to resist the tyranny of the Trump administration. So I do think that we have good, strong antibodies to protect our democracy.
They are being threatened as never before.
But I do have faith at the end that if we all step up and step out, we will be successful. After all, what Trump wants most of all is for everybody to shut up at go away.
I mean, that is what they want. That's why they threaten people.
That's why they locked up you know, students for expressing their First Amendment views early in the administration.
That was Secretary Rubio and others.
We need to push back really hard every day.
Last one for me, So should we end weapon sales to Israel?
I think in this moment, I would I oppose transferring offensive weapons to Israel.
I've not imposed sending some.
Defensive iron Doome defense systems that are used only to intercept incoming missiles, but I think at this moment in time, we need to at the very least pause transfers of offensive weapons, which is why I've continued to vote on each of the votes we've had in the Senate to not allow the transfers of more offensive weapons so long as Israel is violating in national law and American law.
Do you think that that distinction really makes it. I mean, if you're shipping weapons, you're shipping weapons, and you know, I think there's a pretty clear argument that supplying iron Dome, for example, is part of what allows Israel to operate with such impunity in the region.
I've supported iron Dome because there are other you know, this is not only Gaza. They Israel obviously isn't a you know.
A tough neighborhood, and of course they are. Actually they frequently bomb their neighbors.
They also it's going to make it a tough neighborhood that there's no doubt.
I mean, I think that the net Yahoo government.
Has been really you know, bad for Israel and the United States.
As you know, we.
Should be doing much more than we are, obviously to rain in what the net Yahoo government is doing. But I do think there's an important distinction between providing defensive weapons and offensive weapons.
All Right, Senator Chrispin Holland, thank you so much for spending so much time with us.
We really appreciate it. Thank you. Good to be with both of you.
All Right, guys, that does it for us. I will be in with soccer tomorrow, so we will see you then.