Katie’s One-on-One with Senator Lisa Murkowski

Katie heads to Capitol Hill for an in-person conversation with Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. In this unflinching interview, Murkowski reflects on her high-stakes political journey, her defiance of party pressure, and her growing alarm over the threats facing American democracy. Drawing from her new memoir Far From Home, she opens up about the personal toll of standing alone and why, in this moment, staying grounded has never been harder—or more critical.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
What if there were a way to reduce cancer deaths
by half in the next twenty five years. This is
the future Exact Sciences works toward every single day because
they believe it's possible. Exact Sciences is a dedicated team
of cancer fighters united by a purpose to help eradicate
cancer by preventing it, detecting it earlier, and guiding personalized treatment.

(00:23):
Visit exacsciences dot com to learn more.

Speaker 2 (00:29):
This Republican senator can tell you that I am getting
the calls that I'm sure all of my Republican colleagues
are that are saying, as a Republican, your job is
to line up with the president. Why are you even
questioning any of this? Why are you even questioning this?
And I say, well, because I'm a United States Senator.
I swore an oath to the Constitution, not to the President,

(00:51):
and so I know what my responsibilities are under Article one.

Speaker 1 (00:56):
Hi everyone, I'm Katie Kuric and this is Next Question.
Hi everyone, I'm Kitty Kirk and this is a very
special edition of Next Question. This episode is coming to
you from Washington, DC, in fact, the home of Senator
Lisa Murkowski. She is one of the most independent voices

(01:17):
in the US Senate and isn't afraid to take a
stand even when it's at odds with her own party.
She has written a new book called Far from Home.
An Alaskan Senator faces the extreme climate of Washington, d C.
And there is plenty to talk about, not only the book,
but what's happening in Washington and in this country. Senator

(01:39):
mccowski is so good to see you. Thank you for
inviting us into your home.

Speaker 2 (01:42):
Well, thank you, thank you for making the track down.
This is where I plant myself when I'm here in
d C and not back in Alaska.

Speaker 1 (01:51):
And this is where your dad lives.

Speaker 2 (01:53):
Yeah, So tell people.

Speaker 1 (01:55):
About your dad, because for some of a certain age
they might not know who he is.

Speaker 2 (02:00):
Well, he came to the Senate in nineteen eighty riding
the coattails of Ronald Reagan. My dad had been in
the banking business in Alaska for basically his whole professional life.
He had attempted one run at the House of Representatives
in nineteen seventy, who was actually defeated by Congressman Nick Beggage.

(02:25):
Kind of sounds like deja vous all over again. Some
people say, are there other political families in Alaska, Murkowski's
and the Beggages. We laugh about it, but there is
some history there. So anyway, my dad was a banker
and chose to run for the United States Senate in
nineteen eighty wins and served in the Senate for over

(02:46):
twenty years. And then I decided that it was time
to come back home, time to return to Alaska, and
so he ran for governor and served as governor for
one term, and it was that vacancy that was created.
Then he had two more years in his term when
he ran for governor. And so my story, my political story,

(03:09):
kind of begins then in two thousand and two when
he made probably the most dangerous political decision in appointing
me to fill the final years of his term.

Speaker 1 (03:26):
And you were not and to it right. So I
was ninety years old, you said, no way.

Speaker 2 (03:32):
I was smart enough to know that.

Speaker 1 (03:33):
Dad, this is called nepotism. You know, you didn't want
to be the original nepho baby.

Speaker 2 (03:38):
I did not. And besides that, I had a really
nice life back home. My husband and I were living
the life in Anchorage. We had two great kids. There
were young young guys at the time, little boys, Nick
and Matt, and I was living my political dream, which

(03:59):
was to be in the Alaska legislature. I was a
House representative for a small district in Anchorage, Alaska.

Speaker 1 (04:08):
You've been head of the PTA.

Speaker 2 (04:10):
That was my political launch was the PTA at my
son's elementary school. It was a Title I school, so
we had all kinds of challenges and it allowed me
to kind of get my feet wet into doing some
really good community things that made me feel good about
what we were doing for other people, and it made

(04:30):
a difference. It made a difference, and I think about
that kind of as my initial political grounding and why
you do the things that you do Because I was working,
I was raising kids, I had a life, and to
take on an extra layer of responsibility was like, oh

(04:50):
do I need to do this?

Speaker 1 (04:52):
But pretty daunty, right, But your dad kind of guilted
you into it.

Speaker 2 (04:57):
You know. I come from a family where it's you're
supposed to contribute. I think I've got a pretty good
work ethic, and I think it comes from from my parents,
who who just had good principled work ethic. We worked
together as a family, but there was also how do
you give back? How do you give back? To your communities.
So you can give back as a PTA president working

(05:19):
for the kids. You can give back in political office
by saying I can make a difference for little my
little district.

Speaker 1 (05:29):
Insue. By the way, I want to mention was a
big family. I didn't realize how many kids run your family.

Speaker 2 (05:34):
We didn't think that it was that big at the time.
There were six kids and great family. Really, my brothers
and my sister, my brothers and sisters, we are the
tightest of friends to this day, and I think it's
because of that, because of ken of the we work together,
we play together as a family, and that made really really,

(05:57):
really strong, strong bond.

Speaker 1 (06:00):
Tell me again, though, how your dad, I read this,
convinced you. He basically was disappointed when you were hesitant, right.

Speaker 2 (06:08):
Well, I think he didn't understand why I would not
want it. Certainly, being in the United States Senate very prestigious,
and he had really done his due diligence. I think
there was a list of about twenty five people on
that list, some notable people that people even outside the

(06:29):
state of Alaska had recognized. Sarah Palin was on the list,
but I was on the list as well, and I
kind of thought it was almost a gratuitous thing. And
he said, no, others have suggested your name, and so
I want to know if you want to be included
in the mix. And I said, look, you've got great
names on the list. I am not your pick. And

(06:50):
long and short of this is we kind of went
back and forth over a period of a month and
a half and he said, I keep coming back to you.
I want to know if you will consider it, and
I said, no, I don't want to leave me alone.
And then he plays the guilt card. He said, you

(07:16):
love our state. You know you could make a difference,
and you have an obligation to your state to try
to make it better. So think about it. And so
you know, when you lay that on, it's like, okay,
I'll think about it. But then period of weeks go
by and I'm not hearing anything. So I figure, of fufta,

(07:39):
I'm in the clear. I don't have to do this.
I can stay focused on my life in Juno as
a legislator and my life at home in Anchorage with
my family. And December eighteenth, I'm in the barbershop with
the boys, getting their haircut so they look good for
the Christmas pictures and I get this telephone call from
my dad and he's like, hey, did you get did

(08:01):
you get the FedEx package? I'm like what? Anyway, he
had recalled a conversation from years ago when we were
sitting around at campfire and he brought out a pair
of really not very attractive knitted socks, blue and gold,
looking like the state flag with little stars on him.
And I kind of joked with him about, gosh, where'd

(08:23):
you get those ugly socks? And he said, you know,
some constituent knitted them for me. And you know, this
is what you get when you're a United States senator.
And I said, WHOA, wouldn't that be great one day
to be a United States Senator so I could get
a Para Sox like that. Anyway, he sent me the
Paara Sox and that was when I said, you know,

(08:44):
maybe I do have an obligation that is deeper than
what I'm doing in Geno. And so we said yes,
and here we are twenty three years later.

Speaker 1 (08:56):
Meanwhile, I want to give some props to your mom
because he she is truly the smartest one in your family.
And is mom smart? She looked, you know, well, you know.

Speaker 2 (09:07):
My dad was the big public figure right He was
the senator, he was the banker. She was the glue.
She made sure that when he called up at four
point thirty and said, I'm bringing home some folks from
out of town for dinner, she's already feeding six kids
and a husband who's been gone all day long, and

(09:27):
she doesn't miss a beat. She puts another four place
settings on an already big table and makes it happen.

Speaker 1 (09:36):
And never complained ever.

Speaker 2 (09:37):
Really, no, no, no, maybe once in a while, No,
not even not even. My mom is probably the least
athletically inclined person out there, and you know what, she
would be there with us when we would go, when
we go do our downhill skiing trek, when we hiked
the chill Cooot trail. She doesn't like to get her

(09:58):
her head underwater, but by gosh, she'll everything else in
the water with us. And she is just such an
extraordinary woman. My folks are both ninety two now and
they are dang independent and health and good health.

Speaker 1 (10:14):
But it's so lucky.

Speaker 2 (10:16):
I am so blessed. My family is blessed.

Speaker 1 (10:20):
It sounds like Alaska was such a fun place to
grow up. And you're from a pretty small town, right, Senator. Yeah,
And I've never been to Alaska, but it must just
be so beautiful. And I know in your book you
write about really your heart is in Alaska and when
you go there, you know your home and just the

(10:44):
beautiful surroundings. What was that like. I know you don't
know any differently, but wow, you're jealous.

Speaker 2 (10:51):
Well, and yeah, I said, I'm blessed with my family.
I am blessed with the extraordinary state that I live in.
Is it is so different every area I grew up
in southeastern Alaska, where it's it's small little island communities
with massive trees and the cliffs that go straight up

(11:16):
and then down into the ocean. The wildness, the rawness,
the softness. At the same time, there's something different about Alaska.
The air smells cleaner and more pure. The color of
the sky is richer, the trees smell differently, the flowers

(11:40):
are more intense in their colors. It's just kind of
it is a land of extremes and it's harsh at
the same time. But that beauty is something that is
just difficult to describe, and I never ever get tired
of it. We raised our boys in Anchorage, and we
lived in this part of town, an old part of town.

(12:03):
Sits above the hill, right overlooking downtown, so we're really
close into everything that's going on. The railroad tracks are
right below us. The military base is right behind us.
But every day I would drive over the bridge and
you look out and here's the same mountain range that's
been there since time immemorial.

Speaker 1 (12:24):
Right.

Speaker 2 (12:25):
And my boys recalled me calling them the oh my
gosh mountains because same view every day, and I'd look
over and it's say, oh my gosh, it's so beautiful.
It never gets old. People are talking on the radio Latasha. Oh,
by the way, d Nali's out today, Like what is

(12:46):
that all about? Well, the mountain is so majestic today,
and the sky is so clear that the mountain's out today.
It's an amazing place. It makes me smile. But what
is more important to my day ja here in Washington,
d C. Is how when I am home, I am
filled up because this place can deplete you, it can

(13:07):
suck everything out of you. And I get on that
plane and you know, eleven to twelve hours later, four
hours time difference, four thousand miles, I'm home and I
feel it, and it's my attitude that lives. I feel
like I can breathe better. I just fill everything up
so that when I come back here on that Monday,

(13:29):
I got room to go, I got gas in my tanks.
And it really makes a difference.

Speaker 1 (13:33):
Have you finally adjusted to life in the nation's capital,
because you write about initially feeling this was an utterly
foreign world and moments, I mean days when you felt
profound loneliness. Have you gotten used to it?

Speaker 2 (13:54):
I think I've gotten used to it? Have I Have
I liked it?

Speaker 1 (13:59):
No? Really, I grew up near here, so this is
sort of my hometown and it's not Alaska, granted. But
there's some nice things about.

Speaker 2 (14:08):
Oh there are, and there are some beautiful things about it.
In fact, COVID was really interesting that time period when
I was I was stuck here. I wasn't flying back
and forth. My husband was Alaska. I was pretty much
pretty much on my own work in my own little
office here by myself. But I would make myself go

(14:30):
out for long walks and just appreciate the beauty of
the spring in Washington, d C. And the architecture. I
loved looking at the different doors, what color they were painted.
It is beautiful, but it's still not home. And even
though we've lived in this home for for years now,

(14:54):
it is still not home my home. When people say
are you going home, I mean that home back in Alaska.

Speaker 1 (15:03):
You've had, as you said, a very long career as
a senator, but there was a pivotal moment for you
that I think perhaps you see it as before and after,
and that was in twenty ten when you lost the
Republican primary to Joe Miller, who was a Tea Party
back candidate. But instead of stepping aside, you launched an

(15:24):
historic writing campaign and against yach you won. And Courtney,
my producer, and I were talking, No, I don't have
one fact. We were going to see if you had
any extras I do.

Speaker 2 (15:36):
This is what Vern did. He turned the plastic band
into gold. Oh that is so cool, so fill it in,
write it in.

Speaker 1 (15:44):
So basically, you had bracelets made or someone made bracelets.

Speaker 2 (15:48):
Cover bracelets because strong bracelets.

Speaker 1 (15:50):
Right. They wanted everyone to make sure they spelled your
name correctly.

Speaker 2 (15:56):
Right, they needed to spell the name correctly in a
write in. But you also had to make sure that
you filled in the little bubble next to the line,
the line said right in. My name was nowhere on
a ballot. That's kind of scary you going in. It's like, oh,
I'm a for election, but my name is nowhere. And
it was just a line and it said right in.

(16:17):
And if you wrote my name in and you spelled
it perfectly, but you failed to fill in the bubble,
it didn't count.

Speaker 1 (16:24):
It took a lot of confidence to do that, didn't it, Senator.
I mean, it could have ended in sort of humiliation,
but it didn't. You won. What gave you the courage
to do that?

Speaker 2 (16:36):
Well, my brother said, Lisa, you know, what you're trying
to do is next to impossible. There was a right
successful rite in nineteen fifty four with strom Thurman different circumstances.
Murkowski is not easy to spell. The only way that
you can prevail is if you are an evangelist with

(16:58):
a cause. Need to believe that this can be real
in order to make this happen. And the only way
that people can believe is if you believe yourself that
it can happen. And I don't know which came first,
because it was considered to be a fool's errand in

(17:21):
the eyes of most people, in Washington, d C. To
try to do a campaign. The professionals, the consultants were
all gone, the pollsters were gone. When the Republican Party
said Republican Primary says, this is your Republican nominee, people
went with Joe Miller. I can't fault them for that.
That's what happens around here. I get it. And so

(17:44):
we were going to have to do this on our own.
And the money wasn't going to flow because nobody's going
to give money to somebody that's on a fool's errand.
And so it was Alaska that had to make the commitment.
And when they started, they random people, strangers on a
bike stopping in the middle of the street, the janitor

(18:06):
rolling the garbage can through the airport stopping me and saying,
you got to give me an opportunity to vote for you.
You have to do this for me. It made me
believe that we could do this, that we could do
the impossible.

Speaker 1 (18:21):
And then when you won, how did that liberate you?
How did that make you believe more in yourself and
your own conscience? Because it was a turning point, wasn't it.

Speaker 2 (18:34):
Oh, it was pivotal in so many ways. Yes, It
was historic from an election perspective, right in terms of
what Alaskans had done. One hundred and three thousand Alaskans
had been taught how to not only participate in this
ride in election, but to do so in a way

(18:55):
that was legible enough so that the courts backed up
the counting, because, believe it or not, even a correct
spelling was being challenged by my opponent. If there was
an exclamation point at the end of Lisa Murkowski or
one that was really offensive to me, somebody had put

(19:16):
a heart instead of dotting the eye, they wanted to
challenge that. I'm sorry, that's voter intent is pretty clear
that I think that they really wanted to support me anyway.
It was a turning point for me in understanding who
I really worked for. The Republican Party did not return

(19:39):
me to the Senate. It was not the Republicans of Alaska.
It was this wild, crazy mix of Republicans and Democrats,
conservatives and liberals, Independents, Greens, libertarians, people who say it's
none of your damn business what my party is. These

(20:00):
were the people that took a risk, who said I'm
not throwing away my vote by doing this. This is
a very proactive action on my part to say who
I want. There was no I'm going to pick the
lesser of two evils. It was a statement of conviction

(20:21):
and intentional, absolutely intentional in every way. And that is
so freeing when you have when you have this, many
Alaskans across the board say I don't care what the
party has said. My choice is. I want to have
a choice, and she is my choice. And that was

(20:43):
very freeing, and that continues to be kind of my
entry point to a focus that says, I'm not going
to be looking to the Republican talking points. I'm going
to evaluate this on whether or not these policies work

(21:08):
best for Alaskans.

Speaker 1 (21:11):
You have developed a reputation for being an independent thinker,
someone who is interested in bipartisan problem solving, and because
of this, you and your colleague Susan Collins of Maine
often find yourself the deciding votes on closely divided legislation
or high profile confirmations. How much pressure do you feel

(21:35):
because of that?

Speaker 2 (21:39):
You know there's pressure, and I suppose that I put
that pressure on me because I am evaluating. I'm being
open in trying to determine the right direction I suppose

(22:00):
if I wanted to remove that pressure, I could very
easily just tow the party line not have to really
think through the pros and cons or whether or not
you know how it's going to look if I vote
with the Democrats on something, how it's going to look
when I vote against the president on something. I could

(22:24):
very easily remove that pressure. But I don't think that's
why Alaskan sent me back. I think they sent me
back not only in twenty ten, but when I ran
again in twenty sixteen and won, and in twenty twenty
two and one. I think they sent me back because
they wanted me to represent them. And so do I

(22:50):
like the pressure?

Speaker 1 (22:51):
No?

Speaker 2 (22:51):
No, no, I could. I could have a much more.
I could have my evenings free instead of all that
stuff sitting over there in the corner. That's all my
homework just for the weekend. I could make my life
much easier. But I don't think that's what Alaskans expected me.

Speaker 1 (23:09):
When was the most pressure exerted on you in terms
of a vote?

Speaker 2 (23:17):
And again, keep in mind, there is external pressure that comes,
whether it's from your constituents, maybe from the administration, and
then there is the pressure that you place on yourself, right.
I describe in the book during the first impeachment where

(23:37):
there is a very arcane inside baseball process going on
in this Senate with regards to calling witnesses and the
role that Chief Justice John Roberts was going to be
placed in. So much of that pressure that I describe

(23:58):
was my own internal conflict. I don't think most people
were viewing that in a way where I need to
I need to call, I need to write, I need
to protest, I need to do something. That was pressure
on me. I think clearly with with Kavanaugh, that was
a vote where there was certainly pressure coming from Alaskans,

(24:21):
pressure coming from the administration, pressure coming from my conference.
There was a lot of external pressure there, and that
was that was hard. That was a very very difficult
vote vote for me.

Speaker 1 (24:36):
What kind of pressure from the administration did you experience? Well?

Speaker 2 (24:41):
I did not, you know, I didn't get a call
from the from the President of the United States saying Lisa,
you have to you have to do this or then that.
I think I think not only folks in the administration,
but the people that I work with know that I
don't respond well to that. I've worked with Leader McConnell

(25:04):
for a long time when he was our majority leader,
and I think he realized that giving me more information
was probably more persuasive to me than saying you have
to stick with the team.

Speaker 1 (25:20):
But on the other hand, you receive threats that if
you didn't vote for Kavanaugh's confirmation, false allegations would be
made against your sons. That's pretty nasty business.

Speaker 2 (25:31):
Nasty, and those are the things that keep you awake
at night. I can handle the political pressure, right.

Speaker 1 (25:37):
Where are those threats coming from?

Speaker 2 (25:39):
You know, it's it's stupid, random stuff, whether it's you know,
somebody who calls in anonymously and doesn't even have doesn't
want to talk to a human being, They just want
to leave a nasty voice message on the phone. We
report all of the threats, whether they come in by

(25:59):
phone or by email or by text. But those things,
whether they are whether they're just whether they're just designed
to be nasty, you can't just say, well, don't think
anything of it. That weighs on you, and that's.

Speaker 1 (26:18):
Heard ultimately, and we'll talk about the political tenor of
our times in a moment. But why did you ultimately
decide not to vote to confirm Breck Kavan. I know
that you write about how you knew what this would
mean for survivors of sexual assault, and that he had

(26:40):
become when you met with him, defensive and had no
self awareness. Was there a deciding factor that made you
say I cannot support this person for the Supreme Court?

Speaker 2 (26:53):
So I think the first the first thing, the first
point that really that really caused me to say I
don't think that I can support him, was how he
had responded in committee with what I felt was a

(27:21):
very intemperate attitude in response to questions. I know he
was under pressure. I know he felt that he was
being unjustly accused. That's what he shared with me. I
get that, and any one of us if you feel
that you have been falsely condemned, you've got a right

(27:44):
to defend yourself. But he was he was being considered
for a seat on the highest court in the land,
one of nine, and as hard as those questions would
be to him, as personal and emotional as they may be,

(28:05):
as a judge and a future justice of the Supreme Court,
he's got to hold it together, right.

Speaker 1 (28:12):
But apparently he was encouraged to get angry by the
President himself and what.

Speaker 2 (28:17):
Does that say? What does that say? One of the
things that is part of my criteria, in addition to
judicial temperament, which was important, is free from bias, free
from free from these external pressures. So now the president

(28:39):
who has appointed you is going to tell you how
you should behave or should should not behave. I want
to know that as a justice, as one of nine,
you are not looking at who appointed you. You are
not looking to political fallout. You are not looking to
anything other than fidel to the law and to our constitution.

(29:04):
And so that that worried me. That worried me because
he seemed to respond to that like you need to
be more aggressive.

Speaker 1 (29:11):
How much blowback did you get, Senator when you did
not vote to confirm him?

Speaker 2 (29:19):
You know, I was You're worried about things like that.
What's the response going to be from my colleagues and
from your constituent and from well, from those you're working for.
But as far as my colleagues, I will tell you
it was immediately after that vote, Mitch McConnell came up
to me as the majority leader and said, you know, Lisa,

(29:41):
you did what you you felt you had to do.
You're still on my team. There may have been colleagues
who who vehemently disapproved, but it's not like I was blackbald,
or you know, she needs to be kicked off of
the conference. That did not happen. I think there is
a respect that we we each have to make difficult
decisions and we have to live with them. Maybe some felt, Okay,

(30:05):
this was a big enough decision that her constituents are
not going to support, that she won't make it through
the next election. That did not prove to be the case. Alaskans.
Alaskans are very are very cognizant of some of the
challenges that we face in our state when it comes

(30:28):
to matters of domestic violence, sexual assault. I wish that
I could tell you that we're turning the corner and
eliminating this within our own society. We're making a headway,
but we're not doing enough. And I think that there
were concerns from many about whether or not a Justice

(30:48):
Kavanaugh would be able to understand the lived experiences of
many women, not only Lee and Alaska, about around the country.

Speaker 1 (31:10):
What if there were a way to reduce cancer desks
by half in the next twenty five years, What if
it were the future our children, our loved ones, our
world could actually wake up to. This is the future.
Exact Sciences works toward every day, but they believe it's possible.
Exact Sciences is a dedicated team of cancer fighters united

(31:31):
by a purpose to help eradicate cancer by preventing it,
detecting it earlier, and guiding personalized treatment. They bring together
the best and visionary thinking and scientific rigor to create tests,
including COLI guard and Anchotype DX that inspire life changing action.
Visit exactsciences dot com to learn more. You mentioned President Trump,

(32:04):
so I want to read something you wrote about him
in your book Far from Home. Trump wants to be
seen as special and uniquely capable. He seems to have
a deep psychological need for that kind of approval. In fact,
he has opposite qualities. In my dealings with him as president,
it was evident that he could not have planned his

(32:25):
own rise or engineered the transformation of the Supreme Court.
He isn't that smart, As former Attorney General Bill Barr
has said, Trump lacks the ability for strategic or linear thinking.
He isn't able to form or follow through on complex plans. Instead,
Trump was extraordinarily lucky. He appeared at a moment when

(32:45):
Americans had lost touch with the civic virtues that hold
us together as a nation. A movement had arisen among
Americans who were angry that the government wasn't representing them,
dissatisfied by agencies ranging from the IRS to the federal
lands agencies to the federal courts, people who felt no
one listened to them. Finally, with Trump, had someone who

(33:08):
spoke loudly about the unfairness and dissatisfaction they felt. Trump
did not create the situation. He hit like a lightning bolt,
which normally is a momentary and ineffective flash, but this
time it touched tender, dry ground and ignited a landscape
prime for a spreading wildfire. I was surprised how blunt

(33:32):
you were about Trump's mediocrity, or I guess, the qualities
he's lacking, particularly given so many of your Republican colleagues
just fall over themselves flattering him. Why did you decide
to be so frank?

Speaker 2 (33:53):
Well, I can tell you that when we were writing
the book, I was saying it in real time, so
I was probably saying this back in twenty twenty when
I don't know about you, but I didn't think that
we would have a second Trump administration. I'm just being

(34:14):
very frank with you and saying, you know, maybe I
thought that he was gone from this scene, and so
you weren't that worried, and you can say things I
will tell you. I will tell you that whether it is,
President Trump is now more strategic and more prepared, and

(34:36):
I think he has learned a lot from the first
administration where you come in and it's like, Okay, now
I'm president, and you know these people are I'm told
these people are all good. People are going to give
me good, good advice and guidance. And he didn't really
didn't really like some of that advice and guidance because

(34:56):
they might have challenged him a little bit. Now we
are in a second Trump administration where I fully believe
that the Biden years were spent by President Trump planning
for this administration, working with people that encouraged him every
step of the way, and again who would reinforce the

(35:21):
direction rather than challenge a direction. And so I think
you have an entirely different administration this time around, and
I think you have a president that is much more
keenly focused on what it is that he wants to achieve.
I don't think that he had that targeted and directed
focus first time around, or if he did, he wasn't

(35:44):
quite sure how to implement it. I think it's different now.

Speaker 1 (35:46):
Well, many people think because of that, he is far
more dangerous in his second term.

Speaker 2 (35:53):
Do you I think he has already shown us in
the six months that he has been in the presidency
now that he is far more prepared to exert executive
powers independent of the Congress, with an administration that has

(36:15):
been directed. If you will that we're going to do this,
and if Congress comes along, that's great, but not as
keen on respecting that that divide between Article one Article two.
It's a different environment. I don't mean to be pushy here.

(36:38):
I am in your living room, Senator, but I don't
feel like you really answered the question. Do you think
he's more dangerous? Yes, he's taking more liberties, he's pushing
the envelope. Do you think he's it's dangerous what he's doing.
It could be dangerous if if the Congress decides, if

(37:03):
the Republican majority in the House and Senate decide that
the ends justifies the means, and we're good with the
goals and so we're okay with how he is utilizing
emergency powers. If we are okay without checking him, then
I think, yes.

Speaker 1 (37:24):
Yes, they haven't exactly done that. They haven't exactly No,
then they've turned to the courts, haven't they. I mean,
so Congress personally, I don't see a lot of profiles
and courage. I don't see a lot of people challenging him.
And you say, if isn't that happening already?

Speaker 2 (37:42):
We are not. I would rather, I would rather challenge
us in the Congress to assert our role and our
responsibility than to just condemn the actions of the President
and get nowhere, we we have the ability. But you're

(38:06):
I'm not going to dispute your observation that we we
as a Congress have not stood up and said, wait
a minute. When it comes to tariffs, we have we
have a level of oversight here, and there's a small
bipartisan group that has come together to say there's a

(38:26):
process here, we should move by it. We should uh,
we should stand by it. We're going to have a
test coming up on recisions. We may have a test
coming up with war powers. This is where I think
you're you're going to see whether or not the extent
to which Congress is going to say, we've got a
we've got a very important role here. Yes you are

(38:50):
the president, Yes you are the executive, but we are
the check.

Speaker 1 (38:55):
We have to be the check. We have not been
the check in my view, I think, and a lot
of people's views. People feel like you're fellow Republicans, you
all control everything, and you're rolling over basically pardon my
French kissing Donald Trump's ass, letting him get away with
whatever he wants to do, and can you explain why?

(39:22):
And I think maybe this brings us back to your
comment about fear and about retribution when you were speaking
in front of those tribal leaders and nonprofit people not
too long ago, as you know, Senator, that went viral,
as they say, where you conceded that people are afraid

(39:42):
and they're afraid of retribution. And honestly, it's pathetic to me, so.

Speaker 2 (39:52):
I think it needs to be understood.

Speaker 1 (39:56):
Please.

Speaker 2 (39:57):
There are, well, there are many many in my conference
who are absolutely in line with what the President is proposing,
with the policies, and I think because they are so

(40:17):
in line and in sync, there is this there is
this sense that basically my job as a cent their
job as a senator is to do whatever it is
that I need to do to help support him. And
so you are not seeing a questioning. You are not

(40:39):
seeing people saying, well, you know, that's really our role here,
because again I think they support the goals of the president.
And believe me, believe me, every single one of us
as a well this Republican senator can tell you that

(41:00):
I am getting the calls that I'm sure all of
my Republican colleagues are that are saying, as a Republican,
your job is to line up with the president. Why
are you even questioning any of this? Why are you
even questioning this? And I say, well, because I'm a
United States Senator. I swore an oath to the Constitution,
not to the president, and so I know what my

(41:22):
responsibilities are under Article one. I know that.

Speaker 1 (41:26):
And imagine you're getting some calls from people who are
also saying, do more. Why aren't you stopping him?

Speaker 2 (41:34):
And the answer to the how do you stop your
duly elected president? You have to speak up. Okay, you've
noted that I do speak up. I don't speak up
on every occasion. I think we learned in the first

(41:54):
Trump administration that you could be top of the news
every single day if all you did was was respond
to comments that had come out of the White House,
that's not appropriate either. So choosing choosing the times to
speak out and how you speak out so that you
can still have a level of credibility is something that

(42:17):
I weigh, and that's that is important. Is there a
fear of retribution or retaliation? We live in a political world, right,
that's no great secret to anybody. When Donald Trump didn't like,
you know, my position on certain things, he even though

(42:39):
he was no longer president, then he says, you know,
I'm gonna I'm going to find somebody to run against you.
Basically he said, I'll find anybody with a pulse and
I'll be there in Alaska to support whoever that is.
And he carried through with that. He didn't win, his
candidate didn't win. But that was something that you look
at and you say, you know, this is the political

(43:01):
landscape that you're in. So if you're afraid of being
primaried because you have you have voted one way or
whatever it is that you did, that comes with the territory,
all right. I think what is what is of greater
concern to me and the reason why I made the
comment that I did in front of five hundred and

(43:21):
fifty folks from the nonprofit sector. When I was asked directly,
how do you respond to those people who say they're afraid?
I answered, honestly, we're all afraid. There is so much
uncertainty at this moment in time. This was this was
several months ago where it was the height of the

(43:42):
of the riffs of the This was the uh those
that were on probationary status and not knowing a on
a Friday, if you were going to have a job
on a Monday, being.

Speaker 1 (43:53):
Told enforced by the way riffs.

Speaker 2 (43:55):
Yeah, but being told that the work that you've been
doing as a as a marine scientist, trying to work
on fisheries issues no longer has value.

Speaker 1 (44:06):
But you meant more than that, didn't choose senator.

Speaker 2 (44:08):
But let me no, let me let me continue, because
what was happening at the time, and to a certain extent,
is still happening. People's grants being terminated, not knowing whether
or not you're going to be able to keep the
women's shelter open because you're operating off of such thin margins.
And your grant comes in in a way that it's

(44:29):
literally eight month to.

Speaker 1 (44:30):
Month clinical trials being stopped, cancer research, medical rights.

Speaker 2 (44:36):
Happening did go on and on, and so what had
what was happening was uncertainty and fear about what was
going to happen. And what I wanted to underscore with
them was not only do I hear you, I get
it because I'm hearing from those who have this level
of uncertainty, but we also are experiencing the uncertain of

(45:00):
what is coming next because there is there is no
known path here. And those who are questioning, those who
are saying, I don't think it is within your legal
limitations to be terminating federal employees in this way. And

(45:22):
when you challenge that, the pushback that you get, the
the the well, I guess I'll just call it pushback
because that's what it is from not only those in
the administration, but those supporters who are like, wait, wait, wait,
you know why aren't you, why aren't you on President
Trump's team? Why are you questioning all this? We need

(45:45):
to get rid of these people. You know what, if
you need to reduce your forces, you can do it
in a way that recognizes the humanity of these people
who have been good public servants, and that was not
being handled, and the law wasn't being handled, and so
so is their retaliation. Yeah, we saw it. I wasn't
making that word up because we had already seen by

(46:08):
that point in time, an executive order against two law
firms for what Because individuals in the firms had represented
on people from January sixth that the administration did not
think should be defended. And that to me is political

(46:30):
retaliation that has economic consequences for that firm. Right, why
do you do that? I can understand if you want
to do a review of an agency to determine whether
or not the funding has been appropriately directed. I can
understand if you need to, if you need to look
at a budget and say, do we need to have

(46:53):
this level of staffing in order to execute this? But
what we saw happening was not the norm and in
most many cases was not.

Speaker 1 (47:03):
Okay, what are your constituents saying? And do you believe
that we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis.
I've had experts, you know, I've been doing interviews about
this for months, you know, because it didn't take long
for this thing with the law firms to happen and
suing TV networks and universities and universities, and on and on,

(47:27):
and many scholars I've interviewed have said that we are
in the midst of a constitutional crisis for months now.
I'm curious where you stand on that.

Speaker 2 (47:43):
I was responding to a question a few days ago,
and we're talking about democracy, and I said, you know,
I've been in this enate now for a while, a
couple decades. I don't ever recall a time when there
has been more asked about the state of our democracy,

(48:08):
whether our democracy is still safe, And that in and
of itself is telling you. You've asked a direct question,
are we in the midst of a constitutional crisis? And
we've seen the discussion all over the place in terms
of are we there, are we moving there? What do
we do to avert it? I think our reality is

(48:30):
is that we are we are recognizing that the institutions
that support our democracy here are being challenged. And I
take it back to what I was saying earlier about
our responsibility in the Congress. There are things that we

(48:52):
can't necessarily change about the judicial branch, and certain things
we can't change about the executive branch. These these are
things that are defined in our constitution. But how we
control ourselves in the legislative branch is something that we
have control over. We are if we are trending towards

(49:13):
constitutional meltdown. We have the ability as one of the
three equal, separate, but equal branches of government to weigh
in here and to try to write things. Is it possible.
I don't know. Some people have suggested it's gone too far.
I don't know, but I do know that it is

(49:35):
worth fighting for. It's just worth fighting for. We have to.
We don't have any other choice.

Speaker 1 (49:41):
Where do you think we are? Do you think we're
veering towards this or do you think we're smack in
the middle of it? I mean, you're you see these
issues every day, you deal with it. You watch what's
happening when it comes to things like deportation, mass deportation.
You see what's happening when it comes to to you know,
activating the National Guard and the Marines in California. I mean,

(50:05):
you are living, breathing all these things. I'm just reading
about them. Where do you think we are? And how
worried on a scale of one to ten, are you
for democracy.

Speaker 2 (50:18):
I think that there are some people have asked, you know,
are there any red lines where at that point we know,
I don't know that there's anything as clear cut as that,
or whether you just edge closer and closer with different
decisions and determinations. But we've always we've always kind of
recognized that, Look, the executive is inherently political, the legislative

(50:43):
branch inherently political. We get that, but it's the judiciary.
It's the judiciary that's going to be that ultimate backstop there, right.
The problem, the problem that I see is that more
and more the courts are also being viewed as polite.
And if people stop believing in the courts, if people

(51:06):
stop believing that there's going to be justice there for
them because maybe I'm in maybe I'm an immigrant, you know,
maybe I'm maybe I'm transgender, if they stop believing that
there is no backstop to the to the very highly
politically charged legislative branch or the executive branch, then we're

(51:29):
in trouble as a democracy. And so how do we
address that? That's a problem. I kind of hint to
that in in the book, and I think that's part
of the struggles that I cite to when I'm talking
about the the Kavanaugh nomination. The role that the Senate
plays in the role of advice and consent is is

(51:53):
kind of one of our fundamental things that we're supposed
to be doing right, and we've I think we have
strayed from the seriousness of that advice and consent to
the point where now it's I'm going to consent as
long as the president who nominates that Supreme Court justice

(52:18):
is of my party, and I'm gonna I'm gonna look
away from anything that I might call into question it
is it is now become nothing more than a partisan
confirmation process.

Speaker 1 (52:36):
Do you feel Republicans on the hell have abdicated their
responsibility to the country.

Speaker 2 (52:43):
I'm when it comes to the courts, no, no, no, no, everything,
I'm gonna I'm gonna. I'm just going to push back
a little bit here, because the Democrats did the exact
same thing as the Republicans are doing now when it
comes to allegiance to their president with nominations, whether it

(53:06):
is whether it's at the Supreme Court level or at
the at the district court level. It is frustrating to
me beyond no ends and so you know, we can
take potshots at the Republicans, but this is guilt on
all sides. This is an abdication of our role in

(53:27):
the advice and consent process to actually look at the
qualifications of the individuals and determine their fitness. And so,
you know, and and then I could go off on
I'm very concerned about what I see to be the
politicization where now the American public looks at a decision

(53:50):
that comes out of the out of the Supreme Court
right now, and if they don't like it, they say, well,
it's because of all those Biden no Obama judges, or
on the other hand, it's, well, we knew the outcome
because it was.

Speaker 1 (54:03):
A Trump court.

Speaker 2 (54:04):
You know. That's something that we've got to get away from.
And I kind of blame the media for that. It
used to be that anytime you would see an elected
leader's name, you have an r D behind it, right,
I get it, But you should not. We should not
say every time you identify a judge a justice who

(54:25):
appointed him, stop politicizing it.

Speaker 1 (54:29):
Do you think that, Joe Biden. I hear what you're saying,
because I've covered Supreme Court confirmations for as long, if
not longer than you've been as Senator. And I totally
appreciate and understand what you're saying, But I guess my
question would be taking it out of the judiciary realm
and Supreme Court nominees and the whole confirmation process. Do

(54:52):
you believe that Joe Biden was as big a threat
to democracy as Donald Trump? Because I think many people
Senator would say on all fronts were living in unprecedented
times in terms of threats and challenges to our institutions,
to basic fundamental constitutional rights like due process. And I

(55:20):
feel like I know you pretty well at this point.
You can't be okay with some of the stuff that's
going on.

Speaker 2 (55:28):
Yeah, no, I'm not.

Speaker 1 (55:30):
I'm not.

Speaker 2 (55:30):
I wasn't okay with some of the things that went
on in the Biden administration. I didn't like a lot
of his policies. He did a lot of damage, I
think to Alaska's opportunities from a policy perspective. But I
didn't worry about threats to democracy. I did worry. I

(55:52):
get just as irritated with my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, with the Democrats, for what I
felt was just was just complete, you know, complete bowing
down to whatever Biden wanted, what whoever you put in there.
There were some there were some people who just should

(56:12):
not have been included as part of a confirmable process,
and and they closed their eyes, just as the Republicans
are doing on our side. But from an institutional perspective,
I think that there were some there were some lines
that under the Biden administration we just didn't see crossed.

Speaker 1 (56:34):
And we are under the Trump administration.

Speaker 2 (56:36):
I think we are seeing I think we're seeing greater
pressure to the fidelity of the institutions by by the executive.

Speaker 1 (56:46):
Yes, what are you most worried about when it comes
to the actions that have been taken less than six
months into his presidency by this administration?

Speaker 2 (57:01):
Well, you know, I am I am an institutionalist at heart,
and I care that that we function well. And I
think it's important for us as a country for the
public to believe that we are functioning well and we

(57:23):
are functioning in their best interests, because if they don't
believe that, if they don't feel that none of this works,
you know, is you can only govern with a consent
of the governed. And if we are failing here, how
do we make sure that the rule of law means

(57:45):
anything anymore? Where do you think it's being challenged the most?
The rule of law. I think the thing we're seeing
right at this moment in time is with some of
the immigration initiatives, that we're seeing a real, a real
push in that regard in an effort to basically move

(58:06):
numbers to get as many people out of the country
as possible in a quick period of time. I think
some of the due process concerns, due process requirements are
being pushed, overlooked, overrun. I am sign me up to

(58:26):
get rid of the bad guys that are here illegally,
the ones that are really engaged in bringing about destruction
through drugs and trafficking, etc. But it seems like there's
just this massive push right now to track down just
as many numbers as we can and so taking somebody

(58:49):
who's been here for twenty years and has been working
hard every day, who is here illegally because the overstate
is VISA, but has been a contributor, a contributor ever since.
I'm not thinking that those need to be the first
ones to be sent back to a country that they

(59:11):
no longer have a connection.

Speaker 1 (59:12):
To, because there are people who are going through the process,
who are being snatched and grabbed in courthouses all amongst
the country.

Speaker 2 (59:23):
We're seeing it. And so it does to your question,
what area do I think we're seeing. We're seeing greater
pressure on certain principles of again democracy, fundamental due process.

Speaker 1 (59:39):
Right, do you feel comfortable still being a Republican given
what's happened to your party with the really the complete
takeover by MAGA.

Speaker 2 (59:51):
So I'm clearly not a mega Republican. I'm a Republican
that believes in the same kind of values that that
I signed on too when I was eighteen years old
and registered in terms of individual freedoms and a smaller
government and strong, strong defense, strong country. And so those

(01:00:15):
stay with me regardless of regardless of what goes on
within within the party structure itself. And so I don't
get hung up on the label. I think other people do,
because labels are really convenient. When I just say I'm
I'm an independent, you know, a small eye, or I'm

(01:00:37):
a moderate, What does that mean if they know that
there's an R there, there are certain expectations, right, and
I think the expectations more and more are you look
exactly this way, that there is a Republican litmus test
or a Republican purity test. I don't pass that in
a lot of ways. What I'm trying to do is
again be true to the values that I have, of

(01:01:01):
that I have long held. And uh again, I come
from a state where uh, that party label perhaps is
not as as not a I don't know, Scarlet letter,
I don't know if that's the right way to but
it's it's it's not it's not as big a deal.

(01:01:22):
It's it's what have you done to help us?

Speaker 1 (01:01:24):
Having said that, you know, we see more moderate Republicans receding, retiring,
you know, the people who I think represent your branch
of the GOP.

Speaker 2 (01:01:37):
It's hard.

Speaker 1 (01:01:38):
Do you think that that will ever return? Or do
you think this more red meat, populous part of the
party is going to overtake it for good?

Speaker 2 (01:01:49):
I don't know. I don't know, but I do know
that if those that that dare to stand in the
middle don't continue to exist, If we say this is
too hard, if the only thing that happens in the
middle of the road is you become roadkill, then it's

(01:02:12):
pretty sure that you're not going to see that until
things get so extreme and so bad that there's something
that pushes everything towards the middle. And so I think
part of what I try to tell in this story
is that there is a place for moderation, There is
a place for collaboration and working together. That that's what

(01:02:35):
people want to see. They don't really want to see
the partisan bickering and the infighting and what didn't you
get done? But what did you do? What did you build?
That's why I love the little piece about our work
with the infrastructure Bill and how a bipartisan group of
lawmakers not only built something I think that was good
for the country, but we had fun doing it because,

(01:02:56):
oh my gosh, we were legislating. We were making something
happen that was going to matter for people where they lived,
and it felt good. We don't we need to do
more of that and not less of that. And if
you are not willing to be there and be that participant,
be the man in the arena, then it's not going

(01:03:17):
to happen. And so you've got it's important to try
to provide a little bit of optimism instead of the
daily deluge of defeat. That's an interesting one.

Speaker 1 (01:03:32):
That's very illiterate. It is very literally defeat. There's a book.

Speaker 2 (01:03:38):
There's a book waiting for you out there.

Speaker 1 (01:03:47):
If you want to get smarter. Every morning with a
breakdown of the news and fascinating takes on health and
wellness and pop culture, sign up for our daily newsletter,
Wake Up Call by going to Katiecuric dot com. You

(01:04:09):
also write about January sixth and how terrifying that was.
I'm curious how you felt about the rioters on January
sixth being quickly pardoned.

Speaker 2 (01:04:21):
Wrong. It's just wrong, And I said, so, people died,
people died. Friends of mine who are Capitol Hill police
talk about that day confidentially to me because they can't
they're not allowed to say anything publicly, they'd lose their job.

(01:04:43):
But they tell me of what they went through. That
was not That was not just a group of people
that got a little crazy. I call it an insurrection.
And so for those for those who did violence, who
for those who committed crimes to be pardoned a blanket

(01:05:08):
pardon practically, to me, no, that is wrong and unforgivably wrong.

Speaker 1 (01:05:16):
You know, people contrast that with what's happening in Los Angeles,
with mostly peaceful protests and activating the National Guard and
the Marines. I asked you this earlier, but I think
we moved on to other topics. How do you feel
about the use of the Guard and the Marines in
a situation like that.

Speaker 2 (01:05:34):
Well, I'm one that thinks, you know, your National Guard,
these are your state guardians, right and your governor is
the one that has that authority over them. I think
that there's a process there that we all expect that
if the President feels that additional additional enforcement needs to

(01:05:59):
be brought in, that they work with the governor. I
think it was I I feel that it was it
was somewhat concerning that that the president didn't work with
the governor. I just learned today just reading something that
that the courts have upheld the authority of the president
in doing so because there apparently he had worked through

(01:06:23):
the state's adjutant General as opposed to the to the governor.
So apparently there was some legal basis for.

Speaker 1 (01:06:29):
Them that's being appealed.

Speaker 2 (01:06:30):
Yeah, and I hadn't heard whether they were going to
appeal on that, but but it is, I mean, it
is something where there is an area where you can say,
all right, does the president have that level of authority.
I don't think that's the conversation that we need to
have here. That's going to be settled out one way
or another. But I do think that how we ensure

(01:06:52):
that our communities, our cities feel safe while still allowing
for respectful and peaceful protest when there's violence, when there
is when there is the destruction that we have seen
in some of our communities, not just right now with
Los Angeles, but what we had seen some years ago

(01:07:14):
in Seattle and Portland and the violence in the destruction.
I mean, this is a situation that there is a
responsibility to ensure the safety of those who who are
in these areas. But can we can we be working
together instead of kind of this heavy handed I'm just

(01:07:37):
going to take charge of this situation. This is where
I feel we have a where more politics has been
brought into a volatile situation than should should be allowed
to factor in.

Speaker 1 (01:07:53):
So do you think he was overstepping his authority or not.

Speaker 2 (01:07:57):
I think the President wanted to make a point. I
think he wanted to show a level of strength and
dominance and taking charge. I think that was that was
what he wanted to.

Speaker 1 (01:08:07):
Do in a political way.

Speaker 2 (01:08:10):
That's how that's how it's been translated. Right.

Speaker 1 (01:08:14):
Let me ask you a couple of other issues. There's
so much going on, and I just so appreciate your
time to kind of give us your point of view
on some of these things. The murder of their representative
in Minnesota, Melissa Hortman and her husband, and then the
shooting of another legislator and his wife. It's scary out.

Speaker 2 (01:08:39):
It is scary. It is scary. It is it is
a it is a volatile time. There is anger, there
is there's hatred, there's hatred, and this is where this
is where I think as leaders at all levels we

(01:09:01):
have we have a responsibility to work to be bringing
people together, not creating greater divide, not creating greater anger
and hatred, and us against them. Watching your words, your
words really really matter.

Speaker 1 (01:09:21):
What did you think of Mike Lee's statements?

Speaker 2 (01:09:24):
I think your words really matter, and I think what
he put out there was wrong and insensitive, it was
just and so why would you do this? Why would you?
Why would you? Why would you add fuel to a fire?

Speaker 1 (01:09:42):
Well, I think some people would not use the word insensitive.
I think they might say grossly and appropriate, you know,
I mean it was really weird. Let's be honest.

Speaker 2 (01:09:54):
Well, and let's let's not let's not even try to
describe whether it was weird or grossly inappropriate. But why
would you do anything that would that again, would would

(01:10:20):
poke at the situation in a way that is going
to be more divisive at a time when I would
like to think that we would say when a lawmaker,
somebody who is an elected representative of the people at
any level has been assassinated by a guy with a

(01:10:42):
hit list, that we would not all roundly condemn that,
regardless of whether you're the victim was a Democrat or
a Republican or you know whatever. Uh, this is this
is where we're not we're not recognizing the humanity. We're

(01:11:03):
letting politics intervene into everything.

Speaker 1 (01:11:07):
So how can we tone down the rhetoric?

Speaker 2 (01:11:10):
Think before you send a tweet.

Speaker 1 (01:11:14):
In fact, you had your sister made a necklace for
you after an interview we did, yeah, where you said.

Speaker 2 (01:11:22):
I cannot live in fear of a tweet because I
think the question that you had asked me. This was
in the first Trump administration, and I don't recall what
the issue of the day was, but I had spoken
out and you asked me if I was concerned about
any kind of pushback or retribution, and I said I can't.
I can't live in fear of a tweet. And yeah,

(01:11:44):
so Carol did make me that little necklace. I still
have it. I don't wear it all the time, but
I have it right underneath a heart of this date
of Alaska.

Speaker 1 (01:11:55):
So let me ask you about the so called Big
Beautiful Bill, which is now known as that branded by
the Trump administration. Do you think it's going to pass?
What is the status?

Speaker 2 (01:12:07):
Yeah, well, you know, not not not knowing what day
this is actually going to air. I can only speak
about where it is today. And we are not done.
I think it's probably fair to say that there is
still a great deal that is yet to be negotiated. Uh.
The public has been read into the great controversies over

(01:12:29):
as salt and medicaid and the energy tax credits and
the deficit. The deficit. Oh yeah, these are none of
these are insignificant. You know, does it spend too much?
Does it does it cut too much? Uh? The these
these are areas where we are not yet reconciled. This weekend, UH,

(01:12:51):
there will be this procedural process where the parliamentarian will determine, uh,
those matters that are more related to policy than than
than revenue or spending, and those are are thrown overboard.
So what does that do to Well, I'm there or
I'm not there. I've been working through a lot of
the concerns that I have as they relate to Medicaid

(01:13:12):
and SNAP and our ability and in a state like
Alaska to to to not only UH be able to
comply with certain requirements, but just the impact on Alaskans
where we've got an extraordinarily expensive system, uh, when it
comes to healthcare and access to healthcare and limited access.

(01:13:34):
So there's a lot in the mix right now. I
do think ultimately you're going to see a reconciliation bill pass.
Do I think it's going to pass by the fourth
of July. Uh, That's what everybody is is aiming towards.
I would much rather, and I have have have said,

(01:13:59):
uh said that I would much rather have good policy
than try to adhere to an arbitrary timeline.

Speaker 1 (01:14:11):
Do you think Donald Trump is going to be disappointed
with the ultimate bill?

Speaker 2 (01:14:17):
You know, I wouldn't think so. I wouldn't think so.
I think his and keep in mind I'm not on
the negotiating team. I'm not a chairman of a committee
that received instructions, and so a lot of these negotiations
are going on with just a very few individuals, right.
But I am very aware that the Trump administration has

(01:14:40):
been engaged throughout so that they know that the kind
of the general direction of things. So I would I
would certainly think he would be good with it at
the end of the day.

Speaker 1 (01:14:54):
How do you feel about the cabinet in general now
that you've seen them operate for most six months? You
were talking earlier about the people President Trump was surrounding
himself with now versus his first term. In general, do
you think they're doing a good job?

Speaker 2 (01:15:15):
Uh? In general? Uh, you know, I I can pick
on a secretary here or there. Uh, but I think
I think the President has put in place, at least
at the top level, a cabinet that is they're they're

(01:15:38):
they're working to do their job. Uh. There are still
many within the departments, you know. I'm I'm the chairman
of the Interior Appropriations Committee, So uh, we've got jurisdiction
over all the parks and public lands and in many
of these positions that are under the Secretary. They don't

(01:16:02):
have them filled out yet, and so we're trying to
get answers to a lot of questions and don't get
the level of detail that we need right now because
the people that would be putting these in place are
not yet there. That's hard. I get that.

Speaker 1 (01:16:19):
Since you brought up the National Parks, can I ask
you Senator about you know, obviously there were significant cuts
to the National parks, especially being from Alaska and caring
so much for the environment in the outside world. I
recently saw that there can't be any signage or education

(01:16:41):
in our national parks about anything negative about America or
that's interpreted as negative. So really no conversation about indigenous
people where this gos backed on that one tell me,
because that's the impression I got.

Speaker 2 (01:16:58):
Because when we talk about indigenous people, we're not talking
about a DEI initiative. And this was something very very
early on in the Trump administration when the DEI Executive
Order came out. The relationship with American Indians, Alaska Native
Native Hawaiians is based on a trust responsibility, right, It's

(01:17:22):
a trust and treaty responsibility and there are It is
not race based. It is political based and it's very clear.
I made a request of the various secretaries, I think

(01:17:43):
it was probably in late January or February, very early on,
reminding them, reminding them that when we are talking about
Native programs, when we are talking about Indigenous peoples, we
are not talking about d e I And Uh it
was actually a Secretary Burghum out of Interior that issued

(01:18:06):
a secretarial order confirming that we were able to receive
the same out of HHS out of the Department of Education.
And so we have been working very aggressively, if you will,
to to ensure that, uh, there's no there's no confusion.

(01:18:27):
So I saw the same same thing that you have
read about the signage in the parks. I'm not quite sure, like, okay,
what is this? What does this mean? Uh? So I'm
actually I'm actually going to get a better read out

(01:18:49):
from the folks over there at Interior about give me
some specific examples here, because if we're not talking about
indigenous peoples, is this instances you know, maybe it's it's
slaves that were involved in a battleground, uh site that

(01:19:10):
is part of our of our park system. Give me
some give me some examples of what you what you
consider to be in this category.

Speaker 1 (01:19:19):
Do you sometimes feel, or have you felt at all,
that this anti Dei philosophy or this backlash against Dei
has gone too far to the point where it's a
racing history. It is not giving credit to female pioneers,
black pioneers. I personally find it distressing.

Speaker 2 (01:19:42):
Yeah. Well, I'll give you a specific example. I was
on my way to Sitka, Alaska, which is a small
island and beautiful community in southeast Alasta.

Speaker 1 (01:19:52):
I have a friend who is the doctor there.

Speaker 2 (01:19:54):
Really it's a great community, beautiful, But I was going
there because we were recognized a Clinket code talker. So
everyone knows of the Navajo code talkers. Well, during the war, Uh,
there were also a small group of of of Clinkett

(01:20:15):
people who served in the military. The Clinquet language is
it's hard to pronounce and UH. Anyway, they they were
also code talkers, and so they have been recipients of
the Congressional Gold Meal. And I was literally on an

(01:20:36):
airplane to go present the family of this uh, this
code talker who had not previously been acknowledged, UH, present
them the UH, the the documentation, and I get word
that UH that the Navajo code talkers. The code talkers

(01:20:58):
basically had we're going to be scrubbed as part of
a DEI initiative. Now, obviously that didn't happen. We've addressed that,
but it kind of speaks to the who's making these
decisions and why why do you think that this is appropriate?
I'll tell you one of the things that I think
is causes me to say sometimes these things are just

(01:21:22):
over the top. I don't know what how much money
it's going to cost to take the name off of
the Harvey Milk where I guess the Harriet Tubman also
was a naval I don't know what kind of a
naval ship she is, but a handful of individuals that

(01:21:43):
had had faced extreme challenges through their life who had
been recognized we've named a ship after them. It's kind
of petty to say, you know, how much does it cost?
But in fairness, In fairness, when we're looking at all

(01:22:05):
of the other priorities that we are asking of our
military right now that we are asking of our navy,
when our navy needs to to be doing more yesterday
to to build up their fleet, we're now going to
tell you go over and and scrape everything off, repaint it,
rebrand it. Why why are we doing why are we

(01:22:28):
doing this this effort to to just to use your
words to scrub everything?

Speaker 1 (01:22:38):
Who is making the decision?

Speaker 2 (01:22:39):
I don't know. I don't know who's making the decisions.
You know. I think in the in the in the
early months, there were some things that were coming out
that just were where did that come from? And and
we learned that there was some decisions that were being

(01:23:00):
made by doche teams that came in before you had
any secretaries being accountable, And there was some stuff that
was going on that I think caught a lot by surprise.
And I can't imagine what it must have felt like
to be a cabinet member coming in and to see

(01:23:22):
some of the things that you basically now had to
figure out how to clean up while not throwing anybody
under the bus, right. Yeah, So I don't know, I
don't know who's making that decision. I mean, I don't
know if that's from the Secretary of Defense or if
that's somebody somebody lower down. But somebody's making the decision.

Speaker 1 (01:23:46):
You did vote to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Junior. Do
you regret that?

Speaker 2 (01:23:54):
I can't spend time on regrets for the votes that
I have made. I'm disappointed in what we've seen out
of Secretary Kennedy when it comes to vaccines and the
the the panel. We need to have h we need
to have truth and credibility and honestry and transparency and

(01:24:17):
all of the above when it comes to UH to
to our vaccine policy in this country. And I think
by just summarily disposing of everybody that was on that panel,
it doesn't it doesn't convince me that that UH this
is now credible and and and and trustworthy. So that

(01:24:42):
that to me is very very concerning. I will say
though that my my vote to support him, I was
very very direct with him where I come from on
on vaccines. But he he has been true to his
word to me when it comes to IHS in in

(01:25:06):
health service, which he has that oversight of in ensuring
that the reductions and forces, the riffs that were applicable
across his department, that they were preserved, he said to me,
and he acknowledged that, Look, they have been underfunded. This
is an area where there is great need. I'm going

(01:25:28):
to be there. And the other area is his focus
on chronic diseases, things like obesity, diabetes. These are things
that we see in Alaska that are extraordinary drivers in
some of the healthcare issues that we're seeing with a
focus on just diet and what this all means. So
he's got a very I think it's fair to say

(01:25:51):
he's got a strong following in Alaska because of the
focus on some of these So is he perfect?

Speaker 1 (01:25:58):
No?

Speaker 2 (01:26:00):
Am I going to push him to try to be
more better. I think that's my responsibility.

Speaker 1 (01:26:07):
If you had known then what you know now, would
you still have voted to confirm him.

Speaker 2 (01:26:14):
I think I would have gotten I would have tried
to have gotten greater assurances, are more specific assurances on vaccines.
But I also recognize that, look, we are, we are
six months into into this process. He's appointed eight people.
I think the maximum to the panel is I want

(01:26:35):
to say seventeen or eighteen. It's it's it's much. It's
double what it could be. And so he's got some
room for improvement there, I think, and I think that
there are other members of the Senate who who feel
as I do on this issue that making sure that

(01:26:58):
that there is credibility, that there is strong science, that
we get beyond some of these issues that lead to
vaccine hesitancy because of signals that are sent by policy leaders.
We got some work to do.

Speaker 1 (01:27:15):
I want to end with one of your prime motivators
for writing this book, if I could, Senator Murkowski, that
you wanted to show the system actually works. I think
a lot of people in this country don't feel that
way right now. You give examples, but what would you
say to people who are really discouraged and frustrated.

Speaker 2 (01:27:39):
You can't give up. You can't give up. What's your
option just like stay in bed all day and think
it's going to get better. There's a lot of people
speaking up now who've never spoken up before, never spoken
up before, never being involved in a protest, who are

(01:28:05):
becoming engaged. They're frustrated because it's like, Okay, so I
marched in a protest, I had a sign, it was fun,
it was a beautiful day. I've never done this before,
and I've heard I've heard them say is this a
waste of time? And I said, you know what, when
people stop speaking up, then we're gonna believe that everything's okay.

(01:28:30):
And you know everything's not okay, and so stay in there,
don't give up, and so I know that there is
a level of discouragement. I know that people are feeling
like this is just really heavy right now, and so
isn't isn't this the moment two for you to be

(01:28:53):
a participant instead of checking out? We can't. We can't
check out. Then we give up. And when you give up,
then that's when that's when you have the authoritarian that
comes in and says, I'll take care of you my way. No,
there has to be a level of optimism, and there

(01:29:13):
has to be a level of hope. And I operate
in an environment of a lot of negative nabobs out here,
and I get that, and I cannot let them get
me down. I cannot. I have to believe in the
greater good. And maybe it's just the spirituality that comes
with an amazing place like Alaska that allows me to think, Yeah,

(01:29:36):
this is worth fighting for. We can do this. It
may be like a crazy wild write in that everybody
says is impossible. Maybe they're saying it can't be saved,
but we are still the greatest country. We're still the
greatest country on the planet, and so let's not let's

(01:29:56):
not fall prey to our own our own fears here.

Speaker 1 (01:30:02):
Let's let's.

Speaker 2 (01:30:05):
Figure it out. It's gonna be hard, but it's gonna
be worth it. You just have to believe.

Speaker 1 (01:30:12):
Well. The book is far from home, an Alaskan senator
faces the extreme climate of Washington, d C. Where we're
sitting right now. Senator Murkowski, thank you so much, Thank.

Speaker 2 (01:30:22):
You, Thanks for the conversation. Good to be back with you.

Speaker 1 (01:30:29):
Thanks for listening. Everyone. If you have a question for me,
a subject you want us to cover, or you want
to share your thoughts about how you navigate this crazy world,
reach out send me a DM on Instagram. I would
love to hear from you. Next Question is a production
of iHeartMedia and Katie Kuric Media. The executive producers are Me,

(01:30:50):
Katie Kuric, and Courtney Ltz. Our supervising producer is Ryan Martz,
and our producers are Adriana Fazzio and Meredith Barnes. Julian
Weller composed our theme music. For more information about today's episode,
or to sign up for my newsletter, wake Up Call,
go to the description in the podcast app or visit

(01:31:11):
us at Katiecuric dot com. You can also find me
on Instagram and all my social media channels. For more
podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
wherever you listen to your favorite shows. What if there
were a way to reduce cancer desks by half in
the next twenty five years. What if it were the

(01:31:34):
future our children, our loved ones, our world could actually
wake up to. This is the future Exact Sciences works
toward every day, but they believe it's possible. Exact Sciences
is a dedicated team of cancer fighters united by a
purpose to help eradicate cancer by preventing it, detecting it earlier,
and guiding personalized treatment. They bring together the best and

(01:31:57):
visionary thinking and scientific rigor to create tests, including COLLI
guard and Chotype DX that inspire life changing action. Visit
exact sciences dot com to learn more.