July 18, 2025 • 38 mins
Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) sits down with Margaret Hoover to discuss her economic “war plan” for Democrats and her approach to bridging the ideological divisions within the party.
Slotkin–who won her seat even as Donald Trump won her state–calls for Democrats to stop being so sensitive, responds to the rise of progressive populists like Zohran Mamdani, and addresses the challenges of confronting the national debt. She also comments on Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the use of the phrase “globalize the intifada” by anti-Israel protesters.
The former CIA analyst talks about the impact of the rescission package Republicans passed this week and explains why she believes some GOP lawmakers are afraid to defy the president. She also discusses Trump’s agreement to provide weapons to Ukraine through NATO and the possibility of restoring deterrence against America’s adversaries.
Slotkin reacts to the rift among Republicans over the Trump administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files and defends her bill that would require immigration officers to clearly identify themselves when making arrests.
Support for Firing Line with Margaret Hoover is provided by Robert Granieri, The Tepper Foundation, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, and Pritzker Military Foundation.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
They're scared of him putting the hot spotlight right on them,
having all his followers go after them.
And then at a very base sort of level that I'm sympathetic with,
they are worried about their physical security.
But if you are scared to cast a vote that you know is important
to your constituents, this isn'tthe right job for you.
(00:22):
That's Democratic Senator AlyssaSlotkin of Michigan, responding
to Republicans who she says are afraid to stand up to President
Trump. Suck it up, buttercup, like it's
a tough job. I'm Margaret Hoover.
This is the Firing Line podcast As a moderate Democrat who won a
Senate seat even as Kamala Harris lost her state to Trump,
(00:45):
Elissa Slotkin has become a key player in the party's search for
a path back to. Power.
And I promise that I and my fellow Democrats will do
everything in our power to be the principal leaders that you
deserve. Slotkin served three tours in
Iraq as a CIA analyst. And I say this as a national
security person by training. The biggest threat to our
country right now, the existential threat, is the
(01:07):
shrinking of the middle class. Now she's turning her tactical
mindset to confronting Democratsmany political challenges.
This is just not a moment to be careful and polite.
We need a plan. We need to be on the same page.
We need to play as a team. And confronting Trump
administration officials, including Defense Secretary Pete
Hagseth. These.
Troops are given very clear. Orders then what is the order
(01:29):
then listed out for us be a man listed out but his.
Figures like democratic socialist Zoran Mamdani rise to
prominence on the left. How does Slotkin reconcile her
for these ideological divisions?If we can at least have a sit
down conversation about what theproblems are, we can do get out
on policy and I'm ready to have those conversations.
(01:53):
Senator Elissa Slackin, welcome back to firing.
Thanks. Thanks for having me.
Data has been released this weekthat showed inflation has
accelerated in June, coming in higher than expected.
Economists have attributed the increase to, at least in part,
Trump's tariffs, which you have called chaotic and sloppy.
(02:16):
After four years when Democrats downplayed how important
inflation was, how are Democratsgoing to get that credibility on
the issue of the economy and inflation?
Yeah, Well, first of all, you have to tell people that you
actually care about it and it's a priority for you.
And I think one of the big lessons for the Democratic Party
(02:38):
was what happened in the last November election.
I don't think anyone was missingthat Donald Trump ran on, you
know, helping your pocketbooks. I think we're going to see
whether he's actually going to help your hot pocketbook.
I don't think it's going the right direction.
But he ran on that and he made it really clear.
And that was his priority. And I was knocking on doors
right before the election and hearing, look, I don't really
(02:59):
like Donald Trump, but if he's going to put more money in my
pocket, I'm going to vote for him.
And so when you stand for everything and you have a
million different issues you care about, no one knows your
priorities. And I think for Democrats, we
need to recenter around the economy and the economic needs
of the middle class. This week, President Trump
announced a new agreement for the United States to sell
weapons to NATO, who will then provide them to the to Ukraine.
(03:23):
He also warned that he would impose steep tariffs on Russia
if Vladimir Putin does not make peace within 50 days.
In the past, you have not hesitated to criticize President
Trump for, quote, closing up to dictators and kicking our allies
in the teeth. But you did give him credit for
recognizing that Putin cannot betrusted.
(03:46):
Finally. Finally.
Do you give him? Do you believe he will follow
through? You know, I, I think this, this
President Trump clearly thought that he could handle Putin, that
he as a deal maker could come inand solve the Ukraine crisis.
He always, I think, gave preferential sort of treatment
and credit to Vladimir Putin in ways that I could never
(04:08):
understand. They have a bromance.
I just do not get. Do you think he's?
Really. Come around.
I think that he's been frustrated by his inability to
get Putin to do what he wants todo.
You know, he, he said it himself.
He talks to him on the phone andhe thinks everything is OK.
And then they bomb Kiev at night.
So I think that the the president is learning what many
of us were real clear on, which is Putin can't be trusted.
(04:30):
He's not an honest actor. And he's trying to apply more
pressure, whether that works or not, by giving him yet another
goal post, We'll see. I don't think Putin is looking
to bend to anybody when it comesto Ukraine.
If the president has sincerely achange of heart, could that be
meaningful materially? I mean, look, I, I believe that
it's important that democracies don't just get overrun and
(04:52):
invaded, right? I, I think in general for the
world. So I think this is an important
stand to take. And it sends a really strong
signal to places like China thatif you actually violate the
sovereignty of another country, there's going to be a punishment
for that. If President Trump completely
doesn't want 80 and says, you know what, we're now on the side
of democracies, you know, disrupts a lot of his own base
(05:14):
and and causes a lot of problemsfor himself.
But if he does that, I'll be thefirst to cheer him on.
I think right now we're seeing him kind of live in in the
moment of how difficult it is togovern.
It's easy to say a talking point.
It's easy to say you're going tofix Vladimir Putin.
It's a very different thing to actually act, you know, secure
an agreement that changes the tide of the war.
(05:34):
Are we, between the bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities
and a change of heart vis A vis Putin, potentially seeing a
return to US deterrence? You know, I don't know, I think
President Trump, you watched howquickly he wanted to stop
talking about that bombing in the Middle East.
I think it for most presidents, if they have, you know, a
(05:54):
relatively successful bombing ofa nuclear facilities, they're
talking about that for more thantwo days.
Does send a signal to our adversaries though, doesn't it?
Absolutely. I mean, I think for sure, I
mean, when it came to that strike, you know, as someone who
served three tours in Iraq and watched the Iranians attack U.S.
forces, plot against us in the region, shoot ballistic missiles
(06:16):
in the region, it to me it was, you know, that sort of strange
feeling when someone you don't like does something you think is
potentially a good thing. But I think the.
The but that's not hard for you to admit.
No, it's not hard for me to admit.
But what I was very concerned about is managing any
escalation. I don't have a ton of trust with
the folks in the White House that that if things spiraled out
(06:38):
of control, God forbid if, you know, the Iran retaliated and
killed a bunch of American forces, what would we do next?
It's the the managing escalationthat always made me concerned,
right? But I think the the president
really sort of took the strike and sent a signal to the
Iranians, who for many years have not believed.
(06:59):
Fundamentally, not just the Iranians, Right, right, right.
Xi Jinping, potentially VladimirPutin.
I mean, I find Vladimir Putin. I see a 50 day warning after the
Iranians didn't listen to a 60 day warning.
I, I mean, I think certainly when we talk about deterrence in
military terms, we talk about capabilities and intent.
You know, everyone knows, I think we have the most powerful
(07:21):
military in the world, but do weactually use it right?
Will we are our intentions thereto actually use it?
I think a lot of countries around the world are just not
sure. And with the strike in Iran, I,
I will say that it's sent a signal, particularly in the
Middle East, that if you don't engage with us productively, we
will. America will act.
(07:43):
Senator, this week Republicans voted to approve President
Trump's request to rescind $9 billion in already appropriated
funds, including a billion dollars of public broadcasting.
What is your reaction to the potential impact broadly, but
also to PBS? I mean, for me, first of all, I
(08:04):
think it's hard to overstate howmany rural communities around
the country depend exclusively on the news, the warnings, the
alerts, the weather alerts that come out of their local news
station, which is an affiliate of National Public Radio.
I mean that, and I see that in Michigan all the time.
And public broadcasting and public.
Broadcasting. It's hard to overstate how many
(08:24):
of us grew up on things like Sesame Street and educational
programming that was only available because of public
broadcasting. So to me, you know, there's
there's a real American connection to what happened this
week with the cutting of those programs.
But I also think it it's an important note.
I looked across the aisle at my colleagues who were who were
(08:46):
voting yes on this cut. You know, this is part of money
that they supported a year ago. You know, Congress has the power
of the purse. That's our it's in the
Constitution. Like that's foundational.
And my colleagues are just willing to give away all their
power and say, you know, what ifthe president tells us to cut
something that we voted on a year ago, let's go ahead cut it.
It really undercuts the leadership of this branch of
(09:10):
government. So I think we're going to see
more of these packages and it's going to have more deep impact
on American citizens. And, and what it ultimately does
is it makes this appropriations process a majority vote rather
than a bipartisan effort to get 60 votes.
I mean, as you pass that appropriation in the 1st place,
it took 60 votes. It took Republicans and
Democrats working together to decide what to spend money on.
(09:30):
If it can be undercut with 50 votes, it is.
Republicans and Democrats have both said this poisons the
appropriations process and undermines Congresses
constitutional responsibility. 100% I mean, I don't know, the
Appropriations Committee in the Senate was like this vaunted,
you know, serious leadership committee where it was like,
(09:51):
this is the purse of the United States of America.
And so when you got to be chairman of that committee, you
were a powerful figure in Washington.
Now what? What's the even point of that,
chairwoman, in this case, putting it, putting a budget
together and trying to get it passed if on a whim, we're just
going to be cutting things 10 days later?
It just does not. It undercuts the separation of
(10:12):
powers, which is, I think, a theme for this administration.
So even though this is a small amount of money, this has a
consequence far beyond. Yes, and I think it's
interesting, right, because in the past 2 1/2, three weeks, we
voted on the president's signature piece of legislation,
the big beautiful bill, which increased American U.S. debt by
three trillion with AT trillion dollars.
(10:35):
So then this week when we go to change, you know, and cut back
on, you know, 9 billion, I just want everyone to remember like
trillions versus billions, Billions in this case is a drop
in a bucket compared to the three trillion we just added to
our debt. Why would the Senate voluntarily
choose to undermine their own power?
(10:56):
I I think that it's just comes down to pressure and fear.
I mean, it's not any more complicated than that.
I had a colleague say to me yesterday, there's only two
categories of Republicans left in the Senate, those who are
true believers with Donald Trumpand those who are scared of
Donald Trump. And that, to me, rings true.
What are they scared of? They're scared of him putting
(11:18):
the hot spotlight right on them,having all his followers go
after them. They're worried about getting a
primary challenge and him payingfor it.
And then at a very base sort of level that I'm sympathetic with,
they are worried about their physical security.
If he riles people up against them.
And I've seen that, right? We've seen leadership climate is
set at the top. If he turns against someone, we
(11:39):
shouldn't be surprised when people at the grassroots level
are plotting against some of these people.
So I think it's from physical security, a fear of physical
security, a fear of politically losing their jobs.
And I think it's I, I, I sort offeel for them.
But if you are scared to cast a vote that you know is important
to your constituents, this isn'tthe right job for you.
(12:01):
Find something else to do. Strikes me that it's easy to say
for somebody who's been on threetours in Iraq, but most people
don't sign up for the Senate thinking they're putting their
lives in danger. I understand, but like, this is
the era we're living in, right? We're living in really
complicated times when we know our country is not well, right?
The country we love is not well.We're fighting the threats, you
(12:24):
know, against each other just for disagreeing on simple things
like policy or politics. That was never how it was
growing up in Michigan. My dad's a lifelong Republican.
My mom was a lifelong Democrat. We were more likely to argue
angrily about sports, Michigan versus Michigan State than
politics. So we know that we're not well.
And, and right now, if you are called to elected service, you
(12:47):
are on the forefront of this, this fight that's going on in
our country. And you have to be girded for
it. That's unfortunately, that is
the moment we have found ourselves in.
So either steal your spine, accept that you're never going
to be able to make everybody happy.
And that's that's the way we areright now.
And just suck it up, buttercup. Like it's a tough job.
(13:08):
And that your votes might put you in physical danger.
And that's. I wish it weren't that way.
It it's terrible. And I, I live that way too,
right? But if this is, if that's too
much for you, there are a lot ofother jobs for you out there.
You know what else isn't healthy?
Democrats would say the Democratic Party is not very
healthy right now, at least some.
(13:29):
Since the 2024 election, the Democratic Party has been
through an intense period of soul searching.
Poll just this week says 4 in 10Americans think the Democratic
Party is doing a good job. You are a Democrat who won
statewide in a state that DonaldTrump won decisively.
Many Michiganders voted Trump, Slotkin thousands.
(13:55):
You have said you're not waitingfor anybody to figure out what
the future of the Democratic Party is.
So you've created your own war plan to move forward.
You've also you've been accused of being a moderate.
You're not part of the squad. Some have said you're part of a
mod squad, at least when you're in the House of Representatives.
Seems to me the central premise of your plan with the Democratic
(14:20):
Party forward is about savings and the economy.
Is it the economy? Stupid?
Yeah, I mean, this is the UnitedStates of America.
We people have been raised, I was on the American dream that
if you work hard and you play bythe rules, you will do well and
your kids will do better. That is the central sort of
(14:42):
bargain, right? And not that government is
supposed to provide everything for you.
We don't believe that, right? In Michigan, no one expects hand
handouts. They expect the government to
create the conditions for their success and then they have to
get up every day and work hard to earn it right.
That to me is the the handshake deal we have as Americans.
And right now people do not feelthat that deal stands right.
(15:06):
Whether you're you're my age andyou can't afford to send your
kids to college. You can't, you know, take your
kids to Disneyland. You can't pay for summer camp or
the youngest generation that's graduating college and saying,
I'm never going to have the lifethat my parents had.
I'm never going to afford the house that they can afford.
So I think we have to treat thatwith the the sort of power that
(15:26):
it deserves, which is, and I saythis as a national security
person by training, the biggest threat to our country right now,
the existential threat is the shrinking of the middle class.
And it's been going on for a while.
But man, we have hit a boiling point.
And until we accept that all thethe the pain and the anger and
the polarization going on in thecountry is because people feel
(15:47):
like they can't get ahead. And when they can't get ahead,
they blame other people. President Obama.
Chided Democrats, saying they need to toughen up against
Donald Trump. You have said we need more alpha
energy in the Democratic Party. We need more coach energy.
Sort of like the tough love. Are you and former President
Obama saying the same thing? You know, I, you know that I
(16:11):
don't know if we're saying the exact same thing, but it's, it
sort of smells the same, right? And I, I think this idea that
Democrats are, are so careful and they're so caveated and
they're so worried about offending each other, offending
other people. They're so worried about pissing
off people on the Internet. They're they're they're, they
live often in a world where theyconstrain themselves.
(16:32):
Are they too sensitive? I think some of them sure are
too sensitive. And this is to me, the the
central point is like, especially with Donald Trump and
the White House, this is just not a moment to be careful and
polite. We need a plan.
We need to be on the same page. We need to play as a team.
We need to call out when someoneisn't helping the team and we
(16:53):
need to hug someone when they dosomething great.
Where does that hypersensitivitycome from?
Like, why? I mean, why have you and Obama
pointed to the same thing? Like what is that about I?
I so I don't, you know, I've, I've been in elected politics
now 6 1/2 years. So I don't pretend to know the
whole sweep of history of where it comes from.
But in my experience, Democrats,we are a big tent.
(17:14):
We have a bunch of different voices in our party that are
often pretty different, right? You, you mentioned it in sort of
your, your intro. And when you have a big tent
like that, you got to keep people together and that means
kind of treating each other politely.
That means sort of saying, you know what, okay, I didn't like
the direction that that group istaking us, but I'm going to kind
(17:36):
of, you know, kind of whisper behind the scenes instead of
having the, the real conversation about what our
priorities are as a party. And I, I think that that's, that
works. Maybe in peacetime, you know, I
come from the, the military sideof things like when things are
going well and everything's working swimmingly in their
countries just really healthy, then we can be polite and
(17:56):
careful with each other. But when there's threats to our
country, to our democracy, it itis required that we get our act
together. I'm trying to watch my language.
We get our act together, work asa team.
And when someone like it, you know, there's lots of things we
care about as Democrats. I get that we got to prioritize
the pocketbook because that's where our country is.
(18:17):
Sounds like what you're saying is, you know, Republicans fear
Trump and Democrats fear each other's factions.
Sometimes it fear Twitter. You know, I I've been shocked.
You know, I'm new to the Senate.Six months in how many of my
peers said, well, Alyssa, I'd love to be with you on that
issue, but you know, Twitter will be mad, you know, the the
Internet. People will be.
They literally say that, yeah. They'll be a bad online response
(18:40):
and I'm just like, I mean. US senators are afraid of
Twitter. I think they're afraid of being,
you know, sort of public opinion.
Of course they're politicians. You've drafted a war plan for
Democrats. It includes support for small
businesses, deregulation and stimulating the housing market.
And all of the above. Energy plan, education reform, a
(19:02):
public option for health insurance.
All of this is about the economy.
And it strikes me that your approach is one that is aligned
with the abundance agenda, folks.
It's aligned with how to harnessthe market compassionately, have
policies that economically improve the lives of the middle
(19:25):
class. But is it?
It takes on certain sacred cows,as you say.
Slaughters them. Slaughters sacred cows because,
you know, tough luck, My. Family is from the meat
business, so you know, anything that gets me talking about is
slaughtering cows. This feels at home.
Who's sacred cows? The parties and sort of I, I
mean, I think, you know, I thinkabout deregulation and this
(19:48):
conversation that's been very active now in the Democratic
Party, which I think is good. A lot of Democrats, you know,
know that we, we sort of say, well, we tend to be the party of
additional regulation And each individual regulation probably
comes from a very good place, right.
You want to protect the environment, you want to protect
kids. You want so it each one is is
(20:09):
done with the right intentions. But the cumulative effect of all
those regulations on top of eachother like a pile means you you
can't build enough single familyhomes, right?
And so the we have to look at the net effect and be willing to
say, well, some of these need tocome off, right?
We can't, we can't regulate ourselves into not enough middle
class housing, right? Which is sort of what we've
(20:30):
done. So you got to face that forward.
And people may say, yeah, that sounds right.
But then when you go to take offthat regulation that they feel
attached to, they scream bloody murder, right?
And that's the kind of alpha energy part where you got to
say, hey, I get it that that regulation made sense to you 10
years ago. It doesn't make sense now.
It's holding us back. And no one gets the response,
(20:52):
you know, the right to hold the whole country back like that.
We got to have those tough conversations.
So you. Have said that the Seminole sort
of split in the Democratic Partyisn't about progressives versus
moderates, but that it's about sort of this.
Do you believe in the DemocraticParty in your heart of hearts
that the existential threat to the future of the country is
(21:14):
Donald Trump's second term? Bernie Sanders, Alexander Ocasio
Cortez have drawn thousands of people to their fighting
oligarchy rallies across the country in New York City.
Potentially the new face of the Democratic Party nationally is a
democratic socialist who is the Democratic nominee for mayor.
(21:35):
Are you so sure that the populist progressive energy in
the party isn't the Seminole split with the kind of vision
that you're articulating should be the one for the party?
So. You know, I take the message
coming out of, let's say, the New York City elections or those
(21:56):
rallies as actually confirmationof two things.
The country is still laser focused on cost of living and
the economy, right? Yeah.
And then #2 they're looking for a new generation of leadership.
They're looking for different faces.
Like, I think it's hard to miss those themes now.
I have a lot of disagreements with, you know, the the Mr. Mom
(22:17):
because the. Policy solutions are totally
different from what you're articulating.
They're very different. They don't want to fix
regulation like you just said. They want to interfere with the
market in order to, you know, they'd rather take an approach
to attack the market to make housing affordable.
But you know what? If we can at least have a sit
down conversation about what theproblems are, we can Duke it out
(22:38):
on policy. And I'm ready to have those
conversations. But man, I mean, I, I think it's
a, it's an overall positive thing that the message is being
drummed into our heads. It's the economy, it's the
economy, it's the economy. And we can have the, the, the
argument and we will about the right policies.
I would offer that an election in New York City is important
(22:59):
for New York City. It doesn't have a lot to do with
the state of Michigan and the part of the country I'm from.
But the sentiment that the economy is not working for all
people, not just Republicans whovoted for Trump or people,
people in New York City, that isthe headline to me.
And if we are missing that, thenyou know we got bigger problems.
It's affordability, it's housing.
(23:20):
These are certainly common themes.
It's it's how much money do you save versus how much you
spending? Is it going in the direction so
that you can have a secure and stable life and your kids can do
even better than you? That's the thing that most
Americans everyday wake up saying.
I got to have that in order to feel secure.
(23:40):
You're confident that you can doget out on public policy on the,
on the policy issues and the solutions.
I mean, I mean, Mandami, Mandamiand other progressives, I mean,
they argue that billionaires should not exist.
They're turning this into a class warfare fight.
Corporations should be taxed the, the way to pay for their
plans Is, is, is is sort of an old school tax the rich.
(24:01):
It doesn't strike me that's aligned with your policy
approach. I, I think we'll serve.
I believe in a fair tax code that's fair.
You know, to me, the issue is, is not always just about
billionaires In Michigan, we have 8 billionaires in the
entire state. OK, that's not the, it's not the
the central thing, things that people are waking up and
thinking about. But a fair tax policy that makes
(24:21):
people pay their fair share. I think everyone gets that right
now. My mechanic is paying more in
taxes than, you know, the billionaires.
And that doesn't make any sense.But yes, we can do get out on
policy. Actually, Democrats still care a
lot about policy. My Republican colleagues, it's
just about whatever Donald Trumpis telling him today.
But and I respect the ones who kind of stay consistent and and
(24:45):
really, you know who voted against the big beautiful bill
because they said, no, this isn't what I stand for the Rand
Paul's of the world, right? Like it's consistent.
Massey. Right.
So I think, I think the to me though, we at least have to
start with what the central problem is and that we should be
prioritizing addressing that problem.
From there, we can Duke it out on policy.
(25:07):
Mamdani has refused to condemn the term of Globalize the
Intifada. He has reportedly told Jewish
business leaders and business leaders in New York that he will
now discourage the use of the term.
But leaders like Senator Chuck Schumer have said what Globalize
the Intifada means is really wrong and should be condemned.
(25:29):
If this is the new face of the Democratic Party, should it be
condemned? Are you comfortable with it?
Him not being willing to condemnthe term globalized identified
I, I. Have a problem with it because
for people like me and a lot of other people I know, it's an
offensive term. It it, it connotes violence.
(25:49):
Now, there's lots of other people.
And I represent the largest Araband Muslim American population
in the country. And I have had long
conversations with people where they will say that's just not
how I mean it. That's not how I interpret it.
For anyone who grew up, you know, Palestinian, American or
Palestinian, this is not how. And I said, I get it.
But if you told me a term reallyoffended you, a term that I grew
(26:11):
up with, I'd stop using. It is it about offense or the
ADL says this incites violence. I think for certain people,
certainly right. I think it's a rallying cry, but
I think that in general, especially as an elected
official, if there's a term thatis automatically offensive and
scary to a certain group that I represent, I stop using it.
(26:35):
You mentioned that you have one of the largest Arab American
populations in the country. In November, you won Detroit's
heavily Arab American suburbs, while Kamala Harris lost them.
You have said recently about theviolence in Gaza and in Israel
and the West Bank. Quote, this violence has to end.
(26:57):
If President Trump and his team truly want a lasting ceasefire,
not to mention a Nobel Peace Prize, they need to extract
basic humanitarian and law and order standards now.
Given your success navigating this issue, what is the right
posture for the Democratic Partymoving forward?
(27:19):
You know, I think what my experience working on these
issues since October 7th is there's no single issue that's
been harder in my state that's more personal to more people.
But I'm also heavily influenced by my time doing 3 tours in Iraq
as ACIA officer, right? Seeing issues of war and
(27:40):
conflict and humanitarian aid upclose.
And I think what I've tried to do, probably not perfectly, is
just call balls and strikes on what's happening in the region.
And that means call balls and strikes when it comes to what
Hamas has done. It means calling balls and
strikes on what the Netanyahu government has done and is
(28:01):
doing. And I think that's the approach
that I've tried to take right now.
I think in general on these issues, anything related to the
Middle East, people sort of havetaken to their corners and they
resist new information, facts, you know, complications because
they just want to be in their corners and like no problem.
(28:21):
I mean, no problem is ever like that, but especially Middle
Eastern issues, long standing conflict.
So I try, I will tell you every time I put out a statement or I
make say a position very clearly, there's automatically a
group of people who are mad at me every single time.
But I again, serving in Iraq, I,I saw with the the benefit of
(28:44):
hindsight that calling balls andstrikes about what's really
happening is the only thing thatkeeps you on the right side of
history. And I, I feel, you know, after
this weekend there was there or this past weekend, there was a
lot of violence around getting aid out to people, hungry
people. There were people attacked by
(29:06):
settlers in the West Bank. This is not about whether Israel
has the right to defend itself, which I believe it's about basic
humanitarian and law and order standards.
I felt strongly about it, but I certainly no matter what I say
in this issue, I'm going to get blowback.
I noticed you made the distinction between saying
Israel and the Netanyahu government.
(29:26):
Why is that distinction important to you?
Well, the. Distinction's important because
Trump is our president, and I don't want to be judged by the
world, by Donald Trump, right? I'm an American who loves my
country, who doesn't agree with my president.
And there's plenty of Israelis who either privately or publicly
have issues with what their government is doing.
(29:46):
So I don't blame an entire civilian population, just like I
don't want to be blamed for someof the insane things I think
Donald Trump does. It's we are a people, not just
one person. You hosted A Tele town hall this
week with your state about the big beautiful bill, explaining
what the consequences of the bigbeautiful bill would be.
(30:07):
And you received one question about the debt.
Yeah, After Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 on the original
firing line, Bill Buckley hosteda debate about the urgency of
addressing the national debt. Here's what Buckley had to say
then. Will Governor Clinton raise
taxes? I mean other than in the purely
(30:27):
exhibitionistic way of praying on the rich, 1% of whom at
present are paying 27% of all taxes by taxing the more good
populist electioneering boob bait.
Never mind the consequences on the choke points of economic
entrepreneurship. Never mind the exiguous returns
to the Treasury if you have surtax not by 10%, which Clinton
(30:51):
proposes, but by 100% all the income of those who earned
$1,000,000 or more. And this could be done only
once. Of course, you could finance the
cost of the federal government for a grand total of 17 days.
That was more than 30 years ago.If we collected every dollar
owned by US billionaires today, it would cover about 1/6 of the
(31:12):
national debt. We are currently servicing our
debt at a rate that is higher than our National Defense
spending. Is this an urgent issue and how
will a new Democratic Party thatcan win broadly tackle this
credibly? So I will say the same thing I
told Mary from Macomb County whoasked this question at my Tele
(31:35):
town hall. She, she was very clear that she
was super worried about the debtand worried about the future of
Social Security, of Medicare. Most people, like the average
person understands that when you're doing a household budget,
you got to know how much is coming in and how much is going
out. And it's the same thing for the
US government. And Democrats are known as the
(31:55):
ones who spend. Republicans are the ones who cut
the income coming in, right, Cuttaxes, so there's not as much
money coming in. And the actual answer is
rational adults could get in a room and figure this out if both
sides were willing to cut to slaughter some sacred cows.
But. Buckley was making that argument
30 years ago. Well, I can't speak for 30 years
ago. I can tell you right now we are,
(32:19):
our political system is unwell. And when something's when we're
unwell, we don't do the things that adults should be doing
right. We don't deal with the really
big issues, debt being a huge one of them.
I will tell you the other one I think about every day that we're
not addressing because of our childish attacking of each
other, artificial intelligence and what that's going to do to
(32:40):
our economy, what that's going to do to jobs, what that's going
to do to our whole way of life here.
And people are nervous about it.We need left and right limits on
that. But we're not having that
conversation because we're busy shooting, you know, bullets at
each other on political issues and Jeffrey Epstein and
everything else. Another one that we know how to
(33:02):
solve is immigration and you have said you're going to one of
the sacred cows you'll slaughter.
Is that you? We don't have to do a
comprehensive Immigration Bill, but but it could be taken in
bits and pieces. You've also Co sponsored a bill
that would require Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officers
to clearly display identification and not cover
their faces during immigration raids.
The president referenced the people who sponsored that bill
(33:25):
and said they wouldn't be sayingthis if they didn't hate our
country. How do you respond?
Well, between the two of us, there's one of us that served
our country abroad in a war zone.
There's one of us who gets up every morning and respects the
Constitution. There's one of us who
understands that governing is not about yourself and milking
(33:46):
the cow that is America. So I challenge him any day of
the week on who's patriotic. You can't say you're patriotic
and then undercut the damn Constitution every damn day.
But I stand by the bill, right? Again, I was ACIA officer, but
for the US military and law enforcement.
If you are active in the United States, you should have to
(34:08):
display that you are military orlaw enforcement.
If a gang of people wearing, youknow, all black came when masks
came up to me while I'm walking down the street, you know, in
Flint, MI, I would have no idea.Is this a political hit?
Is this a gang? Is this law enforcement?
Who knows? And what would I do?
I would try to defend myself, right.
(34:30):
And then what? Be charged with trying to attack
a law enforcement officer? People have the right to know
when they are being arrested. And I, I think it creates this
fear. It creates a sense that we are
living in authoritarian times. It's unamerican to me.
So I, I have a deep respect for law enforcement.
They're taking a lot of risks inthe work that they do every day.
(34:52):
But you have to say you are law enforcement, you have to put
your serial number so that if you inappropriately behave,
someone can follow up on that. I don't the average police
officer that I know, law enforcement wouldn't have a
problem and display that they'rein law enforcement every day
anyways. There's major upheaval in the
MAGA movement at the moment and with the president with respect
(35:13):
to the controversy on the right and the files about Jeffrey
Epstein, who died in prison in 2019.
Much of the criticism comes fromTrump's own base, who have
embraced conspiracy theories about Epstein for years.
Democrats, including one of yourcolleagues, Senator Ruben
(35:34):
Gallego, has also begun to raisequestions.
And he introduced a resolution this week calling for the
Department of Justice to releasemore documents related to the
investigation saying, quote, theAmerican people deserve the
truth. Is this all politics or are
there serious issues of transparency that are, that are
important here? Yeah.
I genuinely have no idea what's in these files, right?
(35:56):
But the president and his allieshave created so much
anticipation about these files at this point, it's just weird
that they're not releasing them,right?
The president fomented this. And again, I have no special
knowledge, but you know, the president has a bad breakup with
Elon Musk. Elon Musk says he's in the
Epstein files. You know, the president is
(36:17):
defending vociferously. Pam Bondi.
I don't not used to him defending, you know, people who
work for him so much. And the president's yelling at
his supporters. I'm just telling you as an
outsider to this story, it lookslike there's something in there.
Where there's smoke, there's fire.
So just it just release them andand let's get on to actual real
(36:37):
work here. I think that's the thing.
And so the the president is certainly presenting in a way
that sounds like he really doesn't want those files
released. So he's adding to this, you
know, fuel to this fire. He created this fire, right?
And I'm sorry, you can't be boththe the arsonist and the
firefighter like you started this thing.
(36:58):
So just release him and let's move on to the real work of the
country. Do you have any final advice for
the Democratic Party? For me, let's start from a place
that the economy, the cost of living and the American dream is
the unifying theme. And let's have some serious sit
down conversations about policy and how to move forward.
(37:19):
But let's start from the place where we have unity, because in
this environment, if we don't have unity, we're not really
putting a serious foot forward do.
You have more confidence that Democrats can do that than the
Republicans. I think that I think that the
real work of the Democratic Party, particularly for those
who are leading in elected office, is to have the tough
(37:43):
conversations that we haven't had in a long time about the
future of the party and get our act together, even if those
conversations are. Hard.
Senator Slotkin, thank you for turning the firing line.
Thank you.
They're scared of him putting the hot spotlight right on them,
having all his followers go after them.
And then at a very base sort of level that I'm sympathetic with,
they are worried about their physical security.
But if you are scared to cast a vote that you know is important
to your constituents, this isn'tthe right job for you.
(00:22):
That's Democratic Senator AlyssaSlotkin of Michigan, responding
to Republicans who she says are afraid to stand up to President
Trump. Suck it up, buttercup, like it's
a tough job. I'm Margaret Hoover.
This is the Firing Line podcast As a moderate Democrat who won a
Senate seat even as Kamala Harris lost her state to Trump,
(00:45):
Elissa Slotkin has become a key player in the party's search for
a path back to. Power.
And I promise that I and my fellow Democrats will do
everything in our power to be the principal leaders that you
deserve. Slotkin served three tours in
Iraq as a CIA analyst. And I say this as a national
security person by training. The biggest threat to our
country right now, the existential threat, is the
(01:07):
shrinking of the middle class. Now she's turning her tactical
mindset to confronting Democratsmany political challenges.
This is just not a moment to be careful and polite.
We need a plan. We need to be on the same page.
We need to play as a team. And confronting Trump
administration officials, including Defense Secretary Pete
Hagseth. These.
Troops are given very clear. Orders then what is the order
(01:29):
then listed out for us be a man listed out but his.
Figures like democratic socialist Zoran Mamdani rise to
prominence on the left. How does Slotkin reconcile her
for these ideological divisions?If we can at least have a sit
down conversation about what theproblems are, we can do get out
on policy and I'm ready to have those conversations.
(01:53):
Senator Elissa Slackin, welcome back to firing.
Thanks. Thanks for having me.
Data has been released this weekthat showed inflation has
accelerated in June, coming in higher than expected.
Economists have attributed the increase to, at least in part,
Trump's tariffs, which you have called chaotic and sloppy.
(02:16):
After four years when Democrats downplayed how important
inflation was, how are Democratsgoing to get that credibility on
the issue of the economy and inflation?
Yeah, Well, first of all, you have to tell people that you
actually care about it and it's a priority for you.
And I think one of the big lessons for the Democratic Party
(02:38):
was what happened in the last November election.
I don't think anyone was missingthat Donald Trump ran on, you
know, helping your pocketbooks. I think we're going to see
whether he's actually going to help your hot pocketbook.
I don't think it's going the right direction.
But he ran on that and he made it really clear.
And that was his priority. And I was knocking on doors
right before the election and hearing, look, I don't really
(02:59):
like Donald Trump, but if he's going to put more money in my
pocket, I'm going to vote for him.
And so when you stand for everything and you have a
million different issues you care about, no one knows your
priorities. And I think for Democrats, we
need to recenter around the economy and the economic needs
of the middle class. This week, President Trump
announced a new agreement for the United States to sell
weapons to NATO, who will then provide them to the to Ukraine.
(03:23):
He also warned that he would impose steep tariffs on Russia
if Vladimir Putin does not make peace within 50 days.
In the past, you have not hesitated to criticize President
Trump for, quote, closing up to dictators and kicking our allies
in the teeth. But you did give him credit for
recognizing that Putin cannot betrusted.
(03:46):
Finally. Finally.
Do you give him? Do you believe he will follow
through? You know, I, I think this, this
President Trump clearly thought that he could handle Putin, that
he as a deal maker could come inand solve the Ukraine crisis.
He always, I think, gave preferential sort of treatment
and credit to Vladimir Putin in ways that I could never
(04:08):
understand. They have a bromance.
I just do not get. Do you think he's?
Really. Come around.
I think that he's been frustrated by his inability to
get Putin to do what he wants todo.
You know, he, he said it himself.
He talks to him on the phone andhe thinks everything is OK.
And then they bomb Kiev at night.
So I think that the the president is learning what many
of us were real clear on, which is Putin can't be trusted.
(04:30):
He's not an honest actor. And he's trying to apply more
pressure, whether that works or not, by giving him yet another
goal post, We'll see. I don't think Putin is looking
to bend to anybody when it comesto Ukraine.
If the president has sincerely achange of heart, could that be
meaningful materially? I mean, look, I, I believe that
it's important that democracies don't just get overrun and
(04:52):
invaded, right? I, I think in general for the
world. So I think this is an important
stand to take. And it sends a really strong
signal to places like China thatif you actually violate the
sovereignty of another country, there's going to be a punishment
for that. If President Trump completely
doesn't want 80 and says, you know what, we're now on the side
of democracies, you know, disrupts a lot of his own base
(05:14):
and and causes a lot of problemsfor himself.
But if he does that, I'll be thefirst to cheer him on.
I think right now we're seeing him kind of live in in the
moment of how difficult it is togovern.
It's easy to say a talking point.
It's easy to say you're going tofix Vladimir Putin.
It's a very different thing to actually act, you know, secure
an agreement that changes the tide of the war.
(05:34):
Are we, between the bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities
and a change of heart vis A vis Putin, potentially seeing a
return to US deterrence? You know, I don't know, I think
President Trump, you watched howquickly he wanted to stop
talking about that bombing in the Middle East.
I think it for most presidents, if they have, you know, a
(05:54):
relatively successful bombing ofa nuclear facilities, they're
talking about that for more thantwo days.
Does send a signal to our adversaries though, doesn't it?
Absolutely. I mean, I think for sure, I
mean, when it came to that strike, you know, as someone who
served three tours in Iraq and watched the Iranians attack U.S.
forces, plot against us in the region, shoot ballistic missiles
(06:16):
in the region, it to me it was, you know, that sort of strange
feeling when someone you don't like does something you think is
potentially a good thing. But I think the.
The but that's not hard for you to admit.
No, it's not hard for me to admit.
But what I was very concerned about is managing any
escalation. I don't have a ton of trust with
the folks in the White House that that if things spiraled out
(06:38):
of control, God forbid if, you know, the Iran retaliated and
killed a bunch of American forces, what would we do next?
It's the the managing escalationthat always made me concerned,
right? But I think the the president
really sort of took the strike and sent a signal to the
Iranians, who for many years have not believed.
(06:59):
Fundamentally, not just the Iranians, Right, right, right.
Xi Jinping, potentially VladimirPutin.
I mean, I find Vladimir Putin. I see a 50 day warning after the
Iranians didn't listen to a 60 day warning.
I, I mean, I think certainly when we talk about deterrence in
military terms, we talk about capabilities and intent.
You know, everyone knows, I think we have the most powerful
(07:21):
military in the world, but do weactually use it right?
Will we are our intentions thereto actually use it?
I think a lot of countries around the world are just not
sure. And with the strike in Iran, I,
I will say that it's sent a signal, particularly in the
Middle East, that if you don't engage with us productively, we
will. America will act.
(07:43):
Senator, this week Republicans voted to approve President
Trump's request to rescind $9 billion in already appropriated
funds, including a billion dollars of public broadcasting.
What is your reaction to the potential impact broadly, but
also to PBS? I mean, for me, first of all, I
(08:04):
think it's hard to overstate howmany rural communities around
the country depend exclusively on the news, the warnings, the
alerts, the weather alerts that come out of their local news
station, which is an affiliate of National Public Radio.
I mean that, and I see that in Michigan all the time.
And public broadcasting and public.
Broadcasting. It's hard to overstate how many
(08:24):
of us grew up on things like Sesame Street and educational
programming that was only available because of public
broadcasting. So to me, you know, there's
there's a real American connection to what happened this
week with the cutting of those programs.
But I also think it it's an important note.
I looked across the aisle at my colleagues who were who were
(08:46):
voting yes on this cut. You know, this is part of money
that they supported a year ago. You know, Congress has the power
of the purse. That's our it's in the
Constitution. Like that's foundational.
And my colleagues are just willing to give away all their
power and say, you know, what ifthe president tells us to cut
something that we voted on a year ago, let's go ahead cut it.
It really undercuts the leadership of this branch of
(09:10):
government. So I think we're going to see
more of these packages and it's going to have more deep impact
on American citizens. And, and what it ultimately does
is it makes this appropriations process a majority vote rather
than a bipartisan effort to get 60 votes.
I mean, as you pass that appropriation in the 1st place,
it took 60 votes. It took Republicans and
Democrats working together to decide what to spend money on.
(09:30):
If it can be undercut with 50 votes, it is.
Republicans and Democrats have both said this poisons the
appropriations process and undermines Congresses
constitutional responsibility. 100% I mean, I don't know, the
Appropriations Committee in the Senate was like this vaunted,
you know, serious leadership committee where it was like,
(09:51):
this is the purse of the United States of America.
And so when you got to be chairman of that committee, you
were a powerful figure in Washington.
Now what? What's the even point of that,
chairwoman, in this case, putting it, putting a budget
together and trying to get it passed if on a whim, we're just
going to be cutting things 10 days later?
It just does not. It undercuts the separation of
(10:12):
powers, which is, I think, a theme for this administration.
So even though this is a small amount of money, this has a
consequence far beyond. Yes, and I think it's
interesting, right, because in the past 2 1/2, three weeks, we
voted on the president's signature piece of legislation,
the big beautiful bill, which increased American U.S. debt by
three trillion with AT trillion dollars.
(10:35):
So then this week when we go to change, you know, and cut back
on, you know, 9 billion, I just want everyone to remember like
trillions versus billions, Billions in this case is a drop
in a bucket compared to the three trillion we just added to
our debt. Why would the Senate voluntarily
choose to undermine their own power?
(10:56):
I I think that it's just comes down to pressure and fear.
I mean, it's not any more complicated than that.
I had a colleague say to me yesterday, there's only two
categories of Republicans left in the Senate, those who are
true believers with Donald Trumpand those who are scared of
Donald Trump. And that, to me, rings true.
What are they scared of? They're scared of him putting
(11:18):
the hot spotlight right on them,having all his followers go
after them. They're worried about getting a
primary challenge and him payingfor it.
And then at a very base sort of level that I'm sympathetic with,
they are worried about their physical security.
If he riles people up against them.
And I've seen that, right? We've seen leadership climate is
set at the top. If he turns against someone, we
(11:39):
shouldn't be surprised when people at the grassroots level
are plotting against some of these people.
So I think it's from physical security, a fear of physical
security, a fear of politically losing their jobs.
And I think it's I, I, I sort offeel for them.
But if you are scared to cast a vote that you know is important
to your constituents, this isn'tthe right job for you.
(12:01):
Find something else to do. Strikes me that it's easy to say
for somebody who's been on threetours in Iraq, but most people
don't sign up for the Senate thinking they're putting their
lives in danger. I understand, but like, this is
the era we're living in, right? We're living in really
complicated times when we know our country is not well, right?
The country we love is not well.We're fighting the threats, you
(12:24):
know, against each other just for disagreeing on simple things
like policy or politics. That was never how it was
growing up in Michigan. My dad's a lifelong Republican.
My mom was a lifelong Democrat. We were more likely to argue
angrily about sports, Michigan versus Michigan State than
politics. So we know that we're not well.
And, and right now, if you are called to elected service, you
(12:47):
are on the forefront of this, this fight that's going on in
our country. And you have to be girded for
it. That's unfortunately, that is
the moment we have found ourselves in.
So either steal your spine, accept that you're never going
to be able to make everybody happy.
And that's that's the way we areright now.
And just suck it up, buttercup. Like it's a tough job.
(13:08):
And that your votes might put you in physical danger.
And that's. I wish it weren't that way.
It it's terrible. And I, I live that way too,
right? But if this is, if that's too
much for you, there are a lot ofother jobs for you out there.
You know what else isn't healthy?
Democrats would say the Democratic Party is not very
healthy right now, at least some.
(13:29):
Since the 2024 election, the Democratic Party has been
through an intense period of soul searching.
Poll just this week says 4 in 10Americans think the Democratic
Party is doing a good job. You are a Democrat who won
statewide in a state that DonaldTrump won decisively.
Many Michiganders voted Trump, Slotkin thousands.
(13:55):
You have said you're not waitingfor anybody to figure out what
the future of the Democratic Party is.
So you've created your own war plan to move forward.
You've also you've been accused of being a moderate.
You're not part of the squad. Some have said you're part of a
mod squad, at least when you're in the House of Representatives.
Seems to me the central premise of your plan with the Democratic
(14:20):
Party forward is about savings and the economy.
Is it the economy? Stupid?
Yeah, I mean, this is the UnitedStates of America.
We people have been raised, I was on the American dream that
if you work hard and you play bythe rules, you will do well and
your kids will do better. That is the central sort of
(14:42):
bargain, right? And not that government is
supposed to provide everything for you.
We don't believe that, right? In Michigan, no one expects hand
handouts. They expect the government to
create the conditions for their success and then they have to
get up every day and work hard to earn it right.
That to me is the the handshake deal we have as Americans.
And right now people do not feelthat that deal stands right.
(15:06):
Whether you're you're my age andyou can't afford to send your
kids to college. You can't, you know, take your
kids to Disneyland. You can't pay for summer camp or
the youngest generation that's graduating college and saying,
I'm never going to have the lifethat my parents had.
I'm never going to afford the house that they can afford.
So I think we have to treat thatwith the the sort of power that
(15:26):
it deserves, which is, and I saythis as a national security
person by training, the biggest threat to our country right now,
the existential threat is the shrinking of the middle class.
And it's been going on for a while.
But man, we have hit a boiling point.
And until we accept that all thethe the pain and the anger and
the polarization going on in thecountry is because people feel
(15:47):
like they can't get ahead. And when they can't get ahead,
they blame other people. President Obama.
Chided Democrats, saying they need to toughen up against
Donald Trump. You have said we need more alpha
energy in the Democratic Party. We need more coach energy.
Sort of like the tough love. Are you and former President
Obama saying the same thing? You know, I, you know that I
(16:11):
don't know if we're saying the exact same thing, but it's, it
sort of smells the same, right? And I, I think this idea that
Democrats are, are so careful and they're so caveated and
they're so worried about offending each other, offending
other people. They're so worried about pissing
off people on the Internet. They're they're they're, they
live often in a world where theyconstrain themselves.
(16:32):
Are they too sensitive? I think some of them sure are
too sensitive. And this is to me, the the
central point is like, especially with Donald Trump and
the White House, this is just not a moment to be careful and
polite. We need a plan.
We need to be on the same page. We need to play as a team.
We need to call out when someoneisn't helping the team and we
(16:53):
need to hug someone when they dosomething great.
Where does that hypersensitivitycome from?
Like, why? I mean, why have you and Obama
pointed to the same thing? Like what is that about I?
I so I don't, you know, I've, I've been in elected politics
now 6 1/2 years. So I don't pretend to know the
whole sweep of history of where it comes from.
But in my experience, Democrats,we are a big tent.
(17:14):
We have a bunch of different voices in our party that are
often pretty different, right? You, you mentioned it in sort of
your, your intro. And when you have a big tent
like that, you got to keep people together and that means
kind of treating each other politely.
That means sort of saying, you know what, okay, I didn't like
the direction that that group istaking us, but I'm going to kind
(17:36):
of, you know, kind of whisper behind the scenes instead of
having the, the real conversation about what our
priorities are as a party. And I, I think that that's, that
works. Maybe in peacetime, you know, I
come from the, the military sideof things like when things are
going well and everything's working swimmingly in their
countries just really healthy, then we can be polite and
(17:56):
careful with each other. But when there's threats to our
country, to our democracy, it itis required that we get our act
together. I'm trying to watch my language.
We get our act together, work asa team.
And when someone like it, you know, there's lots of things we
care about as Democrats. I get that we got to prioritize
the pocketbook because that's where our country is.
(18:17):
Sounds like what you're saying is, you know, Republicans fear
Trump and Democrats fear each other's factions.
Sometimes it fear Twitter. You know, I I've been shocked.
You know, I'm new to the Senate.Six months in how many of my
peers said, well, Alyssa, I'd love to be with you on that
issue, but you know, Twitter will be mad, you know, the the
Internet. People will be.
They literally say that, yeah. They'll be a bad online response
(18:40):
and I'm just like, I mean. US senators are afraid of
Twitter. I think they're afraid of being,
you know, sort of public opinion.
Of course they're politicians. You've drafted a war plan for
Democrats. It includes support for small
businesses, deregulation and stimulating the housing market.
And all of the above. Energy plan, education reform, a
(19:02):
public option for health insurance.
All of this is about the economy.
And it strikes me that your approach is one that is aligned
with the abundance agenda, folks.
It's aligned with how to harnessthe market compassionately, have
policies that economically improve the lives of the middle
(19:25):
class. But is it?
It takes on certain sacred cows,as you say.
Slaughters them. Slaughters sacred cows because,
you know, tough luck, My. Family is from the meat
business, so you know, anything that gets me talking about is
slaughtering cows. This feels at home.
Who's sacred cows? The parties and sort of I, I
mean, I think, you know, I thinkabout deregulation and this
(19:48):
conversation that's been very active now in the Democratic
Party, which I think is good. A lot of Democrats, you know,
know that we, we sort of say, well, we tend to be the party of
additional regulation And each individual regulation probably
comes from a very good place, right.
You want to protect the environment, you want to protect
kids. You want so it each one is is
(20:09):
done with the right intentions. But the cumulative effect of all
those regulations on top of eachother like a pile means you you
can't build enough single familyhomes, right?
And so the we have to look at the net effect and be willing to
say, well, some of these need tocome off, right?
We can't, we can't regulate ourselves into not enough middle
class housing, right? Which is sort of what we've
(20:30):
done. So you got to face that forward.
And people may say, yeah, that sounds right.
But then when you go to take offthat regulation that they feel
attached to, they scream bloody murder, right?
And that's the kind of alpha energy part where you got to
say, hey, I get it that that regulation made sense to you 10
years ago. It doesn't make sense now.
It's holding us back. And no one gets the response,
(20:52):
you know, the right to hold the whole country back like that.
We got to have those tough conversations.
So you. Have said that the Seminole sort
of split in the Democratic Partyisn't about progressives versus
moderates, but that it's about sort of this.
Do you believe in the DemocraticParty in your heart of hearts
that the existential threat to the future of the country is
(21:14):
Donald Trump's second term? Bernie Sanders, Alexander Ocasio
Cortez have drawn thousands of people to their fighting
oligarchy rallies across the country in New York City.
Potentially the new face of the Democratic Party nationally is a
democratic socialist who is the Democratic nominee for mayor.
(21:35):
Are you so sure that the populist progressive energy in
the party isn't the Seminole split with the kind of vision
that you're articulating should be the one for the party?
So. You know, I take the message
coming out of, let's say, the New York City elections or those
(21:56):
rallies as actually confirmationof two things.
The country is still laser focused on cost of living and
the economy, right? Yeah.
And then #2 they're looking for a new generation of leadership.
They're looking for different faces.
Like, I think it's hard to miss those themes now.
I have a lot of disagreements with, you know, the the Mr. Mom
(22:17):
because the. Policy solutions are totally
different from what you're articulating.
They're very different. They don't want to fix
regulation like you just said. They want to interfere with the
market in order to, you know, they'd rather take an approach
to attack the market to make housing affordable.
But you know what? If we can at least have a sit
down conversation about what theproblems are, we can Duke it out
(22:38):
on policy. And I'm ready to have those
conversations. But man, I mean, I, I think it's
a, it's an overall positive thing that the message is being
drummed into our heads. It's the economy, it's the
economy, it's the economy. And we can have the, the, the
argument and we will about the right policies.
I would offer that an election in New York City is important
(22:59):
for New York City. It doesn't have a lot to do with
the state of Michigan and the part of the country I'm from.
But the sentiment that the economy is not working for all
people, not just Republicans whovoted for Trump or people,
people in New York City, that isthe headline to me.
And if we are missing that, thenyou know we got bigger problems.
It's affordability, it's housing.
(23:20):
These are certainly common themes.
It's it's how much money do you save versus how much you
spending? Is it going in the direction so
that you can have a secure and stable life and your kids can do
even better than you? That's the thing that most
Americans everyday wake up saying.
I got to have that in order to feel secure.
(23:40):
You're confident that you can doget out on public policy on the,
on the policy issues and the solutions.
I mean, I mean, Mandami, Mandamiand other progressives, I mean,
they argue that billionaires should not exist.
They're turning this into a class warfare fight.
Corporations should be taxed the, the way to pay for their
plans Is, is, is is sort of an old school tax the rich.
(24:01):
It doesn't strike me that's aligned with your policy
approach. I, I think we'll serve.
I believe in a fair tax code that's fair.
You know, to me, the issue is, is not always just about
billionaires In Michigan, we have 8 billionaires in the
entire state. OK, that's not the, it's not the
the central thing, things that people are waking up and
thinking about. But a fair tax policy that makes
(24:21):
people pay their fair share. I think everyone gets that right
now. My mechanic is paying more in
taxes than, you know, the billionaires.
And that doesn't make any sense.But yes, we can do get out on
policy. Actually, Democrats still care a
lot about policy. My Republican colleagues, it's
just about whatever Donald Trumpis telling him today.
But and I respect the ones who kind of stay consistent and and
(24:45):
really, you know who voted against the big beautiful bill
because they said, no, this isn't what I stand for the Rand
Paul's of the world, right? Like it's consistent.
Massey. Right.
So I think, I think the to me though, we at least have to
start with what the central problem is and that we should be
prioritizing addressing that problem.
From there, we can Duke it out on policy.
(25:07):
Mamdani has refused to condemn the term of Globalize the
Intifada. He has reportedly told Jewish
business leaders and business leaders in New York that he will
now discourage the use of the term.
But leaders like Senator Chuck Schumer have said what Globalize
the Intifada means is really wrong and should be condemned.
(25:29):
If this is the new face of the Democratic Party, should it be
condemned? Are you comfortable with it?
Him not being willing to condemnthe term globalized identified
I, I. Have a problem with it because
for people like me and a lot of other people I know, it's an
offensive term. It it, it connotes violence.
(25:49):
Now, there's lots of other people.
And I represent the largest Araband Muslim American population
in the country. And I have had long
conversations with people where they will say that's just not
how I mean it. That's not how I interpret it.
For anyone who grew up, you know, Palestinian, American or
Palestinian, this is not how. And I said, I get it.
But if you told me a term reallyoffended you, a term that I grew
(26:11):
up with, I'd stop using. It is it about offense or the
ADL says this incites violence. I think for certain people,
certainly right. I think it's a rallying cry, but
I think that in general, especially as an elected
official, if there's a term thatis automatically offensive and
scary to a certain group that I represent, I stop using it.
(26:35):
You mentioned that you have one of the largest Arab American
populations in the country. In November, you won Detroit's
heavily Arab American suburbs, while Kamala Harris lost them.
You have said recently about theviolence in Gaza and in Israel
and the West Bank. Quote, this violence has to end.
(26:57):
If President Trump and his team truly want a lasting ceasefire,
not to mention a Nobel Peace Prize, they need to extract
basic humanitarian and law and order standards now.
Given your success navigating this issue, what is the right
posture for the Democratic Partymoving forward?
(27:19):
You know, I think what my experience working on these
issues since October 7th is there's no single issue that's
been harder in my state that's more personal to more people.
But I'm also heavily influenced by my time doing 3 tours in Iraq
as ACIA officer, right? Seeing issues of war and
(27:40):
conflict and humanitarian aid upclose.
And I think what I've tried to do, probably not perfectly, is
just call balls and strikes on what's happening in the region.
And that means call balls and strikes when it comes to what
Hamas has done. It means calling balls and
strikes on what the Netanyahu government has done and is
(28:01):
doing. And I think that's the approach
that I've tried to take right now.
I think in general on these issues, anything related to the
Middle East, people sort of havetaken to their corners and they
resist new information, facts, you know, complications because
they just want to be in their corners and like no problem.
(28:21):
I mean, no problem is ever like that, but especially Middle
Eastern issues, long standing conflict.
So I try, I will tell you every time I put out a statement or I
make say a position very clearly, there's automatically a
group of people who are mad at me every single time.
But I again, serving in Iraq, I,I saw with the the benefit of
(28:44):
hindsight that calling balls andstrikes about what's really
happening is the only thing thatkeeps you on the right side of
history. And I, I feel, you know, after
this weekend there was there or this past weekend, there was a
lot of violence around getting aid out to people, hungry
people. There were people attacked by
(29:06):
settlers in the West Bank. This is not about whether Israel
has the right to defend itself, which I believe it's about basic
humanitarian and law and order standards.
I felt strongly about it, but I certainly no matter what I say
in this issue, I'm going to get blowback.
I noticed you made the distinction between saying
Israel and the Netanyahu government.
(29:26):
Why is that distinction important to you?
Well, the. Distinction's important because
Trump is our president, and I don't want to be judged by the
world, by Donald Trump, right? I'm an American who loves my
country, who doesn't agree with my president.
And there's plenty of Israelis who either privately or publicly
have issues with what their government is doing.
(29:46):
So I don't blame an entire civilian population, just like I
don't want to be blamed for someof the insane things I think
Donald Trump does. It's we are a people, not just
one person. You hosted A Tele town hall this
week with your state about the big beautiful bill, explaining
what the consequences of the bigbeautiful bill would be.
(30:07):
And you received one question about the debt.
Yeah, After Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 on the original
firing line, Bill Buckley hosteda debate about the urgency of
addressing the national debt. Here's what Buckley had to say
then. Will Governor Clinton raise
taxes? I mean other than in the purely
(30:27):
exhibitionistic way of praying on the rich, 1% of whom at
present are paying 27% of all taxes by taxing the more good
populist electioneering boob bait.
Never mind the consequences on the choke points of economic
entrepreneurship. Never mind the exiguous returns
to the Treasury if you have surtax not by 10%, which Clinton
(30:51):
proposes, but by 100% all the income of those who earned
$1,000,000 or more. And this could be done only
once. Of course, you could finance the
cost of the federal government for a grand total of 17 days.
That was more than 30 years ago.If we collected every dollar
owned by US billionaires today, it would cover about 1/6 of the
(31:12):
national debt. We are currently servicing our
debt at a rate that is higher than our National Defense
spending. Is this an urgent issue and how
will a new Democratic Party thatcan win broadly tackle this
credibly? So I will say the same thing I
told Mary from Macomb County whoasked this question at my Tele
(31:35):
town hall. She, she was very clear that she
was super worried about the debtand worried about the future of
Social Security, of Medicare. Most people, like the average
person understands that when you're doing a household budget,
you got to know how much is coming in and how much is going
out. And it's the same thing for the
US government. And Democrats are known as the
(31:55):
ones who spend. Republicans are the ones who cut
the income coming in, right, Cuttaxes, so there's not as much
money coming in. And the actual answer is
rational adults could get in a room and figure this out if both
sides were willing to cut to slaughter some sacred cows.
But. Buckley was making that argument
30 years ago. Well, I can't speak for 30 years
ago. I can tell you right now we are,
(32:19):
our political system is unwell. And when something's when we're
unwell, we don't do the things that adults should be doing
right. We don't deal with the really
big issues, debt being a huge one of them.
I will tell you the other one I think about every day that we're
not addressing because of our childish attacking of each
other, artificial intelligence and what that's going to do to
(32:40):
our economy, what that's going to do to jobs, what that's going
to do to our whole way of life here.
And people are nervous about it.We need left and right limits on
that. But we're not having that
conversation because we're busy shooting, you know, bullets at
each other on political issues and Jeffrey Epstein and
everything else. Another one that we know how to
(33:02):
solve is immigration and you have said you're going to one of
the sacred cows you'll slaughter.
Is that you? We don't have to do a
comprehensive Immigration Bill, but but it could be taken in
bits and pieces. You've also Co sponsored a bill
that would require Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officers
to clearly display identification and not cover
their faces during immigration raids.
The president referenced the people who sponsored that bill
(33:25):
and said they wouldn't be sayingthis if they didn't hate our
country. How do you respond?
Well, between the two of us, there's one of us that served
our country abroad in a war zone.
There's one of us who gets up every morning and respects the
Constitution. There's one of us who
understands that governing is not about yourself and milking
(33:46):
the cow that is America. So I challenge him any day of
the week on who's patriotic. You can't say you're patriotic
and then undercut the damn Constitution every damn day.
But I stand by the bill, right? Again, I was ACIA officer, but
for the US military and law enforcement.
If you are active in the United States, you should have to
(34:08):
display that you are military orlaw enforcement.
If a gang of people wearing, youknow, all black came when masks
came up to me while I'm walking down the street, you know, in
Flint, MI, I would have no idea.Is this a political hit?
Is this a gang? Is this law enforcement?
Who knows? And what would I do?
I would try to defend myself, right.
(34:30):
And then what? Be charged with trying to attack
a law enforcement officer? People have the right to know
when they are being arrested. And I, I think it creates this
fear. It creates a sense that we are
living in authoritarian times. It's unamerican to me.
So I, I have a deep respect for law enforcement.
They're taking a lot of risks inthe work that they do every day.
(34:52):
But you have to say you are law enforcement, you have to put
your serial number so that if you inappropriately behave,
someone can follow up on that. I don't the average police
officer that I know, law enforcement wouldn't have a
problem and display that they'rein law enforcement every day
anyways. There's major upheaval in the
MAGA movement at the moment and with the president with respect
(35:13):
to the controversy on the right and the files about Jeffrey
Epstein, who died in prison in 2019.
Much of the criticism comes fromTrump's own base, who have
embraced conspiracy theories about Epstein for years.
Democrats, including one of yourcolleagues, Senator Ruben
(35:34):
Gallego, has also begun to raisequestions.
And he introduced a resolution this week calling for the
Department of Justice to releasemore documents related to the
investigation saying, quote, theAmerican people deserve the
truth. Is this all politics or are
there serious issues of transparency that are, that are
important here? Yeah.
I genuinely have no idea what's in these files, right?
(35:56):
But the president and his allieshave created so much
anticipation about these files at this point, it's just weird
that they're not releasing them,right?
The president fomented this. And again, I have no special
knowledge, but you know, the president has a bad breakup with
Elon Musk. Elon Musk says he's in the
Epstein files. You know, the president is
(36:17):
defending vociferously. Pam Bondi.
I don't not used to him defending, you know, people who
work for him so much. And the president's yelling at
his supporters. I'm just telling you as an
outsider to this story, it lookslike there's something in there.
Where there's smoke, there's fire.
So just it just release them andand let's get on to actual real
(36:37):
work here. I think that's the thing.
And so the the president is certainly presenting in a way
that sounds like he really doesn't want those files
released. So he's adding to this, you
know, fuel to this fire. He created this fire, right?
And I'm sorry, you can't be boththe the arsonist and the
firefighter like you started this thing.
(36:58):
So just release him and let's move on to the real work of the
country. Do you have any final advice for
the Democratic Party? For me, let's start from a place
that the economy, the cost of living and the American dream is
the unifying theme. And let's have some serious sit
down conversations about policy and how to move forward.
(37:19):
But let's start from the place where we have unity, because in
this environment, if we don't have unity, we're not really
putting a serious foot forward do.
You have more confidence that Democrats can do that than the
Republicans. I think that I think that the
real work of the Democratic Party, particularly for those
who are leading in elected office, is to have the tough
(37:43):
conversations that we haven't had in a long time about the
future of the party and get our act together, even if those
conversations are. Hard.
Senator Slotkin, thank you for turning the firing line.
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.