Rep. Ro Khanna on Tech, Trump & Elon

Hi, everyone, from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. This is On with Kara Swisher, and I'm Kara Swisher.
Today, I'm talking to Representative Ro Khanna from California, who I've known a long time. Khanna represents a congressional district in Silicon Valley and as a progressive populist and Bernie supporter, who's also close to many tech titans.
He's arguably one of the most unique voices in Congress. As I said, I've known him for years and we have a lot of, we have an up and down relationship, always friendly, always interesting, but we disagree on a lot of things.
I text him a lot when I don't agree with him quite vociferously. He texts back, we argue about things, but I really do enjoy talking to him.
He's a really smart guy thinking very thoughtful things and not just in it for the power or the money or the fame. Despite representing one of the wealthier districts in the country, he spent the past few years talking to working class voters outside his district.
I hung out with him in Kentucky when he was trying to create Silicon Holler, which didn't happen. And according to Steve Bannon, he's one of the few Democrats who can actually speak to their anger.
Roe is also one of the more charismatic and openly ambitious politicians. There's no question about that on the Democratic side, which has won him lots of friends and also some skeptics.
He really doesn't tamp down any of the chatter about the future presidential run. And I want to talk to him because a lot of the stuff he talks about,

whether it's tech, tech power, AI, the Democratic Party is really interesting and needs to be

listened to because we do need new voices in the Democratic Party that are questioning

old tropes. Our expert question today comes from Tristan Harris, the co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology.
Now let's get to it. Support for On with Kara Swisher comes from Saks Fifth Avenue.
Saks.com is personalized, and that can be a huge help when you need something real nice, real fast. So if there's a totem jacket you like, now Saks.com can show you the best totem jackets, as well as similar styles from brands you might not have even thought to check out.
Saks.com can even let you know when the Gucci loafers you've been eyeing are back in stock or when new work blazers from the row arrive. Who doesn't like easy, personalized shopping that saves you time? Head to Saks.com.
At UC San Diego, research isn't just about asking big questions. It saves lives and fuels innovation, like predicting storms from space, teaching T-cells to attack cancer, and eliminating cybersecurity threats with AI.
As one of America's leading research universities, they are putting big ideas to work in new and novel ways. At UC San Diego, research moves the world forward.
Learn more at ucsd.edu slash research. The all-new ADX, crafted to match your energy.

Acura, precision crafted performance. Learn more at Acura.com.
Representative Khanna, thanks for being on On. I'm going to call you Ro if you don't mind.
Of course. Okay.
So let's start talking about some recent headlines because you're all over the news lately for some reason.

But last week you tweeted you're ready to work with the Doge Committee, the Department of Government Efficiency, though no department. It's a task force that President-elect Trump has named Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswani to run.
Elon singled out obscure federal employees by name on X, apparently, because he doesn't like their job titles and they're being harassed by his followers, according to CNN. These workers are afraid for their lives will be forever changed, including physically threatened as Musk makes behind-the-scenes bureaucrats into personal targets.
I'd love you to sort of square this circle, I guess. Well, I clearly am opposed to him singling out any federal employee.
And I have disagreements with his view that you can just take a sledgehammer to the federal government. The vast, vast majority of federal employees are doing honorable good work to keep our food safe, to keep our water clean, to have the functioning of government with social security checks and Medicare.
So I would strongly condemn any singling out of a particular individual or blanketly labeling the federal workforce lazy or denigrating them. That said, there are areas that the government could use significant reform, Department of Defense being one of them.
You know the story better than I do of how SpaceX disrupted Boeing and Lockheed to launch satellites into the orbit with reusable rockets. And we need more competition in the Department of Defense.
If they can do that to save costs, that's one area that I think Democrats and Republicans should be willing to engage on. You know, you followed up your initial post on X regarding Doge, writing 23 million plus views is the most post mine has ever seen in nine years in Congress.
Millions of Americans want us to work with Doge. Jamel Bowie of the New York Times comment, this is equivalent of thinking that a magic eight ball is really talking to you, which made me laugh.
And meanwhile, I know he's really funny. That was a good line.
Meanwhile, former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger wrote to the Dems that have warmed up the doge idea with Musk and Vivek, this is going to come back to bite you. They're not really doing it for the right reason.
It's for control. Stop normalizing these clowns.
So what's your response? Jamal is good humor. Kissinger's would say stop normalizing, stop normalizing.
It's like a broken record and then they keep winning. Jamal at least has humor and originality.
But the point is this exists, that Trump won the presidency. I did everything I could to make sure that Harris won.
First that Biden won, then Harris won. FDR, who had the New Deal, starts the case for the New Deal saying we need to cut waste fraud and abuse.
And one of the reasons you've seen progressives, I think, open to saying we need to cut wasteful spending is people like me are offering the biggest role for effective government. We want Medicare for all.
We want government to be creating 100,000 new skilled trades investments. We want free public college.
Well, if you have that view, then you've got to say, I want an effective government. And there are areas, not just the Department of Defense, the way IT is administered in the federal government, the way we do tax filing without automatically populating them.
I mean, there are ideas that Democrats have had to say, let's make government better. And just because there are folks there who we have strong disagreements on doesn't mean we don't engage them.
Now, I have not joined the Doge caucus because I have said that there needs to be a commitment of not cutting a dime from Social Security, Medicare, not cutting the CFPB. And the Magic 8-Ball hasn't made those tweets go viral yet.
I'm waiting. I tag Doge, too, and say I don't believe in cutting a dime from Social Security or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
And when I do convene or meet with others, with Elon or Vivek, I'm going to make the case to them that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has saved people credit card fees, mortgage fees. So I guess it's not like I'm saying something to them in private that I'm not saying in public.
They know exactly where I'm coming from, where I stand. And I thought that's the democratic process.
Engage where you agree, strongly push back where you disagree. My only point is some of their language is quite hateful.
There's always a good idea, and it's wrapped in a shit sandwich, essentially, which is being aimed at lots of people's heads. But you did point out that wasteful spending at the Department of Defense is a target for cuts.
Trump increased the Pentagon's budget 16% during his first term. He's actually had the highest deficit, too.
This is not a guy who wanted to save money in his first term. What makes you think he has intentions of cutting defense spending at this time, which is where the big, whether it's fraud, waste, or just too many weapons, that's where the money is? That's all right.
It's 56% of discretionary funding. Look, the Social Security and Medicare is about a third of the budget.
I'm not for cutting that, neither is Trump. And so then, okay, you look at the discretionary part of the federal budget.
The defense is the big portion of that. And if you're not going to cut Social Security and Medicare, you've got to be willing to have some defense cuts or raise taxes, both of which I'm willing to do, raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy and the wealthy.
The point that's funny, I don't think Mike Rogers is the chair of the Armed Services Committee, will mind my sharing this.

He said that Trump came in the first time and he said that he was for defense cuts. And Mike Rogers said, well, he was educatable.
And the Armed Services Committee talked him into not having defense cuts, but even had a defense increase. So we'll see this time.
Is he going to just listen to the same

infrastructure in Congress and in Washington? In that case, he's going to continue to put forth

bloated defense budgets. The Senate already has a budget that's higher than what Biden is calling

for. Or is he really going to follow through on making the process competitive and recommending

cuts? I am often the lone vote in the Armed Services Committee against the Pentagon budget. There's clips online of me getting booed while I cast my lone vote.
So you can understand why I'm hopeful that someone else can come in and help get some of the accountability that I've been pushing for. The one place that he has expertise, right? I mean, Elon doesn't know about the Department of Justice or about- Oh, but he does, Roe.
He knows everything. He's a genius, but go ahead.
Sorry. Well, look, I mean, I do think he's a genius as a business leader, but that doesn't mean- I'm teasing.
You know they try to pull expertise on everything, but go ahead. But the one place you could argue that he actually has expertise is in disrupting defense contracts.
He did it with Boeing and Lockheed. He called me the minute he did it that time when we were speaking, the minute it happened.
Yeah, well, I mean, you're always fair. I mean, I know you give him a hard time, but you also recognize where he does things that are innovative.
That's correct. And so my sense is, why not focus on the area, two areas where I think you actually could bring expertise.
One is enterprise IT software, getting some rationality into how we do technology and government. And two is getting more competitive bidding, whether it's DOD or in general in procurement.
Those are areas that you actually have a track record of getting things done. Sure.
Is there a problem with the conflict of interest here, given he has a lot of federal contracts in the areas he's recommending cutting and obviously can then deal with competitors? Yeah. No, I mean, I think those are legitimate.
I think those are very legitimate concerns. And I would say, why not do financial disclosures like every member of Congress does? I mean, in my case, my wife inherited money, it's in a trust, but every month I have to report it, every single transaction in that, even though it has nothing to do with me.
And I, you know, most members of Congress have to do that. Most executive branch officials have to do that.
So I would think they should disclose that, their financial holdings and interests. And then if there are places where they should recuse themselves, they should.
But at least let there be transparency so people know where the interests are. All right.
let's keep moving. Trump said on Sunday that the members of the January 6th committee should go to jail and members of President Biden's inner circle debating preemptive pardons for Trump's perceived political enemies.
When you asked about it, you said black and brown individuals incarcerated because of marijuana possession have faced and continue to face far more injustice than some of the most privileged individuals who have served in the Congress or Senate. I don't quite know what you're saying there.
Putting aside the wisdom of preemptive pardons, what happens if Trump uses the FBI and Department of Justice to get his retribution against these members or anyone else? There doesn't seem to be any evidence they did anything wrong. And is there anything Democrats can do to stop him besides, say, for shame, which he doesn't seem to have much of? Well, there's no evidence they did anything wrong.
They're protected by the speech and debate clause in the Congress. I would hope that there is some shred of integrity still in our judicial system where judges and even the Supreme Court will make sure that we're not a banana a republic, which is what we would be if you literally started to jail people like Jamie Raskin or Zoe Lofgren.
And you could say, well, it's a Republican Supreme Court and a Republican appointed court. Sure.
But at least they held their ground when Trump was trying to overturn the 2020 election. So my hope is that you ask, what is the recourse? It's one for us to be very loud, vocal, call it an abuse of power, and then have a litigation strategy that goes to the courts.
Now, if we've lost the courts, then we've got a much bigger problem in American democracy. So what about preemptive pardons? Do you think it's a good idea? I feel so squeezy about it, and yet I'm not as squeezy as I thought I'd be.
Well, look, I had called for the curtailment of the pardon power from day one. So you can't take that position, say it's anarchic, it's a vestige of kings, and then suddenly when you think that the pardon power is convenient for your side, then say, okay, now I'm for the pardon power.
So I still believe that. I still think at the very least there should be a process.
It shouldn't just be in the president's hand. Now, if you want to create an independent commission that goes through some process and then recommends certain pardon prerogatives, that's fine.
But I believe there are a lot of other avenues short of just relying on preemptive pardons to make sure that Jamie Raskin doesn't go to jail. If that happened, do you entertain that happening? Because a lot of people are like, oh, it'll never happen.
But he's done a lot of things that we've said would never happen, right? Do I entertain Jamie Raskin or people like him? Going to jail. I don't think it's a non-zero possibility, which is scary in America.
I mean, I think the probability is very low. But here's the thing.
Do I think he's actually going to end up going to jail if you ask me for a prediction? No. But is that the end all and be all? No.
I mean, you could have harassment. You could be investigated.
You could have millions of dollars of legal fees. I mean, there are ways to silence and destroy people in this country short of putting them in jail.
And this is really a moment I hope that our courts and the independence of the judiciary work because people talk about the independence of the military. I am very confident about the independence of the military.
I'm more concerned about making sure the independence of the judiciary and the due process is upheld in these kind of cases. All right, I'm going to keep going.
After the UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson, was killed, you were asked about the gleeful celebrations that erupted on social media. We both agree that it's heinous and horrific to celebrate murder.
In the discussion that followed, you said that Bernie Sanders is winning the debate around healthcare. Talk about why you think so, and how does the progressive movement channel this anger, and in some cases really disturbing anger, at the same time being justifiably furious about the behavior of healthcare companies, and turn that into votes? Because now it seems to be arranging anger and sort of tasteless jokes, everything else.
I get the tasteless jokes. That's the internet.
But talk a little bit about this situation. And the shooter has been charged as this young man who seems to have had some, as wealthy as he looks to be, has had health care issues.
Talk a little bit about this. Well, first, we need to say that the killing was totally horrific, outrageous, not just as throat clearing, but as a clear message to people.
You have a father who has two kids who's gunned down at 50. There is no justification for violence.
There's no sympathy for killing someone in cold blood. Although a lot of people have it, let me say.
I've been surprised by the reaction. Yeah.
I mean, look, I've had people tell me that if they were on a jury, they'd vote to acquit this person, and I just strongly disagree. I don't think—I mean, assuming that there are facts connecting him to the killing, that it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think you have to face the consequences. We can't have a society where you just kill someone in cold blood, no matter what your cause is.
That said, the killing has sparked a national conversation that finally has come to light. I think Bernie, people like me who supported Bernie Sanders in 16 and then co-chaired his campaign in 2020, we knew this because at every Bernie Sanders town hall, Bernie Sanders rally, the first thing you'd have is people coming and telling their stories about how they had cancer and now have no life savings.
42% of people with cancer within two years don't have any life savings because of out-of-pocket costs. How they got their healthcare denied for diabetes, for strokes.
One woman I remember in Nevada telling me her mother has a $700,000 bill after having a stroke. And suddenly now it's not just the Sanders or progressive left hearing it, it's America hearing it.
And the issue is not just the 10% to 15% who may have very poor insurance. It turns out almost everyone with private insurance, many of them when they have serious issues, have denied claims.
100%. I just had it almost happen to me, but I'm a screaming person, and it ultimately got settled.

But yes, it happens to everyone at every level. This is a moment where we should recognize that the private insurance industry is just broken.
I tweeted out they made $1.4 trillion in revenue and $70 billion in profits. And people said, oh, that's only 5% profits.
Yeah, fine. but it's sucking out $1.4 trillion that are going into executive pays, administrative fees,

marketing fees that could be used to either giving people wage hikes in America if the employers weren't spending it on private insurance or to give people health care. And this is the central argument for Medicare for all.
Right. So in the same interview, you also said, I believe we can make Medicare for All happen.

Democrats are often accused of over-promising

and delivering.

Republicans just won

the governing trifecta

and they may be,

have some friends

in the insurance industry,

as do Democrats, I assume.

How do you make that happen

given the power

of this particular lobby,

even though right now

they may be a little more nervous?

Well, the only thing

that makes things happen

in America

are not politicians,

it's social movements.

That was the case

with the progressive movement, with the labor movement, with the civil rights movement. And so my hope is that this will continue to be a movement that moves towards Medicare for All and moves for getting big money out of politics.
I've called for no super PACs in Democratic primaries, for Democrats not taking corporate money, for overturning Citizens United, at least doing what Maine did, which was in a

bipartisan way that limited the super PAC contributions, like you limit individual

contributions. But short of getting Medicare for All, while we fight for that, there's some very

common sense things we could do. We could require, for example, United Healthcare or Aetna to cover

everything that Medicare would cover. I mean, that would be if a doctor prescribes it.
I mean,

And I... We could require, for example, UnitedHealthcare, Aetna, to cover everything that Medicare would cover.
I mean, that would be, if a doctor prescribes it, I mean, that would be one place to do it. Now, the challenge is you've got to still have Medicare negotiate more to get the costs down.
And ultimately, in my view, you need a system where Medicare has more coverage to lower costs. But in an immediate thing, at least stop the denials of these claims.
Is this gonna be the key issue going forward for the Democratic Party, healthcare? I think healthcare and the economy, those have always been the two issues. I wish one person would ask Donald Trump, you know, if I was a journalist, I got to ask Donald Trump one question.
There was a book he wrote in 2000, well before he became president, and he said, I'm ordinarily a private sector guy, but when it comes to healthcare, I think the Canadians actually have it right, and we should have a single-payer healthcare system in this country. And people have asked Donald Trump 100,000 questions.
I've never had someone ask him just read his own words back to him and see if he'd be open to making some progress towards Medicare for all.

But health care, to me, and the economy are the two issues which the Democratic Party should make as its pillars as we look towards 26 and 28.

We'll be back in a minute. Welcome to Sephora.
I'm looking for a perfume that's not too perfumey. I got you.
Serum moisturizer or moisturizer syrup. Let's get into layering.
My concealer is making me look worse. Sounds like the wrong shade.
Let's get you meshed. There's only one store that really gets what you're going for.
Get beauty from people who get beauty. Only at Sephora.
Hi, I, uh, let's get you a basket. With reliable connectivity, enhanced cybersecurity, and advanced fiber solutions, Comcast Business helps turn today's small businesses into engines of modern business.
Powering the engine of modern business. Powering possibilities.
Now through April 21st, new customers can get started with 150 megabit internet and security edge for $49.99 a month for 12 months with a two-year agreement. Plus, ask how to get a $500 prepaid card on a qualifying internet package.
Call today. Restrictions apply.
Equipment tax and other fees extra and subject to change. This episode is brought to you by Amazon.
Amazon has everything for every party. Say your daughter wants a birthday party, but she doesn't just want any party.
She wants a tea party. No, scratch that.
A princess tea party. Wait, a princess T-Rex party? Whatever that means.
From tea sets to tiaras to apparently toddler-sized T-Rex costumes. Shop everything for every party on Amazon.
Let's pivot and talk a little about the Democratic Party. As you said, you were a co-chair for the Bernie Sanders campaign in 2020.
And back in 2022, you were reportedly pushed by the Sanders camp to consider running for the nomination. This was before Biden decided to run for re-election.
Given what we know, do you wish you or another progressive populist had primaried Biden? And could you have beaten Trump? And I know there are some rumors I would never have run in 24. I think to run against Donald Trump, you had to be a brand name.
It's very different than running against someone else. But, you know, a candidacy coming.
You're not a brand name, Roe? I'm not a brand name. Kara, you may have been able to do it with your.
No one's voting for the lesbian who's real mean to Elon Musk, so go ahead. No, but could there have been a brand name in 24? Obviously, I think Michelle Obama could have won.
I think the coalescing around Harris was partly because she was the biggest name the Democrats had, other than Biden, maybe Newsom or others. Well, there's AOC, there's Bernie, obviously.
Yeah, no, I mean, look, could Bernie have done it? I mean, I do think Bernie would have stood a better chance in 24 had he run. And I guess that would have been the question.
I mean, he was obviously nearly 80, but he's vigorous. And in retrospect, should he have run in 24 in the primary? Perhaps.
That would have been something that would have been a fascinating campaign because he would have run as a populist. He would have run on these issues of health care and changing the economy.
He would have said what we've done with Biden is important, but he would have pointed to FDR's 1936 speech. People don't realize this about the New Deal.
You know, when we got a lot of the great things of the New Deal, the minimum wage, the overtime laws, the laws for a 40-hour work week, that was all in Roosevelt's second term. It wasn't his first term.
And Roosevelt, after his first term, said, we've got a lot more work to do and things aren't that great. And Bernie was pleading with people saying, take that approach.
Don't just celebrate. Talk about all of the challenges that are still here in this country.
Yeah. One of the things after Trump won in November, you wrote an op-ed, Democrats failed to present a compelling economic vision for the working class and we lost because of it.
But unlike Bernie, you're not a democratic socialist. You call yourself a progressive capitalist, all these names.
Explain what that means and then compare and contrast it to Bernie's democratic socialist vision. Well, I'm a celebrator of entrepreneurship and building things.
I believe that we should have an economy that allows people to build companies, to help build new industry, and that that's a good thing, but that everyone needs to have the healthcare, the education, the housing to have a decent free life and to have the shot to actually build things, and that we need the government involved when it comes to place-based policy. You can't just have all the wealth piling up in a few places and have other parts hollowed out.

So, you know, I contrast that with democratic socialism in that democratic socialism technically understood as less of belief that the markets in allocating capital to entrepreneurs are a good thing. And I think the markets can work if people have health care, housing, education, and there's place-based policy.
So you're not an eat the rich person, I guess. Like I would say Bernie.
For tax the rich. Tax the rich.
Clear difference. Don't eat them, tax them.
You know, they taste delicious, but go ahead. Bernie would say, let's outlaw the billionaires, right? And I would say, let's tax them, but I wouldn't outlaw them.
I mean, that's a very concrete difference. What do you make of all the billionaires in the Trump cabinet? These people are untouchable.
I mean, that's one of the issues, of course, and therefore they're not going to tax themselves. Yeah.
I mean, look, it's the lack of economic diversity. I have no problem with someone who's a billionaire.
I mean, FDR would have, or John F. Kennedy would have probably been a billionaire in today's real dollars.
And if you have an actual vision of social justice or economic justice moving the country, fine. But don't surround yourself with all other billionaires.
How about having, you know, you said you were for the working class. How about having Sean? You know what would be great? Sean O'Brien.
Why not? I mean, I'm a fan of Sean O'Brien's. I know it was controversial.
Why did he speak at the Republican convention? Why not put Sean O'Brien in your cabinet? Why not put- Because he wouldn't stop talking, but go ahead. Sorry.
You know, but I think that the concern is people say, oh, you're demonizing wealth. No, I'm not demonizing wealth, but how about including those who don't have wealth in the decision-making? Of course, though, this is who Trump is, right? I mean, he has a view.
Let me try to give it the best possible charitable view. His view is that if he's going to slap on tariffs and he's going to deregulate and he's going to give all his billionaire friends all these tax cuts and they know what they're doing and everyone is going to be better off and America is going to be

great. And I just fundamentally disagree with that.
I think it's going to explode income inequality. I think you're still going to have people without health care, people who are still going to have wages depressed.
You're not going to get new factories built if the government isn't helping finance some of them and building a workforce. And so, you know, he's doubling down on what he ran on And my sense is people will have buyer's remorse.

After Trump's election, you said, I'm still very hopeful about the party and our future. The GOP controls both houses of Congress, and the man your party said was a fascist authoritarian threat to democracy is about to take office again.
What makes you optimistic? If things aren't so bad, does that mean Democrats overstated the threat posed by Trump? Well, when it comes to becoming a cohesive, multiracial democracy, I often say America is making progress in spite of ourselves. And by that, I mean you have an Indian American, African American woman who gets 48 to 49 percent in places like Pennsylvania, where I grew up, and Wisconsin, Michigan.
And if you had told me that that was going to happen in the 1980s when I was growing up, I would have said, you're out of your mind. So the country is moving.
You look at the new classes of Congress, freshman classes, sophomore classes, people from all different backgrounds, all different walks of life, and that's incredible. Now, we haven't crossed the threshold.
We've got to win in these national elections, but I believe we will. And I think ultimately, the Democratic Party needed a wake-up call on being out of touch with places like Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and Youngstown, and Milwaukee.
I mean, one of the most interesting stories in this whole election, it was a guy who I'm going to meet in Milwaukee, Chansey, 43-year-old African-American, works in Masterlock, shakes President Obama's hand in 2012 when Obama comes there and saying manufacturing is back. And in 2022, his Master Lock plant shuts down and 300 jobs are lost.

And I talked to Chansey a couple of days ago.

He's now working instead of a $30 job, an $18 job.

He's a driver who's delivering pharmaceutical pills to places. And he's totally heartbroken and frustrated at the system.
So we didn't pay enough attention to people like him. It's not just a white men thing.
It's across different races and different genders and different geographies. And if we can, if Trump's victory says, okay, we got to pay more attention to the chanseys, then we'll have a better Democratic Party going forward.
Did the Biden-Harris campaigns overstate the threat posed by the second Trump presidency? Well, look, people have called fascists, each other fascists and communists for as long as I can remember elections. I mean, Truman called Dewey a fascist.
And every Democrat, it doesn't matter whether you run Bernie Sanders or you run Joe Manchin, the Republicans are going to call him a communist by the time the campaign ends. I mean, that's just American elections.
But do I think Trump poses serious threats to American democracy beyond what Mitt Romney would? Of course. I mean, the fact that we're even having a conversation about whether Jamie Raskin is going to go to jail is evidence of that.
Yeah. So you wouldn't have done that with Mitt.
He wouldn't have dared. So as a lawyer who used to represent tech companies, you're one of the wealthiest members of Congress, someone who represents a district in Silicon Valley with a median income that's more than double the average in the country.
You seem an unlikely voice for the working class, but according to Steve Bannon, you get it at a very deep level. He means you're one of the few Democrats who can't connect with non-college voters and speak to their anger.
Talk about their initial skepticism, because I'm sure many working class voters assume you're an out-of-touch coastal elite when they first met you. I do know you were one of the first people to insist that I go to Kentucky with you to talk to people.
I, of course, went and said, Trump is not going to help you at all. He doesn't care for you.
I don't know what you said different things. But talk a little bit about this dichotomy, because you do represent, like, exactly what the Steve Bannis of the world rail against in many ways.
Yeah, no, I think it's fair. I think when someone first Googles me, they're like, well, should I even show up to talk to this guy? And what I say is, first, I talk about my story.
I'm a son of immigrants. My parents came here with nothing.
I went to public school in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. I grew up on a street where there was one house where there was a vice president, and he the pool and we all used to go to that house to swim.
My dad was an engineer, was middle class upbringing, not working class. But on the street, there were kids of electricians and kids of nurses and kids of plumbers.
And you know what? There was a thriving manufacturing economy. I mean, my father worked at Roman Haas at the Bristol plant of a manufacturer of plexiglass.
And so part of what motivates me is this sense of the America that my parents came to. It was my father came into Michigan.
It was 1968. We were going to go to the moon.
We were the leading manufacturer of the world. We were this leading technologist as a nation.
And there was economic vitality in different parts of America, including large parts of Pennsylvania. And I see that that has declined in so many parts of this country.
And I do now represent a district that has extraordinary wealth, $12 trillion of value in my district. I was fortunate to marry someone who's extraordinary.
His father started as an immigrant and auto transmission business in Ohio that succeeded. And in many ways, what I want is how does the story that I've lived, how is that possible for people across this country? And my view is that it's by mobilizing industry and technology leaders with government and unions to re-industrialize America and bring economic vitality everywhere.
And ultimately, people are pretty smart. They don't need you to go there and pretend that you're going to hunt.
I've never hunted. I don't go and say, hey, watch me try to hunt.
Or you don't have to pretend to be something you're not. But you can say, look, here is why I care.
Here's why I think it's important to America. And here's what I can do about it.
And people will give you an open hearing. Interesting.
I'm a very good shot, Ro. I can teach you.
I really am. You know that clip's going to be all over one day.
I know. I am.
I am. I am.
I mean, I only shoot at targets. But how do you mobilize industry leaders and unions if industry leaders are trying to crush the unions, right? In other countries, there is a much more cooperative relationship.
How do you bring those together? Well, first, you got to put unions in the cabinet. This is why going back to why not have some strong personality like Sean O'Brien or others in charge.
But you don't have to reinvent the model. Look at what FDR did.
He had a thing called dollar-a-year men because it was a sexist time, but you could have dollar-a-year people or women. And you could say, look, I want to call on America, all Americans, business leaders, union leaders, to rebuild every community.
And we're going to give you federal financing to do that, but you're going to have to work with some of the strong unions that have a great workforce, and we're going to build these things in communities that have been deindustrialized. You look at steel.
I mean, one of the reasons I talk about steel is you've got the CEO of Cleveland Cliffs, Lorenzo, who has a great relationship with the United Steel Workers, and you could have a financing program that builds modern steel that actually will be cleaner than anything made in China. And we can build that steel in places like Pennsylvania and Michigan and Ohio.
So it doesn't all have to be high tech. We need all different types of business leaders to work with union leaders and government and should have different solutions for industrializing different parts of this country.
And we hold our gun to saying, okay, if the federal government is going to finance this, then we need to make sure that it has high prevailing wages and is labor neutrality. So one of the people who was anti-Union is Elon Musk, very vehemently so.
He recently treated, though, that you're a sensible moderate. You've talked a lot about your relationship with him.
You've known him for a decade. You wrote a blurb for your first book.
Besides saying you'll work with him to slash government ways, you've also encouraged Democrats to stay on X, and you seem, I would say, generally positive. It's the one thing you and I argue about all the time, him and his minions, who I find repulsive.
But a few days ago, you also treated there's an unholy alliance between soulless wealth and power that have stripped Americans of freedom. Our democracy is created for hardworking citizens to have a say, not just be spectators.
Elon spent $250 million to help get Trump elected, perhaps his best investment ever at this point, given he seems to be the vice president at this point, if not more. Where do you place him in the unholy alliance between wealth and power, given he is at every single meeting with the president right now? Not on the good side.
I mean, obviously, it's a symbol of the problem. And I would say this directly to Elon.
It's part of the problem that you got these billionaires pouring in the kind of money that they have. And by the way, though, we've got to be honest.
See, here's the problem. Our side will say, well, Elon's a problem.
Yeah, sure. It's a problem that he's pouring in hundreds of millions.
But how about the billionaires on our side? I mean, how about the fact that Kamala Harris had more billionaire money than Trump did and more wealthy money that Larry Lessig and I had an op-ed on that, that I think that was part of the reason we weren't talking about transformative change on Medicare for all or standing up for unions. How often did Kamala Harris talk about inequality? And so, yes, let's get the super PAC funding out.
Let's be a party that says no super PAC funding in primaries. But, you know, voters respected more.
It's not that I'm not going to call out Elon. I just did.
It's terrible to have that kind of spending. But voters respect you more if you're also willing to call out your own side so it doesn't just come off as hypocrisy.
Well, does it or not? Because, you know, he certainly has a lot of interests, including electric cars, rockets, everything else, and a certain worldview that is somewhat disturbing some some of them, some of them good, many of them disturbing, but one of the—and is standing right next to the president at all times. He's bought his spot.
He has bought his spot. How long will that last, Kara? I don't know.
I'm asking. I don't know.
He's being a beta right now, so that's interesting to watch him be a beta, because he not. But it's disturbing to have spent $250 million.
And, you know, as is with Elon, he took a bigger swing, right? But he's standing right next to him. He's bought this spot completely, shifting from someone who was, I wouldn't say progressive, but certainly not this, and is able to spew all kinds of nonsense on Twitter, which I believe you think it's nonsense.
The anti-immigrant stuff, the anti-trans stuff. But according to your recent magazine profile, some progressives see you as an ambitious politician cozying up to power brokers.
Another profile said there are politicians who run to be the establishment and the politicians who run to topple the establishment. Conor, unusually, is both.
That's probably the most common criticism in the U.S. It's the one I have for you all the time.
I do this. People don't know.
I tweet Roe all the time and say, what the fuck are you doing? You're much easier on an interview. If you really want a tough treatment of Kara Swisher, you know, text.
And if you happen to know her, she'll be much harder on you. I mean, this is like softball compared to what I get on the techs.
All right, then, Ro, what the actual fuck is going on here? Well, look, I believe in— Can you be a friend to tech oligarchs and the common man? I think they're the elites. I think they could give two fucks about common people.
I think you need to have transformative change. You need to bring and marshal the system on behalf of working people.
And I'll give you two examples of leaders who I'm nowhere in the same league as, but I view just as models, and that's Lincoln and FDR. Lincoln wasn't a pure abolitionist.
You could say he was establishment and anti-establishment. FDR wasn't a socialist.
You could say he was establishment and anti-establishment. He was a capitalist.
But what they understood is that there was a need for fundamental transformative change, and they wanted to mobilize the resources of society to do that. So, yes, I've stood up to tech when it comes to the Kids Online Safety Act, when it comes to the privacy bill.
Now, granted, we haven't been able to implement it, but that was not popular amongst many of them when it comes to supporting Lina Khan. And I spoke out for Lina Khan, even when Cuban and others were saying to get rid of her.
I've said that we need to tax these people. I mean, I don't know what could be more taking on wealth and saying, I'm going to raise your taxes.
Well, they don't think you can. They don't think you can, so they don't mind you saying it.
Yeah, but I also believe that if we are really going to bring new industry and new jobs and new economic vitality, just saying that, okay, I'm going to do it without engaging with the technology and business leaders of our time is naive. I mean, one of the programs I'm proudest.
I get the fair point, but let's talk about tech because it's hard to make transformative change when you're friendly with the tech oligarchs trying to buy elections. Like, look, I'm not naive.
People have bought elections for centuries, right? This is not a new, fresh thing. They just do it less transparently, I guess.
I suppose there's a positive to that. He's made a trans—you know, Elon's being the major donor of this election cycle.

But let's talk about the tech industry then because my issue is they're very good on some things, but why are they over here?

Why are they over in this area?

Why are they in the Ukraine?

Why are they, you know what I mean? They don't have, to hear Marc Andreessen lecture about some topics he knows nothing about is exhausting and dangerous as far as I'm concerned. So let's talk about the tech industry.
You've been pretty vocal on the need to regulate big tech. You and I have talked about this for a very long time.
The last time I interviewed in 2022, I said that you and your fellow Congress members haven't done your job in regard to tech regulation. You and I talked many years ago.
I wrote a column in the New York Times about the Internet Bill of Rights, which you had been trying to push. I went and looked it over.
None of it has passed. None of it.
They were all great ideas. There were 10 or 12 ideas or something like that,

privacy bill, antitrust reform, et cetera.

Talk about what's happening here because I think one of the things is

you can say that you should do something about it,

but nothing gets done.

Explain to me why.

It's about eight years ago when I wrote that column

or five years ago at least.

None of those things have been done that you were suggesting. Well, it's a fair criticism and all of us at Congress need to do better, but I'd say both the pragmatic and the more philosophical of why it hasn't happened on a pragmatic basis.
There's just a debate between having the California standard for these things be the floor or having it preempted by federal law where the standards are worse than California. And that's been...
This is, California has been very aggressive in passing certain bills. California has been very aggressive.
And there's a compromise bill that has passed that isn't as aggressive as California. And some of us in California have been pushing that the California standard should be the floor.
Others are saying, just take the federal standard. It's 80% of California.
I'm even open to making a compromise, even if it's slightly weaker than California, if we can get something done. But that's been the practical reason why nothing has gotten done.
But the bigger philosophical reason, and I'm not criticizing President Biden or this, but he came in, he spent his capital on COVID, and he spent capital on the American Rescue Plan and on chips and IRA, all very significant things. But you didn't have someone saying, this is going to be a top priority for me.
And you didn't have the leadership at the time saying, I want to get this through. And without having a Schumer or Pelosi or a, you know, whoever the leader is and the president saying, we have to get this through, it's one of my top four or five priorities, it's not going to get done.
And I think they thought, okay, this is a tech issue. But what you're recognizing, and I think more people are recognizing, is tech is now intertwined with so much of our lives that these issues really matter to average Americans.
It's like the railroad monopolies. That's what it reminds me of.
It's so integral to everything. So what needs to happen to get real legislation tech, say privacy, antitrust, AI, social media, and kids, which seems to have more traction? I've never seen an industry with so little.
Can you imagine the pharmaceutical industry without any regulation or the car industry, et cetera, et cetera? The railroads are a perfect analogy because the railroads, of course, did an extremely good for America. In some sense, they were bringing America together, defining America as America, the America we know today.
On the other hand, they had way too much power. In fact, Lincoln used to be attacked for being a lawyer for railroads.
I mean, that was one of the attacks on Lincoln. But the point is that one of the sobering meetings I had, one of the worst meetings I had in my time in Congress was seven mothers.
They came in, very polite, very respectful. I actually didn't know the details of what they were going to talk about.
And one after another, they started talking about how they lost their daughter or their son because of a choking challenge online, because their daughter or son was being bullied online, because they were being given information that made them feel no self-esteem and made them commit suicide. It's outrageous.
It's outrageous. Now it's bots doing it.
Now it's bots doing the same thing. But go ahead.
And, you know, Jonathan Haidt has written a whole book on this, Anxious Generation, that I think 90% I agree with and basically says, let's start to regulate it. The Kids' Online Safety Act is the first basic thing that could regulate it.
that says that there has to be a standard of harm that you can't have when having content going to kids, that there need to be some safety standards. You could use that for AI-generated, chat GPT as well.
And we've got 68 senators here for it. I've come out for it on the House side, and we're not being able to move it.
He's not going anywhere. He's not moving it.
Johnson's not moving it. Yeah.

You know, in fact, you know, someone had said to me when Hawley, in that dramatic way,

had Zuckerberg stand up and apologize to the parents, that you should probably have had all of Congress stand up and apologize. I was the one who said that to you.

Okay, maybe you did. Yeah.
I said it a little differently. I said,

Hawley, you fucker, maybe you should apologize. I think that's what I said exactly.
We'll be back in a minute. This episode is brought to you by Shopify.
Forget the frustration of picking commerce platforms when you switch your business to Shopify, the global commerce platform that supercharges your selling wherever you sell. With Shopify, you'll harness the same intuitive features, trusted apps, and powerful analytics used by the world's leading brands.
Sign up today for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash tech, all lowercase. That's shopify.com slash tech.
Today explained here with Eric Levitt, senior correspondent at vox.com to talk about the 2024 election. That can't be right.
Eric, I thought we were done with that. I feel like I'm Pacino in three.
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Why are we talking about the 2024 election again? The reason why we're still looking back is that it takes a while after an election to get all of the most high quality data on what exactly happened.
So the full picture is starting to just come into view now. And you wrote a piece about the full picture for Vox recently, and it did bonkers business on the internet.
What did it say? What struck a chord?

Yeah, so this was my interview with David Shore of Blue Rose Research. He's one of the biggest sort of democratic data gurus in the party.

And basically, the big picture headline takeaways are... On Today Explained.

You'll have to go listen to them there.

Find the show wherever you listen to shows, bro.

So you've spoken about the need to protect kids online.

As you said, you support the Kids Online Safety Act, your COSA,

although you're against an Australia-style ban on kids under 16 using social media. I am for that.
You're for a ban. I am at this point.
I'm done with compromise, I have to say. COSA passed the Senate, but a watered-down version installed in the House, as you said.
Unlikely to pass. Unlikely.
COSA is a bipartisan bill. Why is the tech industry fighting so hard against what is a relatively innocuous bill compared to the others? Well, because it's just the state to change their business model.
Now, suddenly, if Facebook and Instagram have to care about what algorithms they're using to target kids, and that they could be liable for causing harm to kids, you can see further legislation that starts to hold their algorithms accountable. And it increases their liability because I'm sure they know, I know they know from the whistleblowers that their product harms kids.
Now, you have, of course, Meta and other interests that are pouring money into these think tanks and groups and lobbyists that are trying to undermine it. But you also have the LGBTQ plus community with some legitimate concerns.
And the legitimate concern is that you can't define the power so broadly for attorney generals in a state like Texas to go after any content that may be talking about trans issuers or gay issues. Well, because one of the senators said it explicitly, Senator Marsha Blackburn said it pretty explicitly in that regard.
So any chance it's going to go through? I think what would be helpful is for the progressive communities to come on board and to discuss where their bright lines are. Some of them have with me and others and to say, look, if the language is narrowly defined enough so we know that attorney generals aren't going to abuse it, then we can get on board.
And then we need to start to call out the moneyed interests of who's blocking this. But, you know, I'm not hopeful for this.
Again, this gets to the need for presidential and leadership and the Speaker of the House matters. I mean, Johnson or Trump would have to make this a priority for it to go.
But it isn't. He's very clearly said that.
So Trump also announced venture capitalists and, let's move to AI very briefly,ure capitalists and Elon Musk minion David Sachs to be his crypto and AI czar. I'm not sure it has much power, but I have to mention Sachs hosted a fundraiser for you at his house in 2023.
I think I texted you about that. I sent you an article I wrote about him.
You responded to criticism by saying having core convictions but engaging with those who see the world differently is so needed in our nation. Probably you needed the money, too.
But having said all that, what do you make of—I don't mind you raising money. I don't care.
Yeah, and by the way, I take no PAC money, no super PAC—I don't have a super PAC, no PAC money, and get contributions of $3,300. So I'm not, you know, I'm not Gandhi, but, you know, I'm relatively—and I'm not Bernie Sanders, but I clean.
I'm cleaner than 95% of those in Congress. So having said that, what do you make of this pick? What do you imagine happening? Because this is an area that's going to affect your constituency.
And you've written that federal policy should require public companies that have active worker participation in making decisions about, hey, I will change jobs and the functions be automated. This is not what he has talked about, for sure.
How do you imagine this appointment's going to go? Or is it just another thank you for the money kind of thing that Trump is doing here? Well, look, here's where I'm going to try to see if there's any possible common ground. There's been bipartisan commission that has recommended two things.
One, we need more compute power in America at public universities. You can't have all the compute power just sitting there with Google and Microsoft, or you're never going to have independent research.
And will David be willing to support $10, $20 billion of investment, which a bipartisan commission has recommended, on AI compute power so that we can stay ahead of China and have research in AI that isn't just consumer-focused to shareholders at Google and Microsoft. Second area is, you know, the open source of AI models makes it such that Lama, which is, as you know, the Facebook open source, is only about 12 months behind the latest ChatGPT iteration or the latest Gemini iteration.
And so you've got a real danger around the world. We can have export restrictions on the OpenAI, Microsoft, Google things, but if you're going to have an open source that is about 12 months behind, and by the way, if you talk to experts, they'll tell you that that open source is pretty good for military applications and most applications of AI, then we have a bigger problem in how to secure AI.
And we need to look at things like securing the physical infrastructure and material for bioweapons and other ways of securing the most sensitive information. That's not a very partisan thing.
And, you know, I'll try to engage David on that and then try to engage him on unique safety regulations for AI. So every show we get a question from an outside expert.
Yours comes from Tristan Harris, co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology. Let's hear it.
Hey, Ro. Given everything that we're seeing in terms of AI harms, like the recent product liability cases against AI companions like Character.ai, it seems obvious that we should have some sort of legislation in the US that allows us to incentivize much more responsible innovations.
And we all know that one of the biggest pushbacks against AI guardrails are concerns about losing to China. But from one vantage point, we beat China to social media.
And did that make us stronger or weaker? And I worry that we're in a similar situation here where we're not racing towards AI that makes us a better society, but a worse one. So my question for you is, what path forward do you see for Democrats and Republicans to work together to ensure that AI is being built in a way that strengthens American society? See, that's a nice one.
So he's also eloquent. You know, here's what I say.
I still am optimistic about the uses of AI to develop new drugs, to help tackle educational inequities, to help build new manufacturing. But he's absolutely right that we need to develop AI with appropriate guardrails.
And the whole explanation I gave about the development of open source and the vulnerability anyway with China developing those models means that we should be leading to have humanistic values in these AI and in these guardrails. And I don't think that there's a tension between doing that and staying ahead of China.
I mean, we need to have our own values in this technology. But no guardrails yet.
Again, no guardrails yet. No guardrails.
But this is an area, look, I don't know if Elon's changed his view, but he did a ex-chat with Mike Gallagher and me where he called for an AI regulatory agency.

And he was on the other side of sort of the Andreessen and things on AI regulation. I don't know.
I haven't talked to him about it.

Well, now he has an AI company, though. So, I don't know.
Like, again, these conflicts are so intertwined.

It's really, and I don't mean to say these people shouldn't have a say in things because they certainly know what they're talking about and what's needed. But it often comes at the expense of their businesses, right? They have their own interests, which is problematic.
I think what would be helpful with Tristan, I mean, I know he's done it, but, okay, what are the top three things we can do? My view is very simply, one of them is to label AI-generated content as AI-generated content to require human decision-making and not AI decision-making. And then, I get that Tristan folks get frustrated because they probably are asked for these lists a hundred times and then nothing happens.
But we've got to keep at it. Yeah, protect children would be mine.
I have two more quick questions of facts. Let's very quickly, antitrust enforcement.
You supported Senator Klobuchar's tech antitrust bill in the Senate, not a similar bill in the House. How come? And Trump is expected to stop the Department of Justice from breaking up Google and generally pull back, although it's in a court right now, so I don't know how much effect he will have, and pull back from the Biden administration's antitrust enforcement.
That said, their designee is an interesting person who has a lot of respect across the antitrust community. What do you think is going to happen here with these breakups? Look, I supported Lena Kahn.
I support the president keeping her on. But I've heard this other person, I don't know her, but I've heard...
Gina Slater. Yeah, I've heard that she has a fair amount of respect from people who want antitrust enforcement.
I'm all for the enforcement. The things that Lena Kahn went after, I mean, Google shouldn't be allowed to pay Apple to make Google the default browser.
I mean, this is obvious that they— Google was in the Justice Department under John Cantor. That's the case.
They won. The Justice Department won against Google in the breakup.
Right. I mean, I think it's on this exclusive agreements with Apple.
And so they should—you know, the remedy—there are different ways on the remedy, but they certainly shouldn't be privileging their own products, and they shouldn't have exclusive agreements, and there's something that needs to be done on their monopoly on search, and there should be open competition there. And so I'll leave it to the judicial process to figure out the exact remedy, but I am for— Would you want to break up? Would you think that's a good solution? You know, I would say, are there other remedies first that would work? If the judge said, no, the only thing that's going to have fair competition is a breakup, fine.
But that's, you know, you don't start with that. You have a process.
But what I will support is someone like Lena Kahn or someone strong antitrust to take aggressive action and to then let the consequences go where they may be. Yeah, he's not keeping Lena Kahn, just FYI.
He's just not. But on the other side, you know, and then I get, you know, I think some people say this is why they say, oh, is he established or not? I mean, you can recognize that, you know, Google had two Nobel laureates out of DeepMind and still believe that they're violating the law when it comes to open, you know, exclusive contracts with Apple.
But the world isn't, in my view, intact black and white. I think we had an overly positive view of them, and now sometimes we have an overly negative view.
And the question is, how do you have the right guardrail so that technology is for the good? Stop being complex, Roe. Please stop.
I mean, would you stop? That said, they have no laws against them, so maybe one. The Federal Appeals Court, last thing, and then I have one last quick question, obviously, about you running for president.
A federal appeals court is denied Biden's attempts to overturn the TikTok ban. You voted against the ban.
I know that. We've had some interesting discussions about it.
You're skeptical if it's constitutional, but it looks like so far it is, and they have decided that national security trumps the issues around the First Amendment. And you've pointed out without a privacy bill, the Chinese Communist Party could buy American data legally from data brokers.
It is not the solution. But as long as ByteDance possibly answers to Beijing, they could possibly tweak the algorithm, which is, I think, the worry or other issues.
There's all kinds of surveillance issues, tweaking algorithms. We're not likely to get a privacy bill anytime soon.
So where do you imagine the TikTok situation going? Trump has flip-flopped his opinion on it. He was for it before he was against it.
Follower account. If they keep going up, then it's not going to get banned.
If it starts dipping, then it'll get banned. I don't know.
Yeah, right. There's not a lot he can do necessarily.
Well, it's got to be negotiated with China. Would I rather have a sale to an American company? Absolutely.
But apparently, Xi Jinping needs to sign off on that sale. He has no incentive to sign off on that sale unless the Americans put pressure.
And so my guess is it's going to be between Rubio and whoever Xi Jinping's foreign policy is to try to resolve it if the courts don't strike it down. I'm always for having an American company own it.
I just thought the law was overbroad by literally shutting down the app and 175 million Americans if we couldn't get a sale. And there are other things we could have done, like criminalizing algorithmic interference or criminalizing the transference of data to the CCP.
It's difficult to enforce that, obviously. By the way, you have a big follower count yourself, Ro, on the TikTok, just so you know.
I'm growing. I mean, if it goes further, I'm not complaining.
I mean, here's the irony of it. Everyone, China is corrupting our youth, and they're interfering with our citizens.
And then they all go and they vote for the TikTok ban. And you know what one week later they do? They all go and tell their staffers, I don't have enough TikTok followers.
How do I increase my TikTok followers? And you got Kamala Harris and Donald Trump out competing themselves on TikTok. So there is a little bit of hypocrisy in this whole thing, don't you think? It's called a drug addiction is what it is.
It's a version of drug addiction. Of course it is.
That's the whole point is it's so integral to your life that you can't avoid it. And at the same time, it is.
It's a version of drug addiction. Of course it is.
That's the whole point, is it's so integral to your life that you can't avoid it, and at the same time, it is then running your life, right? That's the whole honeypot of it all. I actually think that is, and Tristan is very thoughtful, as have you been, about the time spent on all of this social media and the internet, and we all get sucked into it and what that's doing to society.
Now people said the same thing about television, but this strikes me as worse unless it's properly managed. Oh, it's more deleterious than anything, and you can't get away from it.
You can't need it for your work. It's addictive and everything else.
All right, speaking of your follower count, I have my magic eight ball here, Ro. Oh, look at that.
I'm not going to ask you if you're running for president, but you haven't done anything to tamp down that speculation. I'm not going to have you answer whether you're running.
I'm going to see what the eight ball says. Reply hazy.
Try again. Interesting.
Let's try again. Outlook good.
So let's say you run and win. If you run and you win, what's your single most important legislative priority, the one bill that you're willing to spend that political capital on? How we get chancy and people like him, good paying jobs.
I mean, that would be my North Star, whether I win or whether, you know, hopefully it's not J.D. Vance or whether it's Gavin Newsom or, you know, Gretchen Whitmer.
You know, what can we do to people like Chansey to get them high-paying jobs? And what would that be? Well, my view is that it's got to be a industrialization and economic mobilization strategy like FDR had, where you get federal financing in all these de-industrialized towns, or you're looking at not just semiconductors or electric vehicles. You have a whole different range of types of industry and jobs that you could have.
You announce a program for 100,000 new electricians, beauticians, tradespeople that the jobs corps would do. But you really create a White House Economic Development Council that thinks about all the places that have been deindustrialized.
And then you say, OK, it's not all going to be manufacturing. There could be other types of high-paying jobs.
But what are we going to do to have the economic development? It's what saddens me about Trump, because ultimately, I think he diagnosed a lot of anger in this country. And I'm skeptical that Chancey's life is going to be better four years from now.
If it is, more power to him. I mean that sincerely because you know what? Deep down, and maybe I'll end with this, Kara.
What's the core motivation? I was just going to ask you, what is your hope for the Trump administration? What is your biggest worry? Go ahead. I'll answer it by saying what motivated deep down my interest in politics.
It's my grandfather. He spent four years in jail alongside Gandhi's independence movement, fighting for Indian independence.
I thought in America, growing up Indian American of Hindu faith in Bucks County, if we became a cohesive multiracial democracy, that we'd have a more just world, that you wouldn't have the colonizer model of the world that my grandfather had to struggle against, and that a multiracial America would be a more just America, whether in the Middle East or around the world. That was my calling into politics.
And so what I realized is that Obama, who was the most inspirational figure, that he could only get us so far because so many people had economic resentment. There were other resentments, but also economic resentments.
And if Trump does anything that can help in towns that have been de-industrialized to improve life, that's going to get us closer to that North Star being this cohesive multiracial democracy. And if there are things he does on that, I will support them.
But ultimately, whether it's Chansey or five or ten people like that in parts of this country, that should be where politicians are thinking, what can we do to change their prospects? And what's your greatest worry for his administration? probably that he put someone like jamie raskin in jail because of what that would mean for the

for our democratic norms i mean what what a terrible precedent that would be and i don't

think he's going to have mass arrests, but even if he did a few high-profile folks and what that would mean in stifling debate and criticism. And second to that, that we're going to have mass raids of businesses where we're going to be asked, everyone will be asked for their papers.
And people that look like me will be asked for their papers, whether they were born here or not. So those are probably the two biggest places of fear.
Yeah. It's never good when you're asked for your papers.
It's never good. It never ends up well.
My mom said, you know, when I travel, and now I travel as a member of Congress, my mom, until recently, she says, so do you have your passport? Can you make sure you don't lose your passport? And at first, I didn't understand it. Then I realized when you come as an immigrant, those papers have such meaning.
They do. You don't need your papers, Ro.
I don't need it. Not today.
Not today. Not today.
All right. I'll be texting you tonight if you do something I don't like, okay? I always appreciate that.
I'll text you something nice. Scott Galloway complains of the same thing.

I will text you something nice sometime when you do something I like about that. I'll make a deal with you.
All right. Thank you so much.
I really appreciate you. You're an incredibly thoughtful legislator.
And I do hope you run for president. I like a lot of various and different people.
So American people get a choice. Anyway, thank you so much.
Thank you. Always fun.
On with Kara Swisher is produced by Christian Castro-Russell, Kateri Yoakum, Jolie Myers, Megan Burney, and Kaylin Lynch. Nishat Kirwa is Vox Media's executive producer of audio.
Special thanks to Kate Gallagher. Our engineers are Rick Kwan and Fernando Arruda, and our theme music is by Tracademics.
If you're already following the show,

you get a free Magic 8 Ball.

If not, you are part of an unholy alliance

of wealth and power.

Go wherever you listen to podcasts,

search for On With Kara Swisher, and hit follow.

Thanks for listening to On With Kara Swisher

from New York Magazine,

the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us.

We'll be back on Monday with more.