Rep. Ro Khanna on Epstein, ICE & a Billionaire Wealth Tax

Democratic California Representative Ro Khanna joins Kara for a wide-ranging conversation about the culture of impunity that’s taken hold in America during President Trump’s second term. They discuss Khanna's visit to an immigration detention facility, the Trump administration’s reaction to the killing of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis, the Department of Justice investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, and Khanna’s new role as ranking member of the House China Select Committee. Khanna also explains why he’s pushing for the full release of the Epstein files and the fight over a proposed 5% wealth tax on billionaires in California. Kara also asks him how Democrats can win back voters in 2026 and whether he's making plans for a 2028 presidential run. Questions? Comments? Email us at [email protected] or find us on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Threads, and Bluesky @onwithkaraswisher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:12Kara Swisher?

  Hi, everyone. From New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network, this is On with Kara Swisher, and I'm Kara Swisher. My guest today is Representative Ro Khanna. A lawyer by training, he represented tech firms before joining the Obama administration and working at the Department of Commerce. In 2016, he won a seat in Congress representing a district in Silicon Valley, and since then, he's distinguished himself by his ability to balance being both a progressive capitalist and a cheerleader for the tech industry. On one hand, Khanna was the co-chair of Bernie Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign. On the other, he's raised money from people like Peter Thiel, David Sacks, and Marc Andreessen. But after managing to thread that needle for years, Khanna's support for a one-time

• 0:53Kara Swisher?

  wealth tax on California billionaires has turned many of his tech friends against him. No surprise, the billionaires have responded with righteous anger, and whether he meant it or not, it seems like Khanna has chosen sides. But there's more to Ro than the wealth tax. He's also teamed up with Representative Thomas Massey of Kentucky to force the Department of Justice to release the Epstein files. And as the new ranking member on the House Select Committee on China, he's in a position to influence America's relationship with its foremost strategic and, of course, technological adversary. I wanted to bring in Khanna back on the pod because I really like talking to him. We have known each other for years. I obviously covered the people that he represents, and so we got to know each other. I always thought he was too soft on them, and now he sees what I mean.

• 1:37Kara Swisher?

  I always warned them about their incredible greed. I warned them about how they would turn on them and the problems that they would bring to him. And I'm kind of fascinated by how quickly they've turned on him and how surprised he is by it. And so I wanted to talk about that. And of course, his involvement in the Epstein file thing has been a huge success for him and Tom Massey. But I want to know where it goes from here because the Trump administration has done everything possible to make it difficult to find out what exactly happened. In that situation. Our expert question comes from Steve Ratner. He's a longtime Wall Street financier and chairman of Willett Advisors, the investment arm for Michael Bloomberg's personal and philanthropic assets. Ratner led the restructuring of the auto industry during the Obama administration.

• 2:22Kara Swisher?

  He's also an economic analyst on MSNBC's Morning Joe and a contributing writer to the New York Times op ed page. All right, this is going to be a good one, so stick around.

• 2:46Kara Swisher?

  Support for this show comes from The Guardian and their new show, Stateside, where journalists Kai Wright and Carter Sherman use the entire independent reporting resources of The Guardian to slow down the news and wrestle with the questions we all have about what is actually happening in the world. Join Kai and Carter three times a week as they utilize all the reporting resources The Guardian has across news, international coverage, climate, culture, wellness, and more. And The Guardian's not owned by a billionaire. They fearlessly report the facts without interference. Go to theguardian.com/stateside to learn more and listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on YouTube. That's theguardian.com/stateside.

• 3:30Speaker 01

  Ripple has been powering modern finance for a decade. We're leading the charge to bridge the gap between existing financial systems and the future of finance. You can have it all: legacy, stability, and digital innovation. Systems that work with your other systems. Because with the right partner, the question isn't crypto or traditional finance. The question is simply, why choose? A new standard of modern finance. It's happening with Ripple. For informational purposes only, availability of products can vary and may be provided by different Ripple entities.

• 4:01Speaker 02

  Support for the show comes from Engine. Running a small business means every dollar has to work hard. But if your team is still booking travel the old way, it's costing you more than you think. Engine is the fastest growing travel and spend platform in the country, built specifically for businesses like yours. Book a trip in as little as two and a half minutes, earn up to 10% back on hotels. And in 2025, Engine customers save more than $300 million on travel with zero booking fees, no contracts, and no BS. More than 1,000 businesses join Engine every month. Join them and get $500 when your business signs up and starts traveling at engine.com/box.

• 4:48Kara Swisher?

  Representative Khan, thanks for coming on on.

• 4:51Speaker 03

  Great to be back on. Happy New Year.

• 4:52Kara Swisher?

  I'm going to call you Rose, since I've known you for so long, if you don't mind.

• 4:55Speaker 03

  Of course.

• 4:56Kara Swisher?

  Of course. So we've got a lot to talk about. Let's start with the news roundup and dive right in. Last week, you visited the newest ICE detention center in California and said the detainees were treated like animals. Tell us what you saw.

• 5:09Speaker 03

  It was honestly horrifying. Put aside what you think about the immigration issue. This is not how we should treat people in this country. I met with 47 detainees. Many of them I met within a room without a warden or a security guard. These are not hardened criminals. Many of them have been in this country for years. They've been paying their taxes. And what they talked about was disgusting. They said that there was rocks in their food. One man, which stands out to me, had blood in his urine and said seven days he had not been able to see a doctor. By the way, when we went by the nurse doctor area, it was packed about 50 people in a room

• 5:51Speaker 03

  the size of a modest kitchen, waiting for an appointment to see someone to get health care. They said that there was the flu and other things spreading around in where they were being contained because they had no access to health care. They talked about shivering at night because some of them didn't have long sleeve shirts. They only went out one hour a day, and sometimes that was canceled. And they could not talk to their families. We saw the glass walls, windows that separated them. They said they were being treated, some said, like animals, some said like murderers. I mean, I was embarrassed as an American.

• 6:27Kara Swisher?

  So when, most of them were, as you said, they've been paying taxes. So what were they doing?

• 6:33Speaker 03

  One of them was a business owner who was a, had a construction business here for 20 years. One of them was a student, actually studying and had gone in voluntarily for a ICE visit to show his paperwork and was arrested. It was interesting how many of them had actually cooperated with ICE or the detention centers, thinking that they were providing their paperwork. Now, look, some of them admit that they were undocumented. They still didn't, weren't documented and had been here for years. But almost all of them were employed, were doing something. Some of them spoke perfectly fluent English. I mean, it was obvious that they had been here for many, many years. And even the people at the ICE facility knew that they weren't a threat. They wouldn't have had me sit in

• 7:18Speaker 03

  a room for an hour with no security guard, with no warden, with these individuals. I was more concerned about them being in tears, breaking down than I was about my safety or the female staffer with me's safety.

• 7:31Kara Swisher?

  Right.

• 7:32Speaker 03

  Part of the problem here is Stephen Miller has given a dictate, go arrest 2, 3,000 of these folks every, every day who are undocumented. So they're cramping into these facilities. They don't have enough personnel.

• 7:45Kara Swisher?

  Right, right.

• 7:45Speaker 03

  And it's a terrible system.

• 7:47Kara Swisher?

  And we should mention, this is a for-profit facility, and the more costs they save, the more money they make.

• 7:53Speaker 03

  That's exactly right. It's civic core. It's a for-profit. They, they have no incentive to hire more medical personnel, to hire, to get more clothes, to get more laundry. I, I don't think, with the warden and the people around him, I don't think it was sort of intentional cruelty. It is just systematic neglect of a system where, okay, we don't have enough personnel. We're going to make the best of it. We don't have enough judges. And these are the procedures that we need to follow, but it's dehumanizing conditions.

• 8:25Kara Swisher?

  What about the guards? Where are they? I mean, obviously, we'll get into the ICE personnel and their qualifications, but the guards themselves?

• 8:33Speaker 03

  These guards were hired by Civic Core, the company, and their security personnel. I didn't get the sense from any of the detainees that the guards themselves were abusive in terms of excess force. What they did say is that they would have two hours a day, four times lockdown, where they all have to go back to their cells, they're all inspected. So eight hours of your day is just being inspected. And what I got a sense of is just there was too little personnel for them to have any sense of human dignity. But in my interactions, no one said, hey, this security personnel beat me or harassed me.

• 9:15Kara Swisher?

  Right. So you've called for Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent that shot and killed Renee Good in Minneapolis, to be arrested and prosecuted. This seems more unlikely every day, but the FBI says it's investigating Good's relationship with local activist groups instead, in what could be a precursor to criminalizing protest. What's your advice to Americans who want to protest ICE or the Trump administration but are afraid of being targeted by law enforcement officers who face what appears to be no accountability?

• 9:43Speaker 03

  My advice is be very careful. I mean, I'm saddened to say this, but if you're protesting ICE, if you're protesting this administration, you're taking a risk. And I deeply admire the courage of people who are willing to do that. You know, the hypocrisy, obviously, what's happening in Iran is of different magnitude and horrific, where you have the Iranian regime basically shooting unarmed protesters with machine guns. But on the same breath, while we're condemning that, we're not standing up for protesters in our own country. I mean, the hypocrisy of that is stunning. But in this case, I looked at the video, like many Americans many times.

• 10:25Speaker 03

  Obviously, that mother was protesting, and we can argue whether or not she should have listened right away to law enforcement. But does anyone think she should have been killed? That she should have paid with that with her life? When you look at what she's doing with the car?

• 10:41Kara Swisher?

  Just arrest her. Just arrest her.

• 10:43Speaker 03

  The wheels are turned.

• 10:44Kara Swisher?

  Or give her a find or whatever.

• 10:46Speaker 03

  Yeah, the standard of force in this country is the that force has to be a last resort and only what's absolutely necessary. And that's why I've said that he should be prosecuted and arrested and prosecuted. By the way, he can argue in that. I'm not saying that just put him in jail. He should have due process. But when I look at that video, I think there are a lot of things he could have done short of killing her. He could have stepped aside. He could have arrested her. He could have shot the tires. He could have shot other parts of the car. And, you know, the fundamental problem here with ICE is that it doesn't report to the Justice Department. It reports to Kristi Noem and the Homeland Security. So in other law enforcement, FBI law enforcement, you have civil rights standards of conduct by the Justice Department, oversight, standards of the use of force, and you don't have that with ICE.

• 11:31Speaker 03

  You have no de-escalation training. There are advertisements out there, basically, for people saying, OK, come become an ICE agent. We've given them $150 billion, and they're acting like thugs in some of these places.

• 11:43Kara Swisher?

  So if it doesn't have accountability, it's a private police force, essentially, except for the president, correct? I mean, how do you characterize it?

• 11:50Speaker 03

  It's the president's police force. It's the Kristi Noem's police force. And they basically are being defended. I mean, for Vice President Vance to make this the issue that he wanted to pop up and opine about.

• 12:06Kara Swisher?

  Explain what he said. Explain what he said for people who might not have listened to it.

• 12:09Speaker 03

  They basically said, he does a press conference, which is highly unusual, right? Why are you, like, suddenly going to speak to the entire American press corps? Obviously, as the vice president, people are going to show up. And his whole press conference is to say, I saw the video, and I think the officer was perfectly fine shooting this woman and mom. And if you're going to protest or stand in the way of an ICE officer, then you're going to get shot. And it's a defense of that. I mean, there are two vivid images I have of J.D. Vance in this past year. One is lecturing Zelensky in Ukraine, and the other is basically a defense of this ICE officer in shooting this mom.

• 12:45Kara Swisher?

  He called her a deranged leftist, of course. He has very little information. But obviously, they did that from the get-go. Kristi Noem started talking about it before she had information. Same thing with Trump, but. Go ahead.

• 12:56Speaker 03

  Yeah, they have no information and they're basically doubling down on this. They're basically saying, we get to make the call in what we say is illegal. So we're the Congress, we make the law. We get to make the call in how we execute it. We're the executive branch and we get to make the call about whether it was legal. We're the judicial branch. It's all of the power in one. And who decides? It's basically Kristi Noem, J.D. Vance and Donald Trump decide if you protest, whether you get to live or die in America. I mean, that's the America they've created.

• 13:27Kara Swisher?

  So what happens next in this case?

• 13:30Speaker 03

  In the case of this particular

• 13:31Kara Swisher?

  Yeah.

• 13:31Speaker 03

  Police officer, ICE officer? Well, I think it depends on how much we all as Americans continue to demand accountability. First of all, the statute of limitations is long. A future administration can prosecute. And that's something I think everyone in the Trump administration should be very aware of. I'm of the view, let's have reconciliation after Trump, but not reconciliation without accountability. The people who have violated the law or shooting boats in the Caribbean, who gutted USAID, who aren't releasing the Epstein files, who are shooting protesters, will and should be prosecuted. But can we get it before the next three years?

• 14:12Speaker 03

  It's an uphill battle, but the public organizing, protesting, speaking out about it is our best chance. Look, Donald Trump is movable. How do we know that? He opposed my Epstein file with Massey and then he signed it. Now he's suddenly out there proposing populist Bernie Sanders like proposals. I mean, he called up Elizabeth Warren saying, support my credit card interest cap at 10%. Stop private equity from buying up single family homes. So he's gotten the message that he's losing on the economy. And I think he has not gotten the message that people are disgusted with what ICE is doing. But the more that people are speaking out, maybe it'll get through.

• 14:51Kara Swisher?

  Yeah, Vance, just for people that don't know, says the ICE agent who shot Good has absolute immunity. So no accountability at this moment. So let's keep going and move from immigration to the economy. As you just noted, on Monday morning, you posted video on X after the Department of Justice announced it was opening a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve. Chair Jerome Powell, in it, you said, quote, "All Americans must stand with Jerome Powell and the independence of the Fed. The Trump administration has crossed a Rubicon." It seems like that's all they do all day, is cross Rubicons. But why is this the point of no return? Because like, I don't know, it seems like in the second, when you call for Americans to stand with Jerome Powell, what does that look like to you in practice?

• 15:29Speaker 03

  Well, this is the point of no return, because this is threatening America's money. I mean, this is, this is going after America's wealth. I mean, I, I care about America's human rights and dignity, but everyone cares about America's economy. And you basically are saying that we don't want independent monetary policy in America. Look, I, I studied economics at University of Chicago. The key to getting a good grade on any exam is to recite saying inflation is always a monetary phenomenon, basically meaning that when you have people in a government who get to do whatever they want with the money supply for political ends, you destroy economies. And what Donald Trump is saying is let America go and be governed without any rule of law,

• 16:13Speaker 03

  without any independence, that whoever's in power can get, just threaten monetary policy. It's the most dangerous thing for economic success. By the way, you don't have to take my word. Daron A. Smoglu at MIT won the Nobel Prize for basically saying countries that are prosperous have rules of law and predictable, predictable system. So that's why this was such a Rubicon in terms of America's entire economic system. And then, of course, you add the Trump flourish, which is basically threatens with criminal investigation, anyone he disagrees with.

• 16:44Kara Swisher?

  So why did he do this one? I mean, obviously, Jeanine Pirro is saying she did it by herself because they wouldn't write her back or something, some nonsensical excuse.

• 16:52Speaker 03

  Oh, come on.

• 16:52Kara Swisher?

  I know, exactly. Why do you think he did this one? I mean, it's like an octopus. Every day, there's another ridiculous.

• 16:59Speaker 03

  I think there are two things. One, Trump is just very petty. If, if you're kind of not on his side, he will lash out against you. So I'm, I also, I'm not even sure it's a grand economic theory that he has, that he wants lower interest rates. I think that's part of it, because he wants economic growth. But, but it's also just that, who is this guy? Who doesn't recognize that I'm the two-term president, Donald Trump, who gets to capture Madero? And like, why is he standing in my way? So I'm going to show him.

• 17:27Kara Swisher?

  Rid me of this bothersome priest. That's, you know, that kind of thing.

• 17:31Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 17:31Kara Swisher?

  So you were just appointed a ranking, the ranking member of the House Select Committee on China. You're less hawkish than Representative Rajya Kristi Murthy, the Democrat you're replacing. And you support President Trump's decision to sell advanced AI chips to China. Talk us through your thinking on the chips. A lot of Democrats see this as a betrayal of our national security. Some Republicans do. That is prioritizing the commercial interests of tech and manufacturers like Nvidia and AMD over American security. So talk a little bit about your thoughts on this job that you just got.

• 18:00Speaker 03

  Yeah. So first, I support industrial policy in the United States, including on rare earths. I said, let's have a Manhattan project so we're not dependent on China for the 17 rare earths. Let's make sure that we rebalance the extraordinary trade deficit where we allow steel and aluminum and critical industries to be hollowed out. We should have them here. What I said on chips, and I, as you may remember, helped co-write the CHIPS Act with Senator Schumer and Todd Young, is that we want to have manufacturing capability of these chips here in the United States. Because of the CHIPS Act, Gina Raimondo just said 20% here will take place in terms of production. Now, the question becomes, well, what about the sale of chips into China?

• 18:44Speaker 03

  And here, it's a judgment call. I think even if you ask Gina Raimondo, she would say, well, look, we don't want to sell them the latest stuff because the compute power here is an advantage, but we want to sell them as much as we can up to that latest stuff because that gives our companies revenue, which they can then invest in the United States. And that makes China slower to have Huawei develop all their chips. Eventually, China is going to get Huawei to develop their chips.

• 19:11Kara Swisher?

  Correct.

• 19:12Speaker 03

  So we're just buying some time. And the entire debate is where is that line? I mean, Gina Raimondo may draw the line differently than Jensen, who may draw the line differently than me. But the question is, where do you draw the line? My view was that the president in okaying this latest round of chips doesn't cross the line of the most advanced chips. I still wouldn't sell the most advanced chips. By the way, it's unclear that-

• 19:36Kara Swisher?

  Why do you think that China and Huawei will stop developing its own chips if they can get advanced chips? Is that a logic that holds water?

• 19:44Speaker 03

  Meaning, well, I think China is going to develop their own advanced chips anyway. I think we're just slowing it, we're trying to slow it down. And that makes sense to me in the, in the most advanced chips. Like I would make sure we have at least a one-year advantage over China in terms of the most advanced AI logic chips. But I don't, I don't think ultimately we win the AI race by a bet that China isn't going to get the compute power with Huawei to match us on chip production. I think we win the bet by making sure we have the AI talent here and the development of AI here. I also don't think we should replicate China's model of AI accelerationism. You know, what I say is I'm not an AI accelerationist.

• 20:29Speaker 03

  I'm not an AI doomer. I'm an AI democratist. We need democratization.

• 20:34Kara Swisher?

  So you're not a zoomer, you're not a doomer.

• 20:37Speaker 03

  Dumer.

• 20:37Kara Swisher?

  You're a what?

• 20:39Speaker 03

  Democratization, AI democratization. What does that mean? It means, I'm not accelerationist, China is accelerationist, right? China is basically like, who cares that we have 19% youth unemployment? Who cares that the truck drivers are out of jobs? Tough. Like, we're just all, all, all in. AI develop, develop, develop. And the tech folks in my district say, look, bro, look at China. They're developing, developing, developing. You're talking about what are we going to do on jobs? You're talking about how we're going to make sure that we have safety. That's not what China is doing. I was like, you're right. That's not what China is doing, though they have more safety standards because of censorship. That's, they're basically AI accelerationists. Do you want to live in China? I don't. I don't want 19% youth unemployment. I don't want a society where if you lose a job, tough. I don't want the kind of censorship that they have. I'm also not in-

• 21:24Kara Swisher?

  What do they say when you say that to them?

• 21:27Speaker 03

  Well, they, some say, you're naive, you're, you know, the only thing that matters is, is America going to dominate in this new technology? Great Britain, the only reason they emerged as a great power is that they, policy-wise, chose to double down on the Industrial Revolution. And that's why they became this great power. I say, well, look, in the first 60 years of the Industrial Revolution, the working class didn't do well. They acknowledge that. They say, yeah, that, that, that's right. But Britain- And became the richest country in the world. Uh, America's competition is China. Do you want America to dominate or China? Uh, and if people like you are in charge or talking about AI democracy, you're going to give the edge to China and we'll all be living in a China dominated world. I mean, that would be the argument that they that they make.

• 22:08Speaker 03

  I'm also not an AI doomer. I'm also not like let's this technology is has no value. I mean, the technology has value. It can help cure disease. It can help uh new small businesses. It can help uh renewable energy.

• 22:21Kara Swisher?

  Although I'm not sure that's the top on their list. They just want to capture attention in a different way. I I know they say that, but I don't believe them.

• 22:29Speaker 03

  But the most interesting on the capturing attention, and I don't know how much you follow this, but I I got educated about it recently. Have you followed this whole uh open social web movement? Basically, the what what blue sky is or surf is.

• 22:42Kara Swisher?

  Yeah.

• 22:42Speaker 03

  I mean, I to me, that's here is now what I think is the top thing we need to require of these big tech platforms. They need to be compatible with the open social web. They they should be required by law if you're X, if you're Facebook, if you're TikTok, to be compatible with the open social web. What does that mean? Now I can take all my followers, all my contacts from those other platforms and construct my own uh social media graph where I don't have to have the algorithmic junk. To me, that would be the most transformative thing, and we don't have to pass pages of laws. You just need to require compatibility with the open social web.

• 23:21Kara Swisher?

  We'll be back in a minute.

• 23:35Kara Swisher?

  Support for this show comes from The Guardian. Trying to locate news sources that reliably separate fact from fiction can seem like looking for a needle in a haystack these days. Social media feeds, cable news, and subscription-based news outlets might be able to give you one version of the news, but not in the way that you need. You want news fast, but slow enough to actually absorb the information. Stateside with Kai Wright and Carter Sherman is here to do just that. The podcast tries to slow down the news and wrestle with the Questions regarding the world at large at your own pace. Three times a week, hosts Kai Wright and Carter Sherman bring their expertise together to showcase different and engaging perspectives regarding the world today. They will use their collective knowledge to discuss the news, international affairs,

• 24:18Kara Swisher?

  climate, culture, sports, lifestyle, fashion, and wellness. Plus, The Guardian wants to emphasize they're not billionaire owned, meaning they're free to report the whole picture without interference. Go to theguardian.com/stateside to learn more and listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on YouTube starting May 13. Support for this show comes from Delete Me. Have you ever Googled yourself and found your home address, phone number, or the name of a family member? It's unsettling. Here's what you do to clean up your online data footprint. Go to joindelete.me/kara and enter the code Kara. You get 20% off Delete Me. Delete Me removes your personal information that's being sold online.

• 25:00Kara Swisher?

  Delete Me was named the top pick for data removal services by Wirecutter, so you know you're in good hands. I really like Delete Me. I use it all the time. It's always surprising how much data people have about me. I am very privacy forward, and I still find so much stuff of mine online, some of which is incorrect, some of which is compiled in a really disturbing way. And you have to sort of control it like weeds. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now, at a special discount for our listeners, get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to joindelete.me/kara and use the promo code Kara at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to joindelete.me/kara and enter the code Kara at checkout.

• 25:44Kara Swisher?

  That's joindelete.me/kara, code Kara. Support for this show comes from Hers. Losing weight on your own can often feel like a fight you never win. Luckily, weight loss by Hers offers access to the FDA-approved Wegovy pill and the Wegovy pen. Wegovy is the first ever GLP-1 weight loss medication available in a pill, but also comes as a pen, so you've got options. With Wegovy, you can lose up to 20% of your body weight. People lost an average of 14% body weight at 64 weeks in a clinical trial of Wegovy alongside diet and exercise. To get started with Wegovy, just go to forhers.com and complete an online consultation with

• 26:26Kara Swisher?

  a licensed provider who will determine if your prescription is appropriate. And hers doesn't stop there. Nutrition and lifestyle guidance are part of the plan, along with access to 24/7 messaging with your care team, so support is always in reach. Ready to reach your goals? Visit forhers.com/cara to access personalized, affordable care for weight loss, hair, menopause, and more. That's forhers.com/cara. Individual results may vary, and stopping treatment may result in weight regain.

• 26:59Kara Swisher?

  So I'm going to pivot to the Epstein files, because this is where, you know, it's so funny, because we started off, I was starting wanting to talk to you about the Epstein files, but so much other stuff has happened, which both the two major things, obviously, are the billionaire tax and the Epstein files. But let's start with the Epstein files, because they have not delivered. They're less than 1% or something like that. You and Representative Thomas Massey, a Republican, have been instrumental in forcing the release of the files. You've said in January, it's going to be a bombshell month when we find out some of the co-conspirators were. Talk about where we are right now with the release of these files. Obviously, Pam Bondi has been slow to do so, and how it's going to be a bombshell month if she drags her feet.

• 27:37Speaker 03

  Well, the release has been woefully inadequate. You're absolutely right, that there's still millions of documents. They're admitting to the federal judge in the Southern District of New York that they've got millions of documents. Thomas Massey and I, just this week, intervened with the Southern District of New York with an amicus curate brief as a friend of the court, saying, please appoint a special master so we can actually get these documents.

• 27:59Kara Swisher?

  Explain why that's necessary first, and how it would work, just so people understand.

• 28:03Speaker 03

  What the judge would say is, I'm going to appoint an independent person to determine what should be redacted, what shouldn't be redacted, and I'm going to make sure that the release actually complies with the law, which the judge keeps citing. I mean, they've got 2/3 of the Southern District of New York working on this. First of all, I don't understand, with AI and all this technology, why you need so many lawyers doing this. I mean, obviously, you need a lawyer at the final review, but it seems the technology of the Justice Department could use upgrading. But if they really are going to say that it's such a national security or important issue to comply with Massey and my law, which I'm glad they're saying they're putting in the effort, then have Have a special master make sure that it's done right and done in accordance with the law.

• 28:45Speaker 03

  That's all we're asking the judge. The judge has been very fair as I've seen his decisions. I don't know him, never talked to him, but my trust, I think the country would trust him a lot more, frankly, than they trust DOJ or Congress. I mean, I'm not asking Massey and I to be making these decisions. Have an independent judge. There are two revelations that came out that are really important, even off the 1%. One, and this is really critical, there are references to many, many more co-conspirators. Why is this important? Because the president says it's a hoax and it's all Jeffrey Epstein. Even some people in the Democratic orbit, oh, this is just Epstein and Maxwell. No, now we know there are a lot of other co-conspirators from the documents. And by the way, we know that those co-conspirators weren't charged.

• 29:30Speaker 03

  And there are prosecution memos out there that they haven't released explaining why they dropped charges on the co-conspirators. So that was one really important revelation. And when you talk to the survivors, they'll tell you that they were told, if you complain to the FBI or the police department, nothing is going to happen, so don't even do it.

• 29:45Kara Swisher?

  So why should they now?

• 29:46Speaker 03

  What I've said is they have already named these names in their interview memorandum to the FBI. They're called section 302 statements. Basically, FBI agents sat with these survivors and their lawyers. We know from the survivors and from the lawyers, they named specific men who either trafficked them or abused them, and that those names are in the 302 files. They have not released a single 302 statement. So I'm less concerned about all the millions of documents, right? They're kind of doing this document dump, which is just, let's just put out all this stuff and confuse everyone. There are three things we need to see. We need to see those section 302 statements that are the survivors naming names, right? That's what the American people need, want to know.

• 30:31Kara Swisher?

  So they don't have to, right?

• 30:32Speaker 03

  Which they didn't have to. They're in those statements. So they don't need, they can't be asked to do it again publicly. They'd be subject to defamation lawsuits and threats. It's already in those statements. They need to release those names, those statements, which they have not done. The DOJ hasn't released any of them. And then they need to release the prosecution. memorandum from 2007 and 2019, which talked about 60 counts against Epstein that were reduced to two counts, talked about all the co-conspirators who weren't charged. And we need to understand why there were decisions made to drop all of the investigation.

• 31:04Kara Swisher?

  So where are we on that now, right now, with all these other noise, which, you know, you could almost say everything is a distraction from these Epstein files in many ways, it feels like it with Trump. I feel like he'd be like Carolyn Pluribus and drop an atom bomb if it would get him out of the Epstein files. What is in the way right now? What happens since they were ordered to do so? And you, that took you forever to get that to happen. What happens next?

• 31:29Speaker 03

  Well, it really comes down to the next step to this judge and whether he will rule for a special master or not. We will see some of these millions of documents because the Justice Department has said to the judge they're releasing them. The question is the quality of that and will they have excessive redactions? And then Thomas Massey and I are planning to introduce inherent contempt, inherent contempt. If it passes the House, it just requires the House would fine Pam Bondi personally $10,000 a day for every document that she didn't release. Whether that passes and is enforced, the point is it's showing the crack in the MAGA base of all of the issues. And I don't

• 32:09Kara Swisher?

  Yes.

• 32:09Speaker 03

  fully understand why.

• 32:10Kara Swisher?

  You know, I said that very early to Scott. I was like, no, no, this is, this is the bearing wall for all of them in many ways.

• 32:17Speaker 03

  This is the issue that the MAGA base is livid over Trump on. You know, some of them agree with Trump on Venezuela. Some of them agree with Trump in on ICE even. Some of them agree with Trump on his tax break bill. Some of them agree with Trump on, on what he's done in appointing Robert Kennedy. This is the one issue where the MAGA base has said, you, you promised us you would get these corrupt folks who raped and trafficked these girls. You aren't doing that. You've become part of the system. And they are livid at Pam Bondi. And so this is why this is, Trump is panicked about this because he knows every day that this goes on, he's losing someone in his MAGA base. And this is why

• 32:59Speaker 03

  Massey and my inherent contempt against Bondi matters. If we just did impeachment against Trump or Robert Kennedy or something, it would It would be met with a yawn in the bag of base. Bondi, you know, Massey put out a poll, a Twitter poll, and the vast majority, I think 70% wanted Bondi impeached, and the others wanted Trump to fire her.

• 33:18Kara Swisher?

  So what has to happen to get the rest of these files released?

• 33:21Speaker 03

  I believe we need a strong decision from the judge, because the judge matters in this case. I believe we need influential commentators like you not dropping it. I mean, their whole-

• 33:32Kara Swisher?

  We're not dropping it.

• 33:33Speaker 03

  Well, that's been their whole strategy, that eventually people will forget. We need the courage of the survivors. They've come to the Capitol twice when things were stalling. We need their courage to be willing to continue to engage, because ultimately, people may be intrigued that Massey and I are kind of an oddball couple, but they-

• 33:51Kara Swisher?

  Yeah, I want to ask you about that. Talk about that relationship. You're an odd couple, to say the least, but you've managed to work across the aisle at a time when almost impossible, anything done in Congress. He has really put his neck out there. I mean, in your case, it's not, you know, it's still very brave of what you're doing, but for him, it's particularly-

• 34:08Speaker 03

  Yeah, I know. He's shown on this issue, there's far more consequence to him than there is to me politically. I mean, there's consequence any time you take on big, powerful people, you ruffle feathers, and it's easier to keep your head down. But for him, it's literally his seat in May. I mean, the president has put his entire apparatus, think about this, what it takes to become President of the United States. That entire team is out there with their number one goal, to defeat Thomas Massey, and in May, and Massey in private moments says, hey, if I don't come back, I don't come back. I mean, it's a real race. It's not, it's not, okay, he's definitely going to win. He's got a clear path to win, and is up by 10, 15 points, but it's going to be a fight.

• 34:50Kara Swisher?

  Talk about that relationship with the two of you.

• 34:52Speaker 03

  Well, it's, you know, he's a, he's got a dry sense of humor. He's one of the smartest people in Congress. He's an MIT grad. He's, he's got a wicked sense of humor. We text a lot, you know, he's, he will, he's the type of guy who reads footnotes, so he'll get energized by the most random things. He's newly married. I've gotten to know-

• 35:13Kara Swisher?

  His wife died for people that know.

• 35:15Speaker 03

  His wife died, who he was deeply close to, one of the most- Disgusting things Trump's done. I mean, he obviously does a lot, whether he insulted Massey for getting married to his new wife. We've talked about, you know, his grief, the difficulty of that. We joke around about, you know, when he went on his honeymoon. I mean, we've become friends. I mean, I see him on the House floor, we text. But we're also friends committed to work. You know, right now, we were texting back and forth about Iran and when is the right time to reintroduce our Iran war powers resolution? Is it ripe yet or not ripe? Because right now, the United States hasn't done anything, but Trump is threatening to do things. So a lot of our interaction is around substantive

• 35:58Speaker 03

  work, and that's what's built the friendship as opposed to the other way around.

• 36:01Kara Swisher?

  Right. And Epstein, how did that come together, very briefly, that idea of the two of you on?

• 36:06Speaker 03

  Well, we were doing the Iran stuff together, actually, six months ago. We had done the war powers resolution. Massey and I have been doing that for years, and we partnered with that again on Iran. Of course, the strikes that Trump did only lasted a day. Fortunately, he didn't get escalated into a full-scale war. And so that issue was around the time that Pam Bondi says, well, there's nothing more to see. And I just introduced an amendment in the Rules Committee saying, well, why don't we get a release, require the release of these files? Massey saw that there was one Republican, Ralph Norman, who voted for my bill. And Massey's a math guy, like I said, he went to MIT. And he says, okay, in a Rules Committee, about 12 people, if you lose one Republican, statistically, in

• 36:49Speaker 03

  a Congress of 435, you know, we'll probably be able to get 20, 30 Republicans. And so he said, he called me up, and he said, Ralph, why don't we work on this together? When we started to work on it together, I thought this would be yet another valiant failed effort that Massey and I have led for 10 years. I didn't expect that we would actually get the kind of momentum where it would pass the House, pass the Senate, and the President would sign it.

• 37:11Kara Swisher?

  Right, which you did. Yeah, you got all these people who were not necessarily strange bedfellows, we would say. So one of the things in this, in the Epstein things, you call it, you talk about the so-called Epstein class, which is what you call elites that operate with impunity. And your quest to get the bottom, what happened at Epstein is motivated, at least in part, by a desire to restore trust in government by showing that Epstein class isn't above the law. Why is this case taking on such a symbolic resonance in this country? And what will it take to persuade voters that the government can hold elites accountable when they commit? Crimes. And I should mention, Bill and Hillary Clinton are refusing to testify before the House Oversight Committee's Epstein investigation, and Representative James Comer is threatening to hold them

• 37:54Kara Swisher?

  in contempt of Congress, even as he's politicizing the situation in a really unprofessional way. Still, should they be forced to testify?

• 38:02Speaker 03

  Well, there's one thing we still believe in, regardless of party in this country, and that is that you don't rape young girls and you don't abuse young girls. And I think the reason this has taken on such power is that sexual assault is far more common in this country than we realize. The amount of people, since I've been doing this, who stopped me in an airport or said to me, you know, I was abused, I was raped, is more than I can count. And that it is so jarring that we allowed powerful financiers, powerful politicians, powerful world leaders to go to this island, abuse girls, watch 14-year-olds paraded

• 38:44Speaker 03

  naked, have this happen for years, and the country really didn't blink. And that there's something deeply rotten about the moral values that allowed us to do it. So, yeah, elites may evade taxes, or elites may off short jobs, but the American people didn't think that the elites were, for their own gratification, preying on young girls or turning a blind eye as young girls were being raped, and that that was fine for our society. So that's why this idea of an Epstein class, if they could get away with this, what else are they getting away with? And if we can't hold them accountable for this, how are we going to hold the elites accountable for anything? And that's why it's resonating, and that's why it's resonating with a lot of MAGA folks

• 39:28Speaker 03

  who believe the system is fundamentally corrupt and that there are two tiers of justice, and that they are, that some of them who've served the country, been in the military, are committed to one set of values, and this elite governing class doesn't share those values. On Bill and Hillary Clinton, they should testify in front of the House Oversight Committee. They shouldn't avoid that. I will say that the politicization of it, though, is not right. I mean, they purposely Just released Bill Clinton pictures to make that the story as opposed to the the the victims three oh two statement. So, release everything. And I think Clinton himself has said, release everything and release the Clinton pictures and the Clinton stuff, but release everything.

• 40:09Speaker 03

  So you're not cherry picking and fine, have the Clintons come and testify and and have them testify under oath, but then also have Maxwell testify and others testify like the people in the Epstein estates and people who were at Mar-a-Lago who were implicated and or named and and have it a much more broad based inquiry. So the criticism of Comer has been the selective

• 40:32Speaker 03

  calling of the Clintons. There's no Democrat who believes that the Clintons should get a pass.

• 40:36Kara Swisher?

  Right. Then last question on this topic. What is Trump so afraid of from your perspective? And should he testify? I mean, obviously, he's not going to because he has absolute immunity. Maybe not on this, but what is motivating him here?

• 40:51Speaker 03

  I don't know. I genuinely don't know what it is because I don't think it's just him. I mean, I think people know that he was on these planes and and it

• 41:01Kara Swisher?

  He hung out. There's picture after picture after speaking of pictures and videos. They were friends. They were friends.

• 41:06Speaker 03

  Yeah. And so it's unclear to me that there's some smoking gun with Donald Trump himself of things that we don't already know about. There's there is just some powerful forces that he wants to protect. I mean, obviously, people who may be powerful donors, powerful interests. There's been speculation or foreign governments involved, and I want to be very careful on that because there's nothing that I have seen that that that clearly corroborates it. On the other hand, there has been a fair amount of speculation from survivors or others that that that are there other things involved. And I would just cite Julia Brown, who's the best reporter on this.

• 41:46Kara Swisher?

  Julie Brown. I just texted with her today.

• 41:49Speaker 03

  And she says, there may be, there may be other governments involved, but there may not be. We don't know, but we need a full release so that, that, that we aren't engaged in conspiracy theories. But, you know, people look at this and say, you're, you're, this guy's meeting world leaders, he's friends with every, all these powerful people around the, the globe. How is this happening? Who is he protecting? The transparency is what's needed.

• 42:14Kara Swisher?

  Including himself. So I'm going to switch to another thing that, that I think you, you and I have talked about for years. And, and you kindly texted me and said, I've come around to your way of thinking on this.

• 42:25Speaker 03

  I have. It took me 10 years.

• 42:27Kara Swisher?

  It did. I was always like, Roe. When you do something, I'm like, stop hanging out with these people. So we'll talk about this group of elites that also operates, which what I think with impunity, tech billionaires. Your support for the one-time 5% tax on billionaires in California is causing a lot of agita in Silicon Valley elite circles. So talk about how the tax work and why you're in favor, even though Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom says it would push innovators out of California, has some argument to be made, and lead to fewer middle-class jobs and ultimately lower tax revenue. There is some proof of this in other countries. But talk about why you're for it in this way. What shifted you?

• 43:06Speaker 03

  Well, I've, I've always been for a wealth tax. What shifted me, though, is I didn't realize the vehemence at which I would get disowned and attacked and the slightest thing of suggesting a, a 1% tax on, on.

• 43:20Kara Swisher?

  5%.

• 43:20Speaker 03

  On billionaire wealth. And I, so I.

• 43:22Kara Swisher?

  It's a 5, it's a one-time 5% tax.

• 43:24Speaker 03

  One, but, but, but, you know, initially I'd suggested 1% a year, but it's 5% over five years. But the, the vehemence of the anger made me text you saying, wow, you know, I mean, folks are allergic to any sense of increasing that kind of a wealth tax. Now, why did I say that we needed a, a wealth tax? Well, there, there have been huge cuts in Medicaid to California. This is going to mean rural hospitals and services are going to close. This is going to mean millions of people are going to be without health insurance. This is going to be hundreds of thousands of people in healthcare jobs.

• 44:06Speaker 03

  Nurses and in other positions are going to be eliminated. People say, well, the SEIU union cares about their healthcare jobs. I said, yes, as if that's something bad. Isn't a union supposed to make sure, care that hundreds of thousands of nurses and healthcare workers aren't laid off yet? They're not hiding the ball. They're saying that this is why we're doing it. So we have healthcare in this country. And what I said is, at the same time, this bill gave tax breaks to very wealthy people, including billionaires. And so I said, okay, if we could have a 1% a year, but 5% over five years tax, to make sure that people at healthcare, those are my values and that's something I support. Now, I hear the concerns on some of the drafting.

• 44:47Speaker 03

  There are two provisions of it that I'm working to get changed, which is you should not be taxing founders on the voting shares that they have, because that's not real wealth. And there's back and forth of whether that would count as wealth or not. But you know, that is something I don't support. If it's 5% of your own stock and then you have 50% voting rights, and that needs to be redrafted. And there's this second provision, which is what do you do if you're illiquid? And there needs to be provisions for that. But that's been my position, that you can keep the innovation engine if you fix those two provisions, and you can still have a 1% tax.

• 45:29Speaker 03

  By the way, 72% of the billionaire wealth in California is in public stock. So you can get to a lot of it with fixing those two.

• 45:36Kara Swisher?

  Yeah, they, I think it's, to me, it's interesting, because I have a little, I was like, ugh, maybe not this way. Scott and I sort of support an overall tax overhaul, but it'll take longer, right? An AMT tax that just handles it, like, just, and I think what it is, it specifically targets, I got 100 people, I think it is, who are threatening to leave California, except for Jensen Huang, who's apparently staying. I have two minds of this. One is, you made your, and I said it to one this weekend. I said, you made all your money in California, you ingrateful piece of shit. You could figure out a way to get, pay more taxes, and we deserve the taxes from you, given you made your wealth here. The second thing is,

• 46:19Kara Swisher?

  Yes, there are different ways to do this, but the length of time it would take and the kind of vehemence you would fight whatever happens means nothing would happen. So why don't we just do shock and awe at this point? Because you don't seem to be, you know, availing yourself to thinking that you owe your state something more, which they don't, which they don't think that at all.

• 46:41Speaker 03

  They don't. They think that the, that there's waste and that there's abuse. And there is some waste. I'm not going to say everything we've been spending is perfect, but the point is you have a real crisis here with people not having healthcare. And a lot of the, even they will acknowledge this, that this is not, okay, now we're taxing them a second time. A lot of what happens is someone makes a billion dollars, they, they end up saving that money, they don't pass it down until they die, and they're not paying tax on any of that appreciation for years because they're not realizing the gains and they're not getting a standard income. And this is an actual issue. Now, some of them say, let's tax the loans on, on the assets. That's a reasonable suggestion.

• 47:26Speaker 03

  So when Elon borrows against his estate to go buy Twitter, that would be a realization event. You can, that, that's a clean way of doing it. There are people who have constructive suggestions, and the people are pointing out the illiquid issue or the founders' voting rights issues are reasonable, but, but, but the, the sense of like, oh, I don't want to pay.

• 47:44Kara Swisher?

  Yeah. How dare you, sir, question my genius? I hung the moon. So every episode, we get an expert question, and I found a plutocrat for yours. Steve Ratner, the chairman and CEO of Will and Advisors LLC, the economic analyst on Morning Joe and contributing writer, New York Times op-ed page. Let's hear it.

• 48:01Speaker 04

  Hi, Roe. Just in terms of this wealth tax idea that you've been pushing, I think we all agree that wealthy people don't pay enough taxes. But regarding the wealth tax itself, I would ask you, one, does it make sense to do this at the state level, given the, given the ability of people to leave the state, as seems to already be happening to some degree in California? And secondly, as I'm sure you know, Europe, a number of European countries, I think 12, have tried wealth taxes. Only three still have them. Is that really the best way of getting people at the top to pay their fair share? Or is some other form of taxation a better idea?

• 48:42Speaker 03

  It's a thoughtful question.

• 48:44Kara Swisher?

  It is.

• 48:44Speaker 03

  First of all, I think that we should have it at a federal level. There's a constitutional challenge at the federal level. You have in the Constitution that you can't have a disproportionate burden on a particular state in terms of revenue. The 16th Amendment got around that for income tax. It's unclear what the constitutionality will be on the wealth tax. I think it's constitutional, but I support it at a federal level, and it would be easier to administer at a federal level. At a state level, I like the idea, like I said, the cleanest idea is to have loans taxed on a state. And if we're going to do it at a state level, doing it maybe 1% a year on public stock,

• 49:29Speaker 03

  not having the founders' shares is a reasonable way to do it that I don't think is going to lead to significant exodus. But the directional point is that billionaires, in my view, can pay more so that people have healthcare, childcare in this country. I call it an anti-revolution tax. I call it a sense of shared prosperity. I acknowledge that there are design challenges. Anytime you do something, there are design challenges. So why don't we work to fix those design challenges? I've offered to convene some of the tech leaders with some of these labor leaders and do something that gets everyone on board, and that's what I'm working towards.

• 50:04Kara Swisher?

  So in that regard, you know, one of the knocks on you has been, which I knock you for, is you've been everything to everybody. Like, you're super friendly, and I'm like, don't be. Both a Bernie Sanders populist and a former techler who courts Silicon Valley, initially supported Doge, and what did I tell you about that? But nonetheless. But you seem to have planted your flag firmly on the side of populist now with this. And in response, except for Jensen Huang, tech elites are now reportedly bankrolling a primary challenge against you. Obviously, that's not the half of it. They trip over themselves to flatter Trump. As I wrote in Burn book, "It was capitalism after all." That was the first line in the book. What do you make of these challenges to you? This sort of indignancy? I've gotten several indignates at you, and I just tell them to shut the fuck up and pay your taxes.

• 50:49Kara Swisher?

  But were you surprised? And what are you going to do about it? It is your district.

• 50:53Speaker 03

  I was surprised. I mean, I was surprised, but I've always been a progressive capitalist, and people on both sides... Or suspicious, yeah, I'm friendly. I grew up in Bucks County. That's my demeanor, temperament. But it's not just friendliness. What I'm trying to articulate is a slightly different vision. I'm all for entrepreneurship and innovation and wealth generation. I just think that that prosperity needs to be shared, that everyone needs to have a stake and benefit in it. So sometimes the people who are progressive get suspicious because I celebrate entrepreneurship. And now the entrepreneurs get, and founders have been suspicious because they're saying, no, we need to be able to tax this extraordinary wealth because workers aren't making out.

• 51:37Speaker 03

  But ultimately, if you ask me, what is the fundamental challenge in this country? It is income inequality and the wealth divide and people who don't have a basic amount of money to buy a house or healthcare. And so when those two clash, even though I'm trying to articulate something that's pro-growth progressivism, when they clash, I'm going to be on the side of working-class folks and middle-class folks. And, you know, yeah, it comes with political costs, as people have seen.

• 52:04Kara Swisher?

  Do you think you were naive to think they cared about income inequality?

• 52:09Speaker 03

  Well, I thought there'd be more people like Jensen. Honestly, I thought there'd be more people like Jensen who'd just be like, okay, we paid, we paid. And then I thought, what I thought they would do is engage in an argument and debate and say, hey, Roe, you know, one criticism that was fair on me, where I said, you know, I said 1% over a year. They said, no, it's 5% over five years. And I corrected the record. And that's fair. If I'm going to articulate a position, you should know all the facts. I should have, I didn't read the careful, you know, provision on the founder's stock, even though they say it can be converted. I think that part has been poorly drafted. I should have, you know, I thought there'd be a debate like that. And then we'd have a debate of ideas. What I was surprised by with the vehemence with which they just

• 52:52Speaker 03

  said, no, this is, this is, this guy's progressivism is something that we think is going to hurt and kill Silicon Valley. And I don't believe that. I'm very proud of the innovation of Silicon Valley, the entrepreneurship of Silicon Valley, proud to represent it. But ultimately, I believe in, share prosperity and for my district, for the state, for the country.

• 53:12Kara Swisher?

  Are you worried? About them getting you?

• 53:16Speaker 03

  Well, look, there's so many people who have tougher problems than I do in terms of, you know, my career, my platform, my politics will be fine. But, look, there are two types of politicians and both are reasonable models. One type of politician just kind of keeps their head down, keeps climbing up the ladder, doesn't make much waves, takes positions that their party takes. And I'm just not built that way. I take risks, I put ideas out there. I think that the fundamental issue is the income divide. And I don't mind offending powerful people, whether it's defense contractors, whether it's pharma, whether it's billionaires. You know, people used to say, "Don't pick a fight with those who write for a living." And now the motto is, "Don't pick a fight with the billionaires."

• 54:00Speaker 03

  I picked the fight with the Epstein class, I picked the fight with the billionaires. That's who I am. I think people will get to decide.

• 54:09Speaker 03

  We'll be back in a minute.

• 54:23Speaker 05

  Support for this show comes from Indeed. When the pressure's on and you need to hire the right person for the job, Indeed Sponsored Jobs has got your back. Instead of forcing you to spend tons of time searching, Indeed Sponsored Jobs matches you with quality candidates, fast. According to their data, sponsored jobs posted directly on Indeed are 95% more likely to report a hire than non-sponsored jobs. Join the 3.3 million employers worldwide that use Indeed to connect with quality talent that fits their needs. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Less stress, less time, more results. When you need the right person to cut through the chaos, this is the job for Indeed Sponsored Jobs.

• 55:05Speaker 05

  And listeners to this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to help get your job the premium status it deserves at indeed.com/podcast. Just go to indeed.com/podcast right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. That's indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need the right hire fast? Then this is the job for Indeed Sponsored Jobs.

• 55:34Speaker 02

  Support for the show comes from Engine. Running a small business means every dollar has to work hard. But if your team is still booking travel the old way, it's costing you more than you think. Engine is the fastest growing travel and spend platform in the country, built specifically for businesses like yours. Book a trip in as little as two and a half minutes, earn up to 10% back on hotels. And in 2025, Engine customers save more than $300 million on travel with zero booking fees, no contracts, and no BS. More than 1,000 businesses join Engine every month. Join them and get $500 when your business signs up and starts traveling at engine.com/box.

• 56:18Speaker 06

  Visible puts the ultimate wireless hack in the palm of your hand. With unlimited 5G wireless data and hotspot, designed to keep you connected, powered by Verizon's 5G network. And no contract holding you back. Plans start at $25 a month. Or get the premium Visible Plus Pro Plan and save $10 on your first month when you use promo code HACK. Make the switch at visible.com. Terms apply. See visible.com for details.

• 56:49Kara Swisher?

  Let's talk about the future of the Democratic Party. Let's finish up talking about this. Elizabeth Warren gave a speech this week where she outlined her vision for the Democratic Party. In a nutshell, she said Democrats have to stop selling out to billionaires. And she called out tech billionaires like Marc Andreessen, even Democratic billionaires like Dustin Moskowitz and Reid Hoffman. Talk a little bit about how you're looking at where Democrats position themselves and you yourself. How do you position yourself in relation to other Democrats?

• 57:18Speaker 03

  The central challenge for our time is wealth inequality and the fact that 70% Americans don't believe in the American dream. I represent a district that has one-third of the national wealth, $18 trillion. Every time I say that, they say, "Roe, you didn't build the wealth." I don't claim to be building the wealth. I'm just saying there's an ecosystem of Stanford, of Berkeley, of entrepreneurship, of wealth generation that has $18 trillion. And yet, the places- Where I grew up in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Folks are wondering whether they're going to get a good paying job. They're wondering how they're going to afford a house, how they're going to get childcare. The Democratic Party should have a simple mission, which is the economic independence and success of every family who feels left out of this economy. And an understanding of this AI revolution that's coming.

• 58:02Speaker 03

  So it works for all of us, for the entire country, not just for a few billionaires. That's where the Democratic Party's core mission should be. And that, to me, is the central, central theme.

• 58:16Kara Swisher?

  Is the winning message for the midterms particularly? Because that needs to be won presumably by the Democrats. It's kind of an all or nothing situation.

• 58:25Speaker 03

  Yeah, I think, look, I think that's the substantively right vision for the country. For the midterms, I think it can be simpler, which is Donald Trump cares more about Venezuela than he cares about Pennsylvania, Michigan. He's spent all his time getting us into these overseas wars and giving money to Argentina. What has he done to lower prices? What has he done to actually make your life better? And by the way, he's got an ICE agency that's rogue. You know, one thing, Kara, that people don't understand fully, and I think has been a lot of misinformation. Kamala Harris got the same number of white votes as Barack Obama. What she lost in white men, she made up with in white women. So how did, how did she lose?

• 59:06Speaker 03

  Well, the Latino community moved away from us compared to Obama. The Asian American community moved away from us compared to Obama. The African American men particularly moved away from us compared to Obama. A lot of those groups are coming back home. Partly, Trump has insulted every country in the world, all that have diasporas here. So some of those folks are moving back to us. The ICE stuff has been horrible. His not being able to deal with prices has been horrible. We can build back that Obama burning coalition in 2026. And I do think we have a chance of 20 to 30 seats, and Hakeem will be speaker.

• 59:42Kara Swisher?

  So let's do a quick lightning round of short, quick answers, if you don't mind. Should progressives primary more centrist Democrat incumbents like Representative Marie Louison Camp Perez in Washington and Representative Dan Goldman in New York?

• 59:55Speaker 03

  I'm for progressives running and I have no problem with primaries. I'm not going to speculate about particular people, but like I have been always of the view. I ran a primary to beat my condo. I, I, I think it's a democracy. There are some people trying to primary me. I've had primaries many cycles. I mean, what's wrong with that? Isn't that democracy?

• 1:00:14Kara Swisher?

  Exactly. So you've called for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to step down. So have I. Explain why and who should replace him?

• 1:00:22Speaker 03

  He, he just is not effective as a bold voice in standing up against the lawlessness of Trump. I, what, for me, the final straw was when we, we had these big wins in November and then a week later, he says, we're no longer going to fight to get the Affordable Care Tax Credits extended and basically greenlit a bipartisan group that, that cut a deal without getting the, the, the healthcare extended. If you're not going to fight for that, what are you going to fight for? But the second thing is just, Chuck Schumer and I have worked together on the CHIPS Act. He's had a lot of achievements in his career, including the IRA, CHIPS, other things. But when you look at him, do you, does that inspire you to think?

• 1:01:00Kara Swisher?

  No, he's very, very obsessed.

• 1:01:01Speaker 03

  That's the future of America? Like, come on. I mean, anyone being objective looks at Chuck Schumer and you think, really? Well, you've been there for 50 years. Come on, give someone else a turn.

• 1:01:11Kara Swisher?

  Yeah.

• 1:01:11Speaker 03

  And, and I, I think it's a selfishness that has people cling to power that long. Like that, and that is why they have contributed to a breakdown of trust in America, to a breakdown of trust in the governing class.

• 1:01:25Kara Swisher?

  Who would you like to see in that job?

• 1:01:26Speaker 03

  Well, I mean, I, it probably hurt them, given, given, given that, you know, I called for Schumer. But I, look, I like, I like what Van Halen is out there saying. I like Chris Murphy. I like Lisa Blunt Rochester. I, I, I like a new generation of folks who are out there, who are visible in, in leadership roles. I don't know if that, that's what they want. I don't know if they, what they want to run for, but they, I want those type of folks to ascend in our party.

• 1:01:50Kara Swisher?

  So what about House Minority Leader Jeffries? How do you rate the job he's done so far? He's very affiliated with Chuck Schumer. It has to be, obviously.

• 1:01:59Speaker 03

  Well, I have a different opinion. I think he's been effective in a number of ways. I can point to concrete ways where he has been effective. He just got the Affordable Care Act tax credits extended in the House. We got four Republicans who came to our side to vote for that bill. He is much more energetic, in my view, on television around the country. He has no fear of empowering other people in the caucus to be out there, right? I mean, I'm on TV arguably as much as he is, as is AOC and Jasmine Crockett and Robert Garcia and many others. So when people look at the House of Representatives, they see all of the talent, and that's a choice. I mean, you could be a leader who clamps down on that, and Hakeem's not like that.

• 1:02:42Speaker 03

  So I think that the people are unfairly tough on him. In my view, he's done a good job. He's also hasn't been there for 50 years. Like, give the guy a chance. He's going to be Speaker. Let's see what he can do.

• 1:02:54Kara Swisher?

  So would you ever run for House leadership?

• 1:02:55Speaker 03

  You know, I'm flattered that people say that, but I wouldn't be effective there. I'll tell you why. I'm too independent. Like, I don't do things by committee. Like, you know, could Hakeem just come out and say, "Yeah, I think we need a wealth tax"? No, he's got to think about 218 districts and poll people and see what the consensus is. I'm in this because I have ideas. I want to, I have a direction where I want to move the country. And so it would constrain me. I wouldn't be the, what people like about me wouldn't be the case if I was in that position.

• 1:03:27Kara Swisher?

  Let me give you a line. Say you're a bad employee. That's what I say. I say, "I'm a bad employee. That's why I don't work for people. I work for myself." Just say, "I'm a bad, bad employee. Bad at listening." But what about the presidency? Obviously, people talk about you, you know, either they love it, or they're like, "He's too thirsty for it," or whatever. I don't think, I think anyone running for president is thirsty, so I discount that, if you don't.

• 1:03:50Speaker 03

  Yeah. Well, look, I don't know. I mean, obviously, I want to be part of the national conversation. I don't apologize for ambition. I think, frankly, we need more ambition, like Lincoln's ambition, they said, had an engine than you knew. Arrest it has to be ambition for the public good. What I do have is a belief that we need a much more ambitious Democratic Party, a party that believes in transformation for an agenda that has failed working in middle class folks. And I I have a vision. It's called new economic patriotism, 21st century Marshall Plan for America. How we're going to get the economy going in every part of this country? How we're going to make sure the economy isn't just working for a few tech billionaires for everyone? And I certainly want to be part of the national conversation.

• 1:04:28Kara Swisher?

  So that's a yes.

• 1:04:29Speaker 03

  That's a yes. Well, though, it takes a lot to run for one of those things and you have to talk to family and others. I mean, I'm not, there are probably 20 names out there. My guess is half of them will end up doing it and half won't. And my guess is probably no one really deeply knows even until that moment. But do I want to be part of?

• 1:04:46Kara Swisher?

  So long. Why shouldn't someone just announce? Why wouldn't you announce right now and say, and by the way, I'm going to have a Nuremberg like trial for the Trump officials when I get in or something very bold.

• 1:04:56Speaker 03

  Yeah, well, I do believe we need a trial for the officials who committed war crimes. One, because it would distract from the focus of the House. Like I don't, I genuinely think, you know, it's like tennis. If you start worrying about winning the set, you'll lose the point. And we definitely need to be focused on winning, winning the House. Secondly, like, who knows what the moment is going to call for, right? I mean, if we have some incredible war of awful war or something, you know, maybe my skill set isn't the right skill set. If what the issue is, is that we've got a digital AI revolution and a lot of people are being left out. And we need to make sure that someone's going to stand up to billionaires to make sure everyone is participating.

• 1:05:37Kara Swisher?

  You're the guy.

• 1:05:38Speaker 03

  That and I'm the guy, but how do we know that until that the moment comes?

• 1:05:41Kara Swisher?

  Right now Gavin Newsom's in the lead because of his sort of pugnacious personality, which is really, he's really vaunted himself to the front in just recently, especially being anti-Trump. He's California governor. If you didn't run, is that someone you'd support? Or you're just going to, you're still in a waiting seat?

• 1:05:57Speaker 03

  I'd see someone, I'd support someone who's more progressive. I mean, I, I even I know he's.

• 1:06:04Speaker 03

  Out there, I think, sort of in a Bill Clinton-like philosophy. I like Gavin. I endorsed him twice, but I just don't think that's the direction the party needs to go. I think the party needs to go in a more Bernie Sanders populist vision, FDR for the modern age.

• 1:06:22Kara Swisher?

  As the party looks towards 2028 and tries to win back some of the men and rural voters that have abandoned it, on what social and cultural issues should parties show flexibility? Abortion, trans women in sports, gun control, something else? Or is it better not to compromise? I did have a really interesting interview with Sarah McBride, who I think is a fascinating public figure.

• 1:06:40Speaker 03

  Oh, she's brilliant.

• 1:06:41Kara Swisher?

  She's brilliant. She was talking about having uncomfortable allies, and that's OK. She's managed to de-center the issue of trans despite being a trans woman and doesn't think what she thinks matters is affordability, right? Let's not like, let's not double down on everything. I don't think it's not to make them mad. I think she thinks it's other things are also important. What is your take on it?

• 1:07:03Speaker 03

  Well, Sarah, I think, is a classical liberal. She believes that she doesn't have a monopoly on the truth, that you engage in persuasion and conversation, and that people may have different priorities. My view is you don't compromise or abandon your values. So I don't think that you compromise on abortion rights or trans rights or LGBT rights. But I think we lead with issues about the economy, issues about working class having a fair shot, the economic issues that can bring us together. And we make it clear those are the highest priorities while we're not going to abandon our values for the trans community or other communities. I also believe that you can have these conversations with

• 1:07:47Speaker 03

  respect and not just call someone a racist if they think that the H1B visa program was abused, but to sit there and say, OK, what do you believe and why do you believe this? And here's what I believe, and to have a patience of engaging in good faith. And to the extent that you were kind enough to call me friendly, you know, I think it's my upbringing in the 99% white Bucks County, watching Phillies games, Eagles games, yeah, where I grew up. Folks and people aren't perfect and I'm not perfect, but they're a friendliness and a sense of

• 1:08:20Kara Swisher?

  No, I admire it. What I was telling you, these are bad people and then they were bad people. I was warning about bad people, not people that you should have discussions on with. I agree with you on that one. It's just some people, it's not going to work because they don't care about poor people. They don't care about anyone but themselves. That's that was my point. And they're heinous people. That was what I was trying to get through to you. But by all means, talk to people who you have, you should, I feel you should have flexibility on divisive social issues. At the same time, there's a point where you're like, no, we're not going to do that. So, last question, the running thread through this conversation has been the lack of accountability. If a Democratic wins presidency in 2028, what's the most important step that a person should

• 1:09:05Kara Swisher?

  take to change this culture of impunity, which Trump so absolutely represents and said from the beginning, I could shoot someone in Fifth Avenue and get away with it. He wasn't kidding.

• 1:09:16Speaker 03

  Start with a pledge for accountability. Day one, release all the Epstein files that Trump wouldn't have released and make sure that you're prosecuting anyone who was engaged in the cover up and you can prosecute people who were engaged in orders to shoot boats where there was not a consideration of civilians there or where you were being shooting even though people were helpless. Prosecute people who engaged in cutting USAID, killing people in Africa, a violation of the Constitution. Prosecute people who may have stolen data at Doge or done things that were in violation of congressional law. Make sure you know that,

• 1:09:59Speaker 03

  yes, you want to reconcile and bring this country together, but it's not going to be kumbaya where if you got away with things, we're just going to turn away and say, no big deal. That we are going to hold people accountable for the crimes they committed in our democracy and the crimes they committed to the American people because for too long, people just say, okay, the rich and powerful, they just get to get away with everything. And so I think having an accountability culture and making that clear from day one, that that's, that's, that's our intent.

• 1:10:28Kara Swisher?

  So very last question, do you think Donald Trump will face justice?

• 1:10:31Speaker 03

  I mean, so far, he's managed to escape and get in two terms and whatever billions of dollars his family is worth. That'll be the decision of a Justice Department. I have a lot of respect for Merrick Garland as a jurist. I don't think he was the right pick for that role at that time. I think we, in some sense, you know, Willie Brown was in San Francisco, said, you know, they should have had Kamala Harris in that role as Attorney General. This is not to diminish the Vice President Harris. But in terms of that prosecutorial intensity with fairness, that's who we needed in our Attorney General and someone who's going to take that.

• 1:11:09Kara Swisher?

  She'd make a great Attorney General still. She still would.

• 1:11:11Speaker 03

  She would. We'll see if she'd do it.

• 1:11:13Kara Swisher?

  Yeah, I don't know.

• 1:11:14Speaker 03

  She may have other plans.

• 1:11:15Kara Swisher?

  She might. Anyway, I really appreciate it, Roy. I always, I enjoy our relationship and over the long term and I really appreciate you taking time.

• 1:11:23Speaker 03

  I appreciate you.

• 1:11:24Kara Swisher?

  All right.

• 1:11:25Speaker 03

  And you were more right about these guys than I was, so.

• 1:11:27Kara Swisher?

  I'll tell you what I think next. Thank you so much for your time.

• 1:11:32Speaker 03

  Thank you, Kara.

• 1:11:36Kara Swisher?

  Today's show was produced by Christian Castro-Russell, Michelle Aloy, Megan Burney, and Kalen Lynch. Nishat Kurwa is Vox Media's executive producer of podcasts. Special thanks to Bradley Sylvester. Our engineers are Fernando Aruda and Rick Kwan, and our theme music is by Trackademics. If you're already following the show, you get a tax break. If not, that's a 50% tax for you, but just the Google guys, because those strange twins owe everything to the state of California. Go where you listen to podcasts, search for On with Kara Swisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Kara Swisher from Podium Media, New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us. We'll be back on Monday with more.

• 1:12:23Speaker 02

  Support for the show comes from Engine. Running a small business means every dollar has to work hard. But if your team is still booking travel the old way, it's costing you more than you think. Engine is the fastest growing travel and spend platform in the country, built specifically for businesses like yours. Book a trip in as little as two and a half minutes, earn up to 10% back on hotels. And in 2025, Engine customers save more than $300 million on travel with zero booking fees, no contracts, and no BS. More than 1,000 businesses join Engine every month. Join them and get $500 when your business signs up and starts traveling at engine.com/box.