Saagar Enjeti (2:08)

Welcome to our recurring segment, get to Know a Senator. Previous guests have been JD Vance, Ted Cruz, Alyssa Slotkin, Jeff Merkley. Who else we.

Krystal Ball (2:18)

Let's see, Bernie, We've had Bernie.

Saagar Enjeti (2:21)

Oh, we had Bernie.

Krystal Ball (2:21)

Yeah.

Saagar Enjeti (2:22)

Anyway, so if your boss hasn't been on there yet, reach on out to us. But today we're talking to Senator Chris Van Hollen. Senator Van Hollen, thank you so much for joining us here. Really appreciate it.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (2:32)

It's great to be with both of you.

Saagar Enjeti (2:34)

And so one thing, and this was kind of the bait to get you into the studio that I wanted to talk to you about was, and I don't know if you remember this many, many years ago, I mentioned to you that before the Iraq war, I had been among 20, 30 people at a talk you gave at the University of Maryland where you laid out in incredibly prescient detail like why we should not invade Iraq and what would happen if we did. Unfortunately, as knows we did, and those things happened with the help of your staff, we actually found evidence that this happened. If we can put up this element on the screen. This is from the Diamondback, which is the student newspaper for the University of Maryland. So Monday, March 3, 2003. This is an advertisement for a talk that Congressman Chris Van Hollen would be giving from 12 to 1:30pm so you had just been elected November of 2002. So you're sworn in in January of 2003, and the war starts within, within two months. So just briefly lay out for us, like, how did you see what others didn't? And what was what, what did you think was going to happen? And.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (3:55)

Well, thanks for bringing that up. And I actually remember that speech on the House floor because it's one of the earlier ones. I'd just been elected.

Saagar Enjeti (4:03)

Well, you gave a speech on the House floor like a week later.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (4:05)

Yeah, exactly. Exactly. And look, it sort of brings us to the moment we're in now with respect to many. But when it came to Iraq, I mean, we all recognize that Saddam Hussein was a bad dictator. I would have liked to see him go, but the question was, how do you most successfully do that? And the Bush administration's answer was, you invade Iraq. And the problem is when you go in and break stuff, you really need to know what's going to happen next. It's easy to go in and break stuff. It's building stuff back that's really hard. And nation building is something that is, I think we've learned the hard way that we should not be engaged in. So some of us learned that anyway.

Krystal Ball (4:54)

Apparently not enough people look.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (4:56)

So that was, that was opening. I called it Pandora's box. Right. Because what we did was when we went into Iraq, we unleashed all these forces Right. The different sectarian forces within Iraq. And then we tried to put a cap on them, and that didn't work. And the result was American forces on the ground for a long time. Thousands of Americans killed. Thousands and thousands of Iraqis killed. And the end result was actually to strengthen Iran.

Saagar Enjeti (5:23)

Right.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (5:23)

By getting rid of, which I remember.

Saagar Enjeti (5:25)

You saying would happen at the time.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (5:26)

We strengthened Iran because they had been mortal enemies. I mean, they'd fought a war against one another. So the biggest beneficiary from the US Going into Iraq was Iran. Yeah.

Krystal Ball (5:39)

You know, I want to express a lot of admiration for you and the courage that you've had on Gaza. You know, I know that was very difficult, especially under the Biden administration, going down to El Salvador with Kilmar Abrega Garcia at a time when there were other Democrats who were saying, oh, we shouldn't talk about this. This isn't a good issue for us. I'm curious how you sort of arrived at your worldview. I know you're born in Pakistan. Your parents, I think one was the State Department, one was CIA. You know, what has that journey been like so that you came to that place where you were able to see what many weren't on Iraq and have continued to be able to see some things that people are either not willing to see or unable to see.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (6:16)

So you're right. I grew up in a foreign service family, career. My father was a career diplomat. He went into the Navy and then into the Foreign service. He married my mom, who was at the forerunner to the CIA at the time. She was a Russian language expert. She was the daughter of an English teacher, but she became Russian language expert. So, look, growing up overseas, it's kind of like a military family. You go overseas, you come back, but it does get you thinking about what does America stand for? And I was proud to represent or be part of a family that represented the United States overseas. It also causes you to hold up a mirror and say, are we as good at home as we say we are? And in terms of my worldview, I believe in the power of America's example, in addition to the power of our military. And I think it's really important that we recognize, especially at a moment like we're in right now. Yeah. That that has really benefited us over time. And we're throwing away the power of our example, standing up for principles overseas. But it also, you know, I remember very clearly in Sri Lanka because my father was posted in Sri Lanka, going to a village and in the hut that belonged to the Head of the village. There was a photograph on the wall, and it's kind of hard to see. It was dim light. It was a photograph of John F. Kennedy. Why was that there? Because the Peace Corps had been to that village and helped with their water and sanitation. So I've always believed that the United States can play a very important role around the world through the power of his example and not be overly reliant on the power of our military.

Saagar Enjeti (8:03)

Now, you had come to your knowledge of the sectarian situation in Iraq in a curious way. Get this story a little bit for our audience. So in the early 90s, you and Peter Galbraith, who is actually brother of a friend of mine, James Galbraith, then happens to be the son of John Kenneth Galbraith, the famous 20th century economist. You guys are Hill staffers and do a very unhill staffer thing, which is sneak into northern Iraq, the Kurdish region, grab a whole bunch of documents and interviews with people there and prove that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons that presumably we had sold him on the Kurdish people. Like, how did you get in? How does a boss sign off on that? And what did you? Like, how did that shape your politics? Knowing that our ally had done this with our, I don't know, not with our backing, but we kind of encouraged the Kurds to rise up and then we let him gas them with our chemical weapons.

Krystal Ball (9:15)

Yeah.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (9:15)

So you. Yeah, I'm glad you brought this up. You're right. I was a staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations committee in the 1990s, actually. I'm sorry, in the 1980s. This is late 19 1988. Ish and Saddam Hussein had unleashed his chemical weapons on the Kurds in the northern part of Iraq. And so, yes, Peter Galbraith and I traveled to the Turkish Iraq border. We crossed into Iraq. Most of the interviews we did were with the Kurdish refugees who had fled into Turkey. And there were just these massive camps and we actually camped out on the border. How we got permission to do it, I don't know. But we then interviewed a lot of the members, folks in these camps, who gave us sort of firsthand accounts of Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons because a lot of people were denying it. And I remember to this day your point on who provided the precursor chemicals. It wasn't necessarily we sold them chemical weapons, but the material that was used. I remember American chemical companies lobbying against the legislation we proposed when we got back because we proposed full sanctions on Saddam Hussein, economic sanctions at the time. And we were able to ultimately get that out of the Senate. It died in the House. But there's no doubt that the United States had sided with Saddam Hussein during that Iran Iraq war. And so, yes, the hypocrisy of, on the one hand, providing support to Saddam Hussein and then turning around and trying to condemn his use, which was right to condemn, is something that always stood out to me.

Krystal Ball (11:06)

I'd love to get your sort of. Before we zoom in more specifically to the immediate moment, I'd love to get your sense of how we ended up here. I was saying earlier in the show, like, at least the Bush neocons felt the need to make some public case and gin up some fake story about weapons of mass destruction. Now we're so downgraded in the war propaganda that we get machine guns and. And them just out and out saying, no, it's for the oil. We want the oil. We're gonna run the place. It's ours. Complete colonial project. But people are also right in pointing out that we did do something similar in Panama. It had more sort of moralism and justification wrapped around it. So do you see those past interventions over years sort of leading us to this place now where we just out and out are like global thugs that if you have something we want, we're just gonna come in and take it.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (12:00)

So I think that when you're talking about going into Iraq, that was heavily pushed by the neocons, whose stated public purpose anyway, was to bring democracy to places in the Middle east, including Iraq, at the barrel of a gun. And if we've learned any lesson, it should be that you cannot, by force, just transform a whole society. In the case of Venezuela, it is all about the oil. I mean, I came out very early and said, you know, this is all about the oil. And then, you know, Donald Trump gets up the next day and says, it's all about the oil. And of course, with this administration, the Trump administration, more than in any other earlier conflict, it's all about making money for Trump's billionaire friends, like, you know, and for himself and himself and his family. I mean, if you look at what's happening across the Middle east and the Gulf states, I mean, the corruption is just so gross. I mean, everything. Everything they touch, they're trying to transform into dollars for Trump and his family and his billionaire buddies. I mean, if you look at Venezuela, it's not necessarily so much the oil companies, although in the long run, they may. They may benefit. But there are people like Paul Singer, who is this huge Trump donor who bought Citgo out of bankruptcy in November and others like that who are huge, huge beneficiaries of this and had sort of been you know, told about it. I mean, they, people, you know, they knew this might happen. So I will say that this administration, the corruption piece is just prevalent throughout. Yeah.

Saagar Enjeti (13:43)

So I'm curious. Yeah. How you, how you view American power abroad given these mask off moments that we've had, whether it's the Iraq war, whether it's going into Venezuela. And I'll put the question to you in terms of the country you do understand quite well, having been born there, Pakistan, in 2022 when the Russia, Ukraine war breaks out. The prime minister at the time, Imran Khan, says that he's going to remain neutral in this war. US Wanted Pakistan producing shells for Ukraine. US Wanted Russia to be isolated. The State Department told him that they found that to be offensive and they called it a posture of aggressive neutrality, which is kind of a bizarre term to begin with, and told the ambassador that if a vote of no confidence was held and Imran Khan was removed from power, relations between the United States would be better and, quote, all would be forgiven was the phrase that this one diplomat, I think, you know, Don Low, would used. Since then, the military has basically taken over a dictatorial control in Pakistan and the, and the US Through Biden and then through Trump completely behind them, like, no pretense of support for Pakistani democracy. So that's more of a mask on American power moment. So is that like, is that who we are globally? Like, at what point do we say that the United States is. This is just what we do. Sometimes we do it politely behind the scenes, sometimes we do it with guns, sometimes we do it with a delta force, sometimes we do it with an occupation force. And how have you kind of confronted that as somebody who has kind of grown up in that place where there's this belief among the Foreign Service that we are, with the Peace Corps, living up to these values around the world?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (15:42)

Like, are we so. Well, we're certainly not at this particular moment and we've never been perfect by any means. But I do believe that if you talk to foreign Service officers and others representing the United States around the world, supporting the principles of human rights, rule of law, freedom and democracy is an important part of what we stand for. And I would argue it's a very important part of why the United States does have influence. Now, I know you did a lot of reporting on Pakistan. You're absolutely right. If you look at Pakistan today, it's hard to call it A democracy. They have, you know, they have the elements of a democracy, but in terms of how it's functioning, so much of the control right now, as you know, is in the army chief of staff. And, you know, I've written to the Pakistani ambassador here, he didn't love my letter pointing out that, you know, we need free and fair elections in Pakistan. So there's another example where we are saying one thing and doing another. Although I will say with the Trump administration, they've thrown entirely overboard. Yeah, the idea that we, we represent these values, I mean, they think they're archaic in my view. It's not that we, it's that we should do better actually in implementing those values as part of our foreign policy. I mean, we see double standards across the board. I mean, supporting the Netanyahu government, you know, throughout the war in Gaza, even as they violated not just international law, but American law. And the Biden administration and the Trump administration as well, did nothing about it. So that's a double standard. And that undermines our strength around the world, especially in the global South. But now you have an administration that just very explicitly has thrown the whole idea that America stands for these principles overboard in favor of, you know, as Steve Miller said the other day, we got the power, we'll do what we want.

Kalshi Advertiser (17:54)

The playoffs start this weekend and now you can trade on football legally, nationwide. On Kalshee. Right now, Pittsburgh is trading at 38% to beat Houston. That means a hundred dollar Trade pays out 264 with a win. On Cowshi, you're trading against peers in a live market, meaning there's no house. And as the odds change, you can buy in or out of your position all game long. And for a limited time, download the Kalshi app and use code iheart to get 20 when you trade 100k a l s h I kalshi trade on anything.

Josh Zieman (18:25)

A decade ago, I was on the trail of one of the country's most elusive serial killers. But it wasn't until 2023 when he was finally caught, the answers were there, hidden in plain sight. So why did it take so long to catch him? I'm Josh Zieman and this is Monster Hunting the Long Island Serial Killer, the investigation into the most notorious killer in New York since the Son of Sam. Available now listen for free on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your podcasts. A new year doesn't mean erasing who you were. It means honoring what you've survived and choosing how you want to grow it. Means giving ourselves permission to feel what we've been holding and knowing that it's okay to ask for help. I'm Mike De la Rocha, host of Sacred Lessons. This podcast is a space for men to talk openly about mental health, grief, relationships, and the patterns we inherit but don't have to repeat. Here. We slow down, we listen, we learn how vulnerability becomes strength and how healing happens in community, not in isolation. If you're ready to let go of what no longer serves you and step into the air with clarity, compassion, and purpose, Sacred Lessons is your companion on your healing journey. Listen to Sacred lessons with Mike Delarocha on America's number one podcast network, iHeart. Follow Sacred Lessons with Mike De La Rocha and start listening on the free iHeartRadio app today.

Krystal Ball (19:55)

Can you take us a little bit inside the conversations that you were having with the Biden administration during. We can get into, you know, I say it's a genocide. Agree with the international consensus. We can get to whether you agree with that or not. But during the genocide in Gaza, which is ongoing, what were your conversations like with the Biden administration, you know, when you were bringing to them information about the way that aid was being blocked? For example, after having been on the ground, how did they square that circle? How did they continue to hold this aspirational view that America's a force for good in the world at the same time that we're shipping the bombs that are, you know, part of these horrific atrocities?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (20:35)

Well, you're right. That's an example of a clear double standard and contradiction. And, you know, I reached out to them pretty early on in the Gaza where they, the Biden administration, to point out that, you know, the government of Israel was restricting humanitarian assistance, that we were witnessing indiscriminate bombing, and that there were violations, ongoing violations, not just of international law, but US Law. Right. We have a law on the books with respect to provision of humanitarian aid, that if a country is, you know, restricting humanitarian aid in a place where they're also using our weapons, that we cut off support of our weapon transfers. And they just, they bobbed and weaved. And at the end of the day, I really think they did great damage to our credibility around the world, let alone, you know, the number of people who've been killed in Gaza. We're witnessing this right now, not only in Gaza, but in the West Bank. You know, I call what's happening in the west bank slow motion ethnic cleansing. I mean, every day you're hearing more and more about violent settlers taking more land belonging to Palestinians and essentially with impunity. And they're backed up by the IDF because they're backed up by people like Ben GVIR and Smotrich, these very right wing extremists, and by Netanyahu. So this is a moment where, you know, the United States, the idea that we're standing up for principles has been thrown overboard. I mean, unfortunately, it was done over a period of time, but now the Trump administration has made it explicit. I believe, if you ask him, I believe the United States actually does need to be consistent. We're never perfect, but these are really important parts of who we are as a country. It's part of the American economy, identity. I don't think it's entirely a myth. I think we, we do stand for those things. Ronald Reagan talked about the shiny city on the Hill. And Republicans have now thrown that whole idea overboard.

Krystal Ball (22:39)

So let me ask you, you have the International association of Genocide Scholars who say it's a genocide. They join Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch. There are various Israeli human rights organizations like B'tselem who agree with that. Do you accept the international consensus that this is a genocide?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (22:54)

So I think the overwhelming evidence points to the fact that this is a genocide. You've seen scholars, including many scholars of the Holocaust, Jewish scholars at Hebrew University, Brown University and others. I've not made an independent legal conclusion. I've made it very explicit that this is ethnic cleansing. But regardless of what you call is.

Krystal Ball (23:21)

You don't have to worry about the huge. We only have one sound bite we're gonna play for you.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (23:25)

So, okay, it's a huge watching what's happening is just, it seems to me anybody with a conscience cannot stand by and watch what's happening without wanting to do something.

Krystal Ball (23:43)

And how much do you think that the barbarism that we've all watched play out in Gaza has allowed this moment to emerge where we really do just, you know, the Trump administration feels fine just saying, hey, we're going to take over Gaza, right? And continue in that direction. We're going to take over Venezuela because we want their oil. We're going to take over Greenland because we want, you know, whatever they have to offer and we're going to do this wherever we feel like doing it. So they truly have actualized this, like, might makes, right Barbarism. Not to mention the barbarism that we're all seeing in the streets with these, you know, ICE thugs and CBP and other mass goons that are in American streets. How much do you think that Gaza contributed to the unleashing of that level of sort of accepted law of the jungle barbarism.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (24:29)

Well, I think it contributed to it. I think you. I think the Trump administration may well have jumped to where they are right now, no matter what. But clearly, Gaza is an example of where the United States did not stand up for our values, for our own laws, did not implement our own laws. And I do think that contributes to a complete erosion of international standards. You're also seeing that combined with an attack on multilateral organizations and on the UN and, you know, the Biden administration vetoed. I can't. I lost count how many resolutions they vetoed when it came to the situation in Gaza. So I do think you have a pattern there. I think it's going to be the challenge for the next president will be to try to restore some credibility as to what we stand for. But you're right, I mean, to bring this home and watch what we're seeing on our own streets. You know, the reason I went down to El Salvador to try to find out whether Kilmar Abrego Garcia was alive was because of the lawlessness of the Trump administration here at home. So here at home and overseas, they're taking the same view, which is they've got the power. They will do what they want. That is a lawless administration.

Saagar Enjeti (25:56)

And so, despite the criticism, the Biden administration did not change course, which we all acknowledge is absolute catastrophe, both for the US and for people in Gaza and maybe in the long run for Israel, too. We'll find out. What leverage do you think you had that you didn't use? What could you have done that you didn't do? Like, if you had to do it over again? Like, because the people trying to change Biden administration policy failed. Like, was there. Was there a path to changing that policy, or was this just baked in? And did you talk.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (26:31)

Yeah.

Saagar Enjeti (26:31)

Biden directly about this?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (26:34)

I did raise this with Biden directly. I mean, not so much near the end of his administration, but even on a couple occasions then I mentioned it to him. For example, when we had the collapse of the Key Bridge in Baltimore. He came to Baltimore. We spoke about the bridge. We also mentioned we got to do something to stop the killing in Gaza. So, you know, I tried to do everything I could. The main thing we did was get the Biden administration to adopt what became known as NSM20. So I don't want to go into all the weeds there. I proposed an amendment to the bill that included funding for Ukraine and Israel and other things that essentially would have blocked funding to any country that was violating American law. We didn't have the votes to pass it, but we were successful at getting the Biden administration to adopt what became known as NSM20. It's a pretty long document. It was fiercely negotiated, and it ultimately required them to provide some reporting on a lot of these issues. Right. In terms of the killing, in terms of the distribution of humanitarian aid. Unfortunately, when the report came out, I felt that it sort of whitewashed the situation. I said so publicly. If you. Interestingly, if you look at the amount of humanitarian aid going into Gaza, it did go up just before the report was issued. And, you know, the administration did tell me that they used that as leverage to improve the delivery of humanitarian assistance. The problem is, as soon as the report came out, they didn't stick with it. I mean, the Biden administration didn't stick with it. They did not use the levers of.

Krystal Ball (28:28)

Power that they have For a lot of rank and file Democrats, like ordinary voters, AIPAC funding and position on the Gaza genocide has become a litmus test for any candidates they support and in particular, candidates they support in 2020. First of all, would you ever accept AIPAC funding? And, and second of all, I'm curious, do you have a litmus test for future candidates to represent the Democratic Party nationally?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (28:54)

So, no, I don't accept AIPAC money. I don't think anybody should accept AIPAC money. I remember when I proposed my amendment, it was written in a completely neutral way in the sense that applied to any country. We just said when the United States is providing military assistance to a country, they have to comply with these basic standards. AIPAC came out against that. You know, the issue with aipac, as we know, is they essentially adopt the position of the government of Israel. And there are going to be times when the interests of the government of Israel in the United States obviously diverge. I don't think what Israel's been doing is in Israel's own interest. But that, of course, is for the people of Israel to decide. But the short answer to your question is I do not think that anybody should be taking AIPAC money. And I think that there does need to be accountability in the Democratic Party for whether people stood up and challenged all the terrible things that were happening in Gaza during that period of time.

Saagar Enjeti (30:09)

And now does that mean, Senator Schumer, do you think that. Do you think there should be new leadership in future Congresses in the Senate?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (30:20)

Well, as to future Congresses, that's going to be obviously something for the Democratic caucus. But let Me just say this with respect to the presidential race in 2028. You know, my view is it's going to be important to see whether the candidates are running for the highest office in the land where they stood on this question of conscience.

Krystal Ball (30:42)

Yeah. And I think that question of conscience, obviously, for me, one of the clearest dividing lines is around Gaza. But I think also the way that people have stood up or failed to stand up in this moment with the second Trump administration, I mentioned before, and you mentioned going to see whether Kilmar Brego Garcia was alive or dead, I think the decisions that were made on the previous shutdown, you know, everybody was sort of behind you guys. And then you had Schumer and a few breakaway Democrats deciding, oh, we're gonna cave without getting anything in return. I know you're part of what's called the quote, unquote, fight club, you and some other Democratic members of the Senate. So how do you see, like, how have Democrats done in this moment and what should they have done? How should they have conducted themselves differently?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (31:32)

So I think a lot of Democrats were late to recognize the danger posed by the Trump administration. I mean, you know, people would sort of say maybe they're not serious. This is just rhetoric. Even as the Trump administration engaged in lawless activity at home and overseas. And immigration was one of the earlier ones. Yeah, yeah. Because we had this case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Right. He was snatched off the streets of Maryland. He was sent to this notorious gulag in El Salvador. And when I went down there, there were a lot of voices in the Democratic Party that said, no, don't do that. You know, don't. Don't focus at all.

Krystal Ball (32:14)

Did anyone come in directly?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (32:16)

I mean, they're Democrats.

Saagar Enjeti (32:18)

Above you in the public record.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (32:20)

Yeah. But not just there, but also around the country. And it was like, you know, we. We shouldn't be talking about this, because when it comes to immigration issues, the Trump position is popular. We should always change the subject to something else. I mean, here you have people being snatched. Now that's changed. Now we have people who are responding much more than they were before. But at that time, it was really very much a finger in the wind kind of thing. And, you know, despite the fact that you had this gross violation of the Constitution, and things began to change back then, I mean, you know, when we had the Kilmar Brago Garcia case, folks like, you know, Joe Rogan on his podcast were saying, you know, I'm not into this, just denying people their due process rights. In the Constitution. And, and that's what this administration has been doing, just taking away people's due process rights. So I do think it's changed. But to answer your question, I think there were a lot of folks who are very slow to recognize the real danger to our democracy, to our constitution, and to our country.

Kalshi Advertiser (33:34)

The playoffs start this weekend and now you can trade on football legally nationwide on cowshe right now, Pittsburgh is trading at 38% to beat Houston. That means a $100 trade pays out 264 with a win. On Kalshi, you're trading against peers in a live market, meaning there's no house. And as the odds change, you can buy in or out of your position all game long. And for a limited time, download the Kalshi app and use code IHEART to get $20 when you trade 100k a l s h I Kalshi trade on anything.

Josh Zieman (34:05)

A decade ago, I was on the trail of one of the country's most elusive serial killers. But it wasn't until 2023 when he was finally caught. The answers were there, hidden in plain sight. So why did it take so long to catch him? I'm Josh Zieman, and this is Monster Hunting the Long Island Serial Killer, the investigation into the most notorious killer in New York since the Son of Sam. Available now listen for free on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. A new year doesn't mean erasing who you were. It means honoring what you've survived and and choosing how you want to grow. It means giving ourselves permission to feel what we've been holding and knowing that it's okay to ask for help. I'm Mike De la Rocha, host of Sacred Lessons. This podcast is a space for men to talk openly about mental health, grief, relationships, and the patterns we inherit but don't have to repeat. Here we slow down, we listen. We learn how vulnerability becomes strength and how healing happens in community, not in isolation. If you're ready to let go of what no longer serves you and step into the year with clarity, compassion and purpose, Sacred Lessons is your companion on your healing journey. Listen to Sacred Lessons with Mike Delaroche on America's number one podcast network, iHeart. Follow Sacred Lessons with Mike De la Rocha and start listening on the free iHeartRadio app today.

Krystal Ball (35:36)

I guess my question is, has that actually changed? There's a possibility of another shutdown fight, and you have some, including in this part. I will need your piece to be in for Senator Chris Murphy, indicating that we should use this opportunity, Democrats should use this opportunity to force changes at ICE in the wake of what I would call a murder of Renee Good being shot three times by this ICE agent as she's there in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Let's go ahead and take a listen to Senator Chris Murphy. Make the case you're proposing sweeping reforms to dhs, from requiring warrants for arrests to banning masks during enforcement, to limiting ICE's use of firearms in civil operations. Do any Republicans support your plan? Is it realistic that this could actually pass, Senator?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (36:22)

Well, Republicans need Democratic votes in order to pass a budget for the Department of Homeland Security. And what we're talking about, I wouldn't necessarily categorize as sweeping. Right. We're simply talking about, you know, essentially going back to the way that ICE was operating when they cared about legality.

Kalshi Advertiser (36:39)

Right.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (36:40)

Identification of officers. That's something that has been standard practice in every law enforcement agency all across the country. Cbp, who are supposed to be at the border, protecting us at the border, operating in the interior with no training on how to deal with complex urban environments. That's brand new. So we just need to get back to a Department of Home Security that is prioritizing the law and prioritizing keeping people safe. And yes, I think that it's reasonable for Democrats, speaking on behalf of the majority of the American public who don't approve of what ICE is doing, to say, if you want to fund the Department of Homeland Security. I want to fund a Department of Homeland Security that is operating in a safe and legal manner.

Krystal Ball (37:19)

So is it appropriate? Do you support using this sort of rare moment of leverage that Democrats have in terms of government funding to force some changes at DHS and with ice.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (37:29)

Yes, I've been. I've been very clear. I will not vote for one more penny. I guess we're getting rid of the pennies. One more dollar for the Trump ICE operation. And I hope we will use this moment for that. That purpose. And this is why the Department of Homeland Security's appropriation bill in the Senate has been so hung up. I mean, we've passed other bills, appropriation bills out of our committee, but some we've not. And this one is one that I will not support advancing without the kind of reforms that Chris Murphy is talking about.

Saagar Enjeti (38:07)

And what's the end game, then? Because it seemed like that's where Democrats kind of fell down last time, that all they kind of snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in that shutdown, because it felt like they just kind of lost their Nerve after the shutdown had gone on so long. So how do you avoid that this time?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (38:29)

So we do have a different situation now. We have already moved, for example, three appropriation bills like for the Department of Agriculture and a couple others. There may be other bills where we were successful at putting up safeguards around the funding. The Commerce justice science bill is one of those where we completely rejected the Trump cuts to science and the National Science foundation and NASA Goddard and things like that. So we may have a situation where we pass appropriation bills for certain agencies. But what I'm saying, I think Senator Murphy is saying is that focus on when it comes to dhs, we will not support any funding for DHS unless and until we see these reforms.

Krystal Ball (39:19)

And do you know where Senator Schumer is on that?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (39:21)

I think he supports reforms at dhs. I can't speak for him with respect to the actual strategy of not supporting that bill at this particular moment.

Saagar Enjeti (39:31)

There was a memo that circulated in the kind of DC Progressive world a month or two ago. I'm curious if you saw it that made the case for Chris Van Hollen for Senate Majority Leader. Did you see that memo?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (39:44)

I heard about the memo, actually. No. You know, I did see that memo. I know what you're talking about.

Saagar Enjeti (39:49)

All right, so what do you think of that memo? And would you. Would you run if Democrats took the majority or if they. Or even if they don't, would you run for minority leaders? That's something you're open to.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (40:01)

So it's not something that has been, you know, top of mind for me. And ultimately, you know, this is a question of the Democratic caucus. And if you go back, for example, to your point on the shutdown strategy unraveling.

Krystal Ball (40:19)

Yeah.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (40:20)

You can see it's. It's not just about one person. So look, my goal right now is to fight like hell every moment we've got against, against the Trump administration to work to win the midterm elections in the House and in the Senate. And then I do believe, I'm a strong believer in the fact that we cannot just be the party of no. That we need to put forward a clear agenda for the future that makes a. Tells the American people we are not the party of the status quo. And that is going to be my main focus.

Krystal Ball (40:56)

So you say it's a question for the Democratic caucus. Is it also a question for the Democratic base, though? You know, especially at this period in time when you're between president, there's no clear leader of the Democratic Party. So I think it's sort of an old fashioned way of looking at, you know, Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer say, oh, they just tend to the business of the House or they just tend to business in the Senate. The Democratic base and the numbers bear this out, are very frustrated with Jefferies and specifically with Chuck Schumer. They feel he is failing at the job of standing up to Trump. And I think I agree, and I think you probably agree that they have a pretty strong case that they can make there. So does their frustration matter at all in that calculus as well at a time when they feel like they're losing their country?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (41:37)

Yes. I mean, their frustration definitely counts. It counts in leadership races. It will certainly count going into 2028 when it'll be a referendum within the Democratic Party on the direction that we want to want to take going forward. I would say that at this point in time, you know, and again, Senator Schumer I think is now better reflecting the views of more of the Democrats across the country. That said, and, you know, it became public so I can talk about it. As, you know, the first rule of Fight Club is you don't talk about.

Saagar Enjeti (42:17)

Fight Club, but until somebody talks about it.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (42:20)

So there is a group of us who expressed frustration not only about, you know, the direction the caucus taken, but also with respect to how the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has gotten involved in some of the Democratic primaries. That's really what, what sort of triggered a lot of the frustration among this group. You know, I was, you know, I was quite clear how frustrated I was that you didn't have the leadership supporting Mamdani in New York for mayor.

Saagar Enjeti (42:55)

What did he, what did he say about that? How do you, how do you justify not, how did he justify not supporting the Democratic nominee for mayor?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (43:01)

I can't remember what he has said publicly, but, you know, all I know is the result.

Krystal Ball (43:08)

Yeah.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (43:09)

And, you know, here you have a mayor who ran on the platform of affordability that everybody says we should be focused on and we should be focused on lowering the cost of living for Americans. So people living paycheck to paycheck can actually get by and we want to increase the size of their paychecks, too. So that was, you know, that was an example where, you know, if you want to have a big tent Democratic Party and I do, then you can't say you're not going to endorse, you know, the guy who was the Democratic nominee for mayor.

Saagar Enjeti (43:43)

One of the grievances that this according to the reporting that the Fight Club brought to Senator Schumer was recruiting Janet Mills when Graham Plattner was already in the race and then clearly backing Haley Stevens, even though they claim they're not whether there's a competitive primary there. Has the Fight Club thought about or talked about endorsing, like, as a group against the Democratic establishment's candidate? Like, where are you? Let's start with Maine. Like, have you spoken with Grant Platner? Are you supporting him? And should the Fight Club, like, if they're going to fight, like, they're going to fight.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (44:20)

So, okay, let's start with Maine. I've talked to both Janet Mills and Graham Platner a couple times. My view is that the Democratic primary voters should be the ones who decide on that election. And, you know, we got upset because that is an example where the DSCC did weigh in very strongly on behalf of one of the candidates in the primary. And it was our view, and it remains my view that, you know, that's a question for Democratic primary voters. And the same was true about Michigan. Right. With respect to Haley Stevens, that they were weighing in on behalf of her to the exclusion of the other candidates. So our basic message was we need to, you, the DSCC need to stay out of these races. Now, we did make an exception in the case of Minnesota. We together have endorsed Peggy Flanagan, who's the lieutenant gubernatorial candidate there. And that's because we also sensed that the SEC was weighing in on. On behalf of. In this case.

Saagar Enjeti (45:33)

Right. So then, okay, so if you're weighing in in Minnesota, what will it take to get you into Maine?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (45:37)

I don't know.

Saagar Enjeti (45:38)

Or Michigan.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (45:39)

I think our main reaction in Maine was that the DSCC went in. So we're look, I'm continuing to look at these races, and I don't know, I do think that we're stronger when we can take sort of collective action. And we were able to get a consensus on that when it came to the Minnesota Senate race.

Krystal Ball (46:01)

Senator, I'm curious why you changed your mind on Medicare for us. I was very happy to see, but I'm just wondering if your views have evolved on where we should be economically and what it's going to require to give working people a shot in this country.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (46:14)

Yeah. So the short answer is my view has not changed on that fundamental question. I mean, I been very much supportive of getting eventually to Medicare for all, but I had taken the view earlier that, you know, I was one of the people for the public option when it came to the Affordable Care act. And then we didn't get the public option Even though the House had been supportive of it back in the day. And, you know, at some point, with Republicans continuing to try to just attack, attack, attack the Affordable Care act from every angle, and just looking at the health care system overall and the amount of money that we spend on overhead and administration and bureaucracy and insurance companies, I just reached the conclusion that we didn't, we should move now. Right. And that's. And so I supported the bill. I had supported the idea of getting to Medicare for all, yeah, always. But what I said was this bill is the way to do it over a four year period. This is Bernie Sanders bill. And I've also long supported adding to Medicare coverage, you know, dental, vision and hearing. And I think we should move forward on that now. But, you know, I would say that looking at our healthcare system, we spend as, you know, about 18% of our gross national product on healthcare, and we are definitely not getting our money's worth in terms of the public health. And so my view is that we should move now. And I think that bill lays out the right roadmap and not try to go through a public option for the Affordable Care act, an even more incremental approach. I think we should just pass the bill and do it.

Saagar Enjeti (48:00)

We talked about Senate leader, but you've also been talked about as potential presidential candidate. I mean, first, would you see any pushback from being born in Pakistan? Is there any argument that, hey, you can't do that, or do you get the John McCain exception there? You know, in the Senate they say, everybody, all senators wake up in the morning, look in the mirror and see a, see a future president. Do you see that? Or where are you on that? On that question.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (48:27)

So my big focus right now beyond the midterms is really coming up with what I think the Democrats should stand for. It kind of goes to your, your point. When you asked about Medicare, you also said, you know, how about, you know, working people around the country? And I've long believed that's the fundamental crisis that we're facing in America, which is the inequality of wealth and power in the country. So this is why I'm going to continue to. I've been proposing major tax proposals and we'll be reintroducing another one soon, which essentially addresses the problem we've got, which is we have a tax system that's rigged to favor people who make money off of money as opposed to people who make money off of hard work. I also support incentivizing employee ownership of companies. And then I think we should make sure that on the cost side, for example, that these AI companies, the richest on the planet. Planet, you know, aren't essentially free riding off of ratepayers when it comes to the additional electricity that needs to be generated and the costs of all of that. So what I'm saying is that is my focus right now. I don't know what the Democratic field will look like.

Krystal Ball (49:47)

Got any trips to Iowa, South Carolina?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (49:49)

Well, I did get invited to go out. I was at the Iowa Steak Fry, Polk County Steak Fry. We had a back and forth with another candid about, you know, anyway, I was, they asked me to come out, especially after the Kilmar Brego Garcia situation. And I did give a speech out there laying out what I think the Democratic Party needs to focus on beyond taking on Trump, which we need to do every single day to protect our democracy. We do need to, you know, I think that we've been much too tied to special interests.

Krystal Ball (50:23)

Yes.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (50:25)

And corporate special interests. And so my, my view is the best way to regain some of the confidence of the American people is to show that we are, we will, we want to break with the status quo. I mean, it just blows my mind that Donald Trump was the guy who said he was going to change, you know, Washington, and people thought that that might be changing in a good way. They just wanted to. They wanted change.

Krystal Ball (50:49)

Yeah.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (50:51)

Now, I think, you know, people are seeing, I mean, including on the immigration front, but the fact that Trump is not focused on bringing down costs or anything like that. They don't like what they see. But I'm going to, I intend to be front and center in this debate.

Krystal Ball (51:10)

How do you rein in these tech oligarchs? And you mentioned the concern about electricity rates. That's one thing. There are also deep concerns about AI and taking jobs. There are existential concerns about AI and destroying human civilization. How are you thinking about that constellation of issues? And specifically on the question of how you rein in these would be trillionaires who want to basically operate in a completely unregulated environment and be able to do whatever they want whenever they want.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (51:41)

So I agree with your analysis. I think we are in a really difficult place because you have the richest people on the planet and they're getting richer. And with that comes a lot of power, and they're using their power. I mean, we see this with Elon Musk. Obviously, Trump made him the head of Doge. We also see this with the concentration of media power in traditional media, which is why I do encourage everybody to watch independent media channels.

Saagar Enjeti (52:10)

Appreciate that, but like and subscribe.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (52:12)

But I don't have. I will, I will tell you, I don't have an easy answer to your question. I've been longtime supporter of, you know, significant campaign finance reform. You know, we obviously want to roll back Citizens United, but you know how hard that is. Because the Supreme Court decision, I am the original author of the DISCLOSE act that we got passed the House of Representatives. When I was back in the House, it failed by one vote in the Senate on a filibuster. So I believe in campaign finance reform and we need to fight like that. And whoever's a Democratic candidate for president or even Congress should be fighting for those things. But I'm open to people's ideas on how you rein in the AI companies. We never were successful at getting a sort of a oversight when it came to the social media universe. And there are obviously all sorts of important questions around First Amendment, all those sort of things. But in terms of the concentration of power in AI, you know, again, I have a tax approach to that.

Krystal Ball (53:22)

Yeah.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (53:22)

But in terms of reigning them in, that is something that I believe we need to do. I agree with your analysis.

Krystal Ball (53:34)

Yeah.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (53:35)

I'm open to any ideas people have as the best approach to that.

Saagar Enjeti (53:38)

Your, your colleague, Elizabeth Warren, Fight Club. Another Fight Club member, I believe, giving a speech today at the National Press Club in which she's really taking aim at the abundance argument and making the case generally and read the entire speech that abundance in some ways is a stalking horse for old school deregulatory. Hands off. Just let the oligarchs rule the roost and things will happen. And she's coming directly at that and saying, no, we actually need to get these people under control so that we can really unleash all of the American people, not just the oligarchs. Where are you on this abundance conversation within the Democratic Party.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (54:23)

Yeah, so I really don't think it's either or on abundance versus, you know, going after.

Saagar Enjeti (54:29)

Mamdani stole the word.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (54:31)

What's that?

Saagar Enjeti (54:31)

Mamdani stole the word. He called himself. He's. He's an abundance guy.

Krystal Ball (54:35)

Some of his first executive order.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (54:38)

I mean, I think we can acknowledge that, you know, we need to build more housing stock. We need more affordable housing and that there are, are many cases where especially local regulations are an impediment to that. What can the federal government do to incentivize changes? I mean, there are limited levers at the, at the federal level. It is also true, obviously, that some of these transportation projects take way too long So I think there is, there's merit to that argument. That doesn't mean that we should not also be focused on, you know, making sure that we break up monopolies because, you know, monopolies obviously undermine the whole idea of, for those people who believe in free markets, you should be anti monopoly, obviously. So I think it's not, I really don't think it's either or when it comes to abundance versus the sort of anti monopoly antitrust approach.

Krystal Ball (55:35)

So you talk some about accountability, electoral accountability for Democrats who close their eyes, rise to human rights abuses in Gaza and failed to stand up to President Trump. Do you think there should be criminal accountability for members of this administration under a future, you know, if you or someone else were to run for president, should charges be brought against people who, you know, committed crimes in the context of this regime?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (55:58)

I think people need to be held accountable, accountable under the law. And so to the extent that there are people engaged in criminal violations of the law, then they need to be held accountable.

Krystal Ball (56:09)

Does part of that accountability. We talked earlier about Renee Goode and about Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and ICE is sort of the tip of the spear of this lawless administration. Do you support abolishing ICE? There's some 69% of the Democratic base that has come to that position at this point.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (56:27)

Well, let's put it this way. I support abolishing Trump's ice. In other words, this kind of operation that's going on right now needs to come to an end, and it needs to come to an end now. So I support reining in ice. I think ICE has an appropriate function when it is, when it is conducted and operated in, you know, in, in the way that was, I think, originally envisioned. But I think Trump is sort of put ICE on steroids. And this is why, as we discussed earlier, I'm in favor of making sure we don't provide any funding for Trump's ongoing ICE operation.

Saagar Enjeti (57:08)

Let me push a little bit on that, because this is not like an ancient. It's not a Jeffersonian agency. Like you were in, literally in Congress when this was created, right. I think it was 2003, like when they reorganized Homeland Security in 2019. We covered, and I think ProPublica did too. When AOC, and I think it was Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar went down to the border. There was a report, there were multiple reports about this ICE Facebook group that had hundreds, if not thousands of ICE agents and commanders. Like, this is top to bottom where they were threatening violence against aoc and these other members of Congress who were coming to the border, their job was they were supposed to protect these members of Congress. There was also all of this over the top, like sexual harassment and sexualization of these members going on. You read through these, and this is basically public. It was a private group, but it's, you know, when you're in the thousands, it's basically public on Facebook. You read through those and you get a window into a rogue agency, which is how I saw it at the time. So this is Trump's ICE, but it's 2019. We're now many years deeper into Trump's ICE. It already, to me, felt rogue, like outside of Democratic control, that it was its own thing. And I think, predictably, we're now getting the kind of expressions of that, if an agency is that far gone, why not reorganize it and take the parts that we need, you know, that the government needs to carry out and give them to agencies that are under the control of the federal government.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (59:01)

So, clearly, we have a problem with the culture of ICE right now under the Trump administration. And we had that in the first Trump administration as well. There may have been abuses under Obama, too, under Biden. I have to go back and look at that. So, look, I don't. The question is the function, right? Not the name. And so I do believe that function requires dramatic reform. I mean, if you look at some of the recruitment that's going on right now, if you look at the lax standards in terms of training, we are seeing huge abuses. So, look, I don't really care what you call it, but the function is something that I think needs to be maintained in the sense that there has to be some agency that is responsible. For example, when somebody is here who is undocumented, someone who's here illegally, and they commit a violent crime, there has to be somebody in the federal government that addresses that, and that's currently ice. So it was before ice, but, so, but again, the function, I think when people say they want to get rid of ice, it's sometimes people may interpret it as getting rid of that function. You know, again, my view is we shouldn't be funding Trump's ICE operations.

Krystal Ball (60:28)

How screwed do you think we are? When you look at the lawlessness, when you look at the mascot, foreign policy, when you look at. I mean, I've watched ICE agents pepper spray a baby, assault random people, illegally arrest American citizens, and now shoot Renee Goode three times in the face. Like, how do we put any of this back together, given how far We've gone. Is it too late, or do you think that we can sort of come back from this moment of rising fascism and lawlessness in this country and abroad?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (61:00)

So I do believe we can come back. I think there's been a huge amount of damage. I think it's going to require a lot of repair, both in terms of, you know, here at home as well as, you know, our foreign policy. But I do believe ultimately that the American people don't like what they're seeing with respect to what Trump's doing, including his ICE operations. And I think that you will see changes in the midterm elections now, you know, given the fact that you have a rogue president who doesn't care about the Constitution, that will remain a big challenge until 2028. But look, lots of damage done. Do I think it's irreversible? No. But I think that depends on all of us. I mean, I really do think the answer to your question depends on what the American people are doing and what's been so, you know, heartwarming about this even terrible moment is to listen to the whistle brigades right out in Minneapolis, the neighbors coming out to defend their neighbors. Seven million Americans going out on, no, Kings Day. I mean, in Maryland, you know, I went all over the state. It was heartwarming to see thousands of Marylanders coming out to resist the tyranny of the Trump administration. So I do think that we have good, strong antibodies to protect our democracy. They are being threatened as never before. But I do have faith at the end that if we all step up and step out, we will be successful. After all, what Trump wants most of all is for everybody to shut up and go away. I mean, that is what they want. That's why they threatened people. That's why they locked up students for expressing their First Amendment views early in the administration. That was Secretary Rubio and others. We need to push back really hard every day.

Saagar Enjeti (62:53)

Last one for me. So should we end weapons sales to Israel?

Senator Chris Van Hollen (62:58)

I think in this moment, I would. I oppose transferring offensive weapons to Israel. I've not imposed sending.

Saagar Enjeti (63:05)

What are defense.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (63:06)

What are defensive Iron Dome defense systems that are used only to intercept incoming missiles? But I think at this moment in time, we need to, at the very least, pause transfers of offensive weapons, which is why I've continued to vote on each of the votes we've had in the in the Senate to not allow the transfers of more offensive weapons so long as Israel is violating international law and American law.

Krystal Ball (63:37)

Do you think that that distinction really makes sense? I mean, if you're shipping weapons, you're shipping weapons. And, you know, I think there's a pretty clear argument that supplying Iron Dome, for example, is part of what allows Israel to operate with such impunity in the region.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (63:52)

I have supported Iron Dome because there are other, you know, this is not only Gaza. They. Israel obviously is in a, you know, a tough neighborhood. And of course they are. Actually.

Krystal Ball (64:02)

They frequently bomb their neighbors. They also is going to make it.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (64:06)

A tough neighborhood, that there's no doubt. I mean, I think the Netanyahu government has been really bad for Israel and the United States. As you know, we should be doing much more than we are, obviously, to rein in what the Netanyahu government is doing. But I do think there's an important distinction between providing defensive weapons and offensive weapons.

Krystal Ball (64:30)

All right, Senator Chris Manholland, thank you so much for spending so much time with us. We really appreciate it.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (64:34)

Thank you. Good to be with both of you.

Krystal Ball (64:36)

All right, guys, that does it for us. I will be in with Sagar tomorrow, so we will see you then.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (64:58)

This is an I Heart podcast. Guaranteed human.