7/21/26: Krystal HEATED Debate w Top Dem On Israel, DSA

Summary

---

Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar

July 21, 2026

Episode: Krystal HEATED Debate w Top Dem On Israel, DSA

---

Episode Overview

This episode features a wide-ranging, spirited debate between host Krystal Ball and Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA), the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. The discussion focuses on the Democratic Party’s divisions over U.S.–Israel relations, military funding, internal policy debates, and the role of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Key moments include Smith explaining his evolving positions on military cooperation with Israel and aid, a fierce back-and-forth on Israel/Palestine, and an airing of differences over the role of socialism and big money in Democratic Party primaries.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Adam Smith’s Changing Position on U.S.–Israel Military Cooperation

• National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) & Section 224

  • Smith explains Section 224 is about co-development programs (not a "merger") with Israel, primarily around missile defense ([03:18]).
  • He previously supported it, seeing practical benefits, but shifted stance after constituent outreach warning of the political signal sent by entrenching U.S.-Israel military ties under Netanyahu’s right-wing government ([07:00]).
  • Smith now opposes Section 224:

    “A couple of constituents...explained that...voting for anything that integrates the U.S. and Israeli government further...is just a statement we don't want to make right now. And I agreed with that.” ([07:21])

  • He will advocate for its removal during House-Senate conference, but may not vote down the entire NDAA solely over this section ([08:19]).

• Why Democrats Might Vote for NDAA

  • Smith distinguishes between authorizing and appropriating funds; emphasizes need for congressional oversight even under a presidency he harshly opposes ("Trump is prosecuting a disastrous, illegal war" — Ball, [08:50]).
  • He asserts that simply refusing to pass anything would yield unaccountable executive power ([11:43]).
  • Quote:

    "Congress needs to exercise oversight of the Department of Defense. We've got a provision...that would bring back collective bargaining for all DoD employees...We step back from that, Trump just goes and does what he wants to do..." ([11:47])

2. Smith’s Recent Votes and the Israel Policy Reckoning

• Thomas Massie Amendment Blocking Aid to Israel

  • Smith changed position and supported the amendment, partly to rebuke Netanyahu and over concerns about Israeli government actions ([13:45]).
  • He contextualizes Israel’s historical predicament (“...the only country in the world that from the day they were founded, people have been trying to eliminate them” — [14:47]) but sharply criticizes current Israeli policies and leadership.
  • Firmly against funding Netanyahu's government:

    “I don’t think we should be sending that money over there.” ([19:06])

  • Supports targeted sanctions, especially for Israeli ministers promoting violence in the West Bank ([24:16]).

• Engaging the Democratic Base’s Discontents

  • Smith recognizes a "reckoning" on Israel in the Democratic Party, but disagrees with claims that all military cooperation lacks democratic accountability.
  • He’s sensitive to left-wing and constituent pressure but remains wary of entirely abandoning U.S.-Israel partnership out of concern for security threats and skepticism about alternatives like a Hamas-led state ([20:04]).

3. The Israel/Palestine Debate: Two-State Solution & U.S. Responsibility

• Sharp Disagreement on Framing

  • Krystal pushes Smith on equal rights for Palestinians and U.S. taxpayer funding of an “apartheid ethnostate, that is in the process of committing a genocide” ([16:38]).
  • Smith is skeptical about workable “liberal” solutions in the current reality and bemoans the impracticality of two-state or binational alternatives, saying:

    "I support a two-state solution. I am also aware of the fact that it's probably no longer possible...It’s very disappointing." ([20:33])

  • He challenges whether the left has a plan for what would replace Israel as a Jewish state, invoking concerns about Hamas dominance.

• Regret and Responsibility

  • Smith indicates no regrets about his prior votes post–October 7 attacks, arguing that Hamas’s existential threat to Israel cannot be ignored, though he’s critical of Israeli government policy ([17:41]).
  • He supports ending much unconditional military aid, unless bold positive developments occur.

4. Democratic Party, Socialism, and Internal Fights

• Is Israel a Litmus Test in Primaries?

  • Smith says the Israel issue is important but not the main driver; he attributes anti-establishment sentiment mainly to perceived establishment failures against Trump and to income inequality ([27:07]).
  • He criticizes DSA and left-leaning platforms for positions like "open borders," "defund the police," and "spend as much government money as possible," suggesting these helped fuel the right—though he admits the party also failed economically ([27:07], [37:00]).

• Debate Over “Abolishing ICE,” Immigration, and DSA Framing

  • Smith clarifies his work with Pramila Jayapal:

    “It puts immigration enforcement back at the Justice Department and gets rid of ICE...but it doesn't get rid of immigration enforcement.” ([31:32])

  • Both agree ICE is problematic, but Smith criticizes rhetoric that implies eliminating enforcement entirely ([32:59]), and is frustrated by left activist groups who can’t define enforcement thresholds.

• Debate on Division and Big-Tent Party

  • Krystal pushes back when Smith paints the party’s left with a broad brush, arguing that this hands Republicans ammunition ([34:01]).
  • Smith concedes he shouldn’t caricature but insists radical positions do have influence and are a real challenge ([37:50]).
  • Both agree big-money influence in Democratic primaries (e.g., AIPAC) is a crisis for democracy ([47:20]), and Smith is supportive (though dubious about feasibility) of banning independent expenditures in primaries.

5. Socialism in Practice – A Local Example

• Zoran Mamdani’s NYC Record
  • Krystal plays remarks from NYC councilmember Zoran Mamdani touting practical achievements under a democratic socialist administration ([38:14]).
  • Smith says he’s “encouraged” by results-oriented, “sewer socialism” models if they focus on practical governance over academic theorizing ([39:23]).
  • Quote:

    "If you govern and focus on getting things done...that's great. As an academic exercise...the whole focus was on oppressed and oppression as opposed to actually governing." ([39:23])

6. Civility, Discourse, and Dissent

• Smith expresses frustration over town halls and left-leaning activists shutting down discussion or resorting to threats, calling this “illiberal” and destructive to party debate ([43:28]).

  "I have been unable to hold a town hall meeting for a year because a bunch of leftists show up and scream at me and don't let anyone else speak." ([43:28])

7. Campaign Finance, AIPAC, and “Outside Money” in Primaries

• Smith confirms AIPAC dropped him after his vote on the Massie amendment ([45:21]).
• He’s open to accepting future AIPAC support but doubts it’ll happen, and generally opposes categorical bans on corporate or organization-backed donations ([46:08]).
• Smith strongly opposes Citizens United and supports banning outside group spending in primaries, but is skeptical the DNC or party can enforce such a ban ([47:20]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On shifting on Israel military cooperation:

  “A couple of constituents in particular reached out to me and explained that...voting for anything that integrates the U.S. and Israeli government further, given where the Netanyahu government is at, is just a statement we don't want to make right now. And I agreed with that.” — Rep. Adam Smith ([07:21])

• On Democratic divisions over policing and immigration:

  “A lot of the policies of the DSA and the left—open borders, defund the police, the idea that you can’t possibly spend enough government money...are what gave Trump his power.” — Rep. Adam Smith ([27:07])

• On aid to Israel:

  “I don’t think we should be sending that money over there.” — Rep. Adam Smith ([19:06])

• On what’s left for Israel/Palestine solutions:

  “I support a two-state solution. I am also aware of the fact that it's probably no longer possible...it's very disappointing.” — Rep. Adam Smith ([20:33])

• Krystal Ball’s challenge on U.S. aid and Israel:

  “Why should our tax dollars...go into prop up an ethnostate that is an apartheid state?” — Krystal Ball ([18:30])

• On exclusion in the Democratic Party:

  “[On socialists in the Democratic Party] I am not [in favor of exclusion]. Now, I think we ought to be able to have a conversation about the issues.” — Rep. Adam Smith ([42:08])

• On campaign finance:

  “I support McCain-Feingold and I think Citizens United was one of the two or three worst Supreme Court decisions ever made. You ought to be able to limit IEs (independent expenditures).” — Rep. Adam Smith ([47:20])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• NDAA, Section 224 & Israel Defense R&D: [03:18]–[08:19]
• Smith’s rationale for NDAA votes & Trump/oversight concerns: [08:50]–[12:50]
• Massie Amendment, blocking Israel aid: [12:56]–[19:06]
• Debate on Palestinian rights, two state/one state: [16:18]–[21:23]
• Constituency pressures & "reckoning" on Israel policy: [05:58]–[07:44]; [26:37]–[27:07]
• Is Israel a Democratic litmus test? [26:37]–[28:13]
• Debate over DSA, open borders, abolish ICE: [29:49]–[35:09]
• On big-money in Democratic primaries, AIPAC, outside spending: [45:00]–[48:42]
• Practical socialism (Zoran Mamdani): [38:14]–[41:40]
• Civility and protest culture: [43:28]
• Party division, big-tent debate: [41:40]–[42:46]

---

Conclusion

This episode offers a vivid glimpse into the Democratic Party’s internal debates—about foreign policy, the relationship with Israel, economic inequality, immigration, and the place of socialism & money in party politics. With Krystal Ball pressing Smith on issues important to the progressive base, and Smith pushing back with both policy and electability concerns, listeners gain a clear outline of the tensions and choices facing Democrats today.

---

Transcript

[Representative Adam Smith]

This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human a burst pipe, a dead water heater, the AC calling it quits. Who do you call? HomeServe is an easy way to handle unexpected home repairs with plans covering stuff basic homeowners insurance usually won't. Instead of scrambling for a contractor, you make one call to get the repair process started. Join the millions of customers who trust HomeServe right now. Go to HomeServe.com podcast for 50% less your first year. That's HomeServe.com podcast podcast savings compared to a renewal price void in Florida.

[Interviewer / Host]

Bite into a stacked sandwich made with herobread and the only thing you'll think is delicious. You won't think it has up to 19 grams protein, 11 to 32 grams of fiber or just 0 to 5 grams net carbs, but it does herobred. No compromises, just loaves, buns, tortillas, bagels and noodles packed with flavor right now. Get 10% off at Hero Co with code iHEART. That's H E R O CO iHEART. All figures per serving of HeroBread. See Nutrition Facts on Hero Co.

[Representative Adam Smith]

When Kohler, global design leader in luxurious kitchen and bath products, asked me to be their ambassador for timeless, elegant, durable cast iron, I said I'm in. Soon after, I was in their Kohler Wisconsin foundry watching molten iron poured, enamel applied by hand and the beautiful finished pieces ready to ship. Since 1883, Kohler cast iron has been

[Interviewer / Host]

crafted by incredible artisans and and seeing

[Representative Adam Smith]

it firsthand gave me a whole new appreciation for their craftsmanship. Now I am proud to lend my

[Interviewer / Host]

stamp of approval to my favorite Kohler

[Representative Adam Smith]

cast iron products for their durability, beauty and enduring style. Shop my curated [e-mail] as the Kohler

[Interviewer / Host]

Cast Iron Ambassador, I say long live Cast Iron.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Hey guys, Sagar and Crystal here.

[Interviewer / Host]

Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show.

[Representative Adam Smith]

This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.

[Interviewer / Host]

So if that is something that's important to you, Please go to BreakingPoints.com, become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows unedited ad free and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

[Representative Adam Smith]

We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see [e-mail]

[Interviewer / Host]

all right guys. We are now joined in studio by Representative Adam Smith. He is a Democrat, he is from Washington. He is the Top Democrat, in fact, on the House Armed Services Committee. And your team actually reached out saying you wanted to have a conversation about the future of the Democratic Party and your ideas therein. So very excited to have that convo.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Welcome, Nick. Good to be on. Thank you for the chance.

[Interviewer / Host]

Of course. So before we get into all of that, you are at the center of a bunch of very impactful votes as the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee. So if you don't mind, I wanted to start by talking to you a little bit about the NDAA. That's the National Defense Authorization Act. Section 224 has been of a lot of interest to our AUD. This is what would effectively partially merge the US military with the Israeli military. You were originally in support of it. You change your position on it. I just wanted to know about your thought process here.

[Representative Adam Smith]

It doesn't merge the US military with the Israeli military. What it does is it talks about co development programs.

[Interviewer / Host]

We can actually put element one up on the screen while it's discussing because it has some of the specifics.

[Representative Adam Smith]

I mean, the Pentagon has a thousand different development programs that they, they're put together for procurement of, I don't know, everything from the F35 to a radio. And when you do that, you develop a program of record and the Pentagon works on it. We have over the course of the last decade had three programs that we co developed with the Israeli military. Around drones. Sorry, not around drones, around missile defense. Well, yeah, counter drones. And so the point of those programs was for the two militaries to work together to develop them. Okay. Now neither controls the other in terms of how they use them. So those were just co development programs. And the section 224, when it came up in the committee said let's have one person overlook all three of those programs and let's explore the possibility of more co development programs.

[Interviewer / Host]

Right. So it says to expand and accelerate bilateral defense technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration and industrial cooperation. That goes on to spell out what all that means.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Right. And it didn't, it didn't create any new program. And by the way, missile defense was the big thing that we had there. And you know, it just. So that was the point of it. And mostly I see this as a benefit to the US military, particularly when you're talking about missile defense. The Israeli military is really good at it. They can help us develop those systems so that we have a better system. I think it's an incredible exaggeration to say that this would merge the US military Because out of thousands, literally thousands of programs, we would have three, four, maybe five or six that we were co developing with the idf.

[Interviewer / Host]

But you've changed your position now. Corrected. So what are your concerns? Because I'll tell you the concerns you know, from me personally, I think shared a lot by our audience is you are well aware there is a reckoning happening with regard to the US relationship with Israel, especially in the Democratic Party. And so what appears from the outside is that while votes are increasingly becoming difficult for Israel to win in, in terms of overt aid being granted, this would be a way to secure the Israel US relationship without having that transparency and that democratic accountability that would come from a vote. So that's the concern is that it would make the Israeli US military relationship more entrenched in a way that lacks any sort of democratic accountability.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Yeah, no, I don't agree with that at all. I mean we're talking about.

[Interviewer / Host]

What are your concerns then?

[Representative Adam Smith]

Oh, sorry, two different questions here. My concern is I don't support the Netanyahu government and I certainly don't support what Ben GVIR and Smotrich are doing. And that's been, I think the real challenge for me is Israel has a right to exist. Israel is threatened profoundly by Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran. So how do we help them defend themselves? Well, at the same time they've got a government that's frankly out of control, particularly in the West Bank. You know, I associate myself with Rahm Emanuel's speech in Tel Aviv last week where he said Netanyahu has decided that he is going to be able to defeat all of his adversaries. So whether you're talking Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, Iran, it's perpetual war all the time. And then with Smotrich and Ben gvir, you've got people who really do want to drive all of the Palestinians out of Gaza and the west bank and they're in the government. Okay. So the basic idea of the program when it was first presented to me, like I said, it's co development programs and like missile defense, something we could definitely learn from Israel on. And it's a program you can decide whether or not do co development programs. And by the way, if we decide in Congress that we don't like that program, we can vote it down. It's not outside of the democratic process. We don't have to vote and approve every single program of record that the Pentagon develops. So I don't agree with that aspect of it. But a couple of constituents in particular reached out to me and explained that. Look at this point, voting for anything that integrates the US and the Israeli government further, given where the Netanyahu government is at, is just a statement we don't want to make right now. And I agreed with that. And that's what caused me to change my mind on that particular issue.

[Interviewer / Host]

So you've said you would vote against that on the House floor.

[Representative Adam Smith]

I would vote to remove it from the bill, yes.

[Interviewer / Host]

So you are ranking member House Armed Services. That makes you one of the four most important people in D.C. in terms of what ends up in the NTAA. And for all you.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Except for the fact that I'm in the minority.

[Interviewer / Host]

You're in the minority, of course.

[Representative Adam Smith]

And I don't control sure what the majority does by any stretch of the imagination.

[Interviewer / Host]

But what I wanted to know is if you would use that position when it comes to conference, which is when the. And this is for our audience, I know obviously you know this. When the Senate version is merged with the House version and indifference or reconcile.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Yes, I will advocate for the removal of that provision.

[Interviewer / Host]

And if it's not removed, will you refuse to sign off on the conference report?

[Representative Adam Smith]

I don't know that I would go that far. It depends on what else is in the bill. I mean, look, the bill itself has the massive problem and it's continuing to fund the war in Iran, which is an utter disaster. So I am probably not going to vote. Well, almost certainly not going to vote for the bill as it comes off the House floor. Now, just in and of itself, regardless of that particular section, just because of that one section, I don't know that I would vote against the entire bill.

[Interviewer / Host]

Well, now is actually the other thing I wanted to ask you about is why are Democrats considering supporting an NDAA at all while Trump is prosecuting a disastrous, illegal, unconstitutional war, which, to your credit, you've been very voc.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Yeah, well, there's a couple of layers to that. First of all, and this is where we get into some of those divisions within the Democratic Party, I believe that we do need to have a Department of Defense. We need to support our troops. We have national security threats that we have to be prepared to deal with.

[Interviewer / Host]

All right, so do people disagree with that?

[Representative Adam Smith]

Well, there are somebody. Look, the Democratic Socialists of America in their platform is defund the Department of Defense. It's in their platform.

[Interviewer / Host]

Haven't the candidates that you're aware of held that position or advocated that position?

[Representative Adam Smith]

I don't.

[Interviewer / Host]

I see lots of people advocate for cutting the Pentagon, which I would agree with. You may agree with as Well, I don't know. I haven't heard anyone advocating for getting rid of it. At least nobody who's elected to office.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Yeah, no, they've. But it's part of the DSA platform. Okay. And also a broader party.

[Interviewer / Host]

I agree with everything. Single word of the Democratic Party platform.

[Representative Adam Smith]

I do not. Okay, okay.

[Interviewer / Host]

Yes, but so should you be held to whatever views are theoretically in some policy position paper, or should we deal with the reality of what your positions are?

[Representative Adam Smith]

Why would they put it in there in the first place? But aside from that particular point, there is the larger question of the role the US Plays in the world. And this is where I do disagree with the dsa. I mean, their general position is that the US Is responsible for most of the conflict in the world. And I've heard these arguments about whether you're talking about Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, that everything they're doing is merely in reaction to us. And I don't agree with that. I think we've done some bad things without any question, but I do think we face threats that we need to be in a position to deter. So I'm not going to say that we shouldn't ever have a National Defense Authorizing Act. The second piece of this that I, and I'm curious, I'm curious what people think about this.

[Interviewer / Host]

Just to pause on that point for one second. The argument I'm making, and I think other people, is not that we should never have a National Defense Authorization act, it's that in this moment, Democrats, as you know, have precious little leverage that they can use. As Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House. Trump is prosecuting what is an illegal war. There was a War Powers resolution that was passed through the House and the Senate. By the way, he is in violation of.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Just to be clear, it's a bigger part of the problem. Even if this war was legal, it would still be a disastrous, stupid, terrible, horrible idea.

[Interviewer / Host]

We 100% agree on that. But it is also illegal. So why not use this moment when they would dearly like Democratic votes?

[Representative Adam Smith]

I'm not disagreeing with you on that at all.

[Interviewer / Host]

So you think that. So you won't support an NDA and you don't think the rest of the Democratic Party.

[Representative Adam Smith]

There will probably be some who will and some who won't. I mean, and again, how do we use that leverage in an effective way? You know, and keep in mind also, the National Defense Authorizing act doesn't actually fund anything. It's not the appropriations bill that's authorizing bill, which is the other point I've been trying to get to. Congress needs to exercise oversight of the Department of Defense. You know, we've got a provision in the bill that would bring back collective bargaining for all DoD employees, which we got put into the bill. We've got a variety of different things that fence Secretary Haig says budgets. If he doesn't, you know, begin to turn over more information, it's us exercising our oversight. If we pull back from that and don't do anything that winds up with the executive branch having all the control and all the authority if we just don't pass anything. So there are some things in this bill that exercise oversight of the Pentagon. We step back from that. Trump just goes and does what he wants to do without any congressional oversight. So that's the balance. Because I think the mistake. When you say leverage, the notion is if we say we won't vote for it, the Republicans will therefore give us this, this, this and this.

[Interviewer / Host]

Well, it'll put some pressure on them.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Yeah.

[Interviewer / Host]

I mean, a lot of this, the Ryan was.

[Representative Adam Smith]

It will, but they may not. But it may not result in that.

[Interviewer / Host]

So, yes, maybe. Worth a try. Iran were already very unpopular. Let me ask you about your vote for the Thomas Massie amendment, which would block aid to Israel. And this is another one where you had told one outlet that you were planning to vote against it, and then you changed your mind and decided to vote for it. You put on a statement saying that you wanted to send a message to Benjamin Netanyahu. I just. I'd love for you. There's actually been a lot of pro Israel folks who've been attacking you, saying you gave in to pressure tactics, etc. I'd love for you to explain your own words, how you came to this place, because I do think your vote and others are quite extraordinary given where consensus within Washington has been on the, you know, relationship with Israel. You had even Nancy Pelosi voting for this amendment yourself. Given your position and your track record, you're someone who's been supported by aipac. Just take us through this sympathy.

[Representative Adam Smith]

This is gonna take a little. This is gonna take a while.

[Interviewer / Host]

That's fine. Take your time.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Okay? Because the real challenge here is what Israel has historically been. Okay? Israel was historically a Democratic state in the middle of no Democratic states. They were a very strong ally of the US we partnered with them on a variety of things, counterterrorism being the biggest thing during the ISIS fight and elsewhere. So you've got that historical relationship and then you've got the reality of what Israel is living in, and that is that they are the. Well, except for Ukraine, they're the only country in the world. Well, they're the only country in the world that from the day they were founded, people have been trying to eliminate them. I mean, there's no other country in the world. Yemen and Saudi Arabia fought, but the Houthis never said that Saudi Arabia didn't have a right to exist. Okay, Very existence wasn't on the line when Israel came into being. From that very moment, they have been attacked constantly. And, yeah, it comes down to a fundamental question. Does Israel have a right to exist? Now, I'll tell you, and this is absolutely. The DSA position is that they don't.

[Interviewer / Host]

Okay, let's pause on that. I want to get to the dsa and I don't want to fight you on all of this, but I want you to get to the point.

[Representative Adam Smith]

I got to get through this. I got to get through this. So, you know, if you have a situation where Israel is threatened on all sides, and I know it's like, well, no, I'm not saying they don't have a right to exist. Just they have to let all the Palestinians back in and then effectively the Jews no longer control Israel. Okay, well, don't.

[Interviewer / Host]

I'm sorry, but don't you like as an idea of equal rights for all ethnicities, something that you in theory support as a Democrat?

[Representative Adam Smith]

Well, sure, but the practical result of this is if you say there should be equal rights within Israel, but if Israel allows they cease to exist as a country.

[Interviewer / Host]

No, they cease to exist as a Jewish ethnostate. That's very different from ceasing to exist as a country. Oh, come on, come on, come on.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.

[Interviewer / Host]

My other question that was why is.

[Representative Adam Smith]

No, no, no.

[Interviewer / Host]

We got to drill down an issue for us Taxpayers.

[Representative Adam Smith]

We got to drill down on that. Okay, okay, all right. They cease to exist as an ethno state. So basically, Jews would live in Palestine and be governed by the Palestinians, by the Arabs. Okay? And maybe that's just what has to happen in the minds of some people. But understand the consequences of it. Understand why Israel was created in the first place so that the Jews would have some place to go. Okay, Right. And to just blithely say, well, yeah, it'll go away and it'll be fine. So that's the point.

[Interviewer / Host]

Well, first of all, you're mischaracterizing my position, but, well, what is your position? Second of all, no, what Is your position. Second of all, you're ignoring that Israel was not created and a land with no people. Land.

[Representative Adam Smith]

No, no, no, it wasn't without a land. I know it wasn't.

[Interviewer / Host]

There were people, there were just placed right.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Very few countries ever were.

[Interviewer / Host]

There is a dispute over land.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Yes.

[Interviewer / Host]

And Israel today, which I think is what you were getting to, is an apartheid ethnostate. That and I don't think you use this language, but that is in the process of committing a genocide. So we can, you know, we can debate the Israel of the past and the various historical interpretations of how we got to this place. But I think you're correct when you say we have to deal with the reality of today. And you know, I would argue that it's not just the Netanyahu government. We can certainly argue that point. But you know, we have Jake Sullivan who just came out and said that he regrets the Biden policy of the bear hug. He thinks they should have done more to restrain Israel. And I'm wondering if you have any regrets because now you're voting in a somewhat different way. You know, both with the NDAA shift in position with the Massey amendment saying, hey, we should blockade. I want to send a message to Netanyahu. At the peak of the, you know, the Gaza onslaught, you had a complete siege. You had entire neighborhoods that were leveled. They created the largest population of child amputees. Do you have any regrets about your votes during that time period?

[Representative Adam Smith]

I don't. Because everyone forgets about October 7th. Everyone forgets about what Hamas and Hezbollah and Ron have done and their desire is to wipe out the state of Israel and all the Jews living there. Is that not. I mean, that's in Hamas charter and Hamas is still extent. They're still doing that. I don't like the way Israel decided to defend themselves. But the solution being proposed is, and this is the consequence of what you're saying is, sorry, you know, we had this IDEA Back in 1948 we were going to give you a state and that way you could protect yourself against all these attacks. Didn't work out. So go back to Europe, go wherever. This just isn't going to work anymore.

[Interviewer / Host]

I think the question is, and I

[Representative Adam Smith]

don't think you understand how difficult that is to just go, yeah, I guess that's fine.

[Interviewer / Host]

Because no, I think the question, and this is not, you know, this is my perspective, but I think this is also what the Democratic Party base in particular and most of the country view at this point is why should our tax dollars given all the things in the world and all the things in our country.

[Representative Adam Smith]

That's why I voted for the masses

[Interviewer / Host]

in much more effective ways.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Exactly.

[Interviewer / Host]

Why should that be going to prop up an ethnostate that is an apartheid state? And I wonder if you agree with that characterization that has been committing, if you don't want to say a genocide, certainly war crimes with that tax money, that's fine.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Yeah, look, no, that's why I voted for the Massey. I don't think we should be sending that money over there. But look, I have concerns about Hamas, about Hezbollah, that people don't seem to share. You know, let's say that this plays out the way you describe. And okay, there is no Jewish ethnostate. And the consequence of that is there is no Jewish state. Basically, you have the Palestinians as they would now be governed that area and that means Hamas would be governing that area. Do you have any problem with that? Do you have any problem with Hamas suddenly becoming a much more powerful entity and having the country, you know, from the river to the sea, if you will, will now be a Hamas run state on the Mediterranean? Are you okay with that?

[Interviewer / Host]

First of all, I'm not convinced that that would be the reality. Well, how would, how would it not be the reality? I don't know how you can get away from how illiberal it is to not support equal rights for people, regardless of if they're Jewish, Arab, Muslim.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Totally, totally with you.

[Interviewer / Host]

Look, and then the other piece is,

[Representative Adam Smith]

but Hamas doesn't support equal rights either.

[Interviewer / Host]

But do you support a two state solution? Is that your idea?

[Representative Adam Smith]

Look, yes.

[Interviewer / Host]

So how do we get there? How do we get there? No, but listen, stop, stop, stop. Hold on, hold on.

[Representative Adam Smith]

I can answer this.

[Interviewer / Host]

How do we get there at a time when you have settlements that have made it.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Stop.

[Interviewer / Host]

Effectively impossible?

[Representative Adam Smith]

There's something I have to explain before

[Interviewer / Host]

settlers make sense in order to create a Palestinian state.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Look, let's go back to what you said. I support a two state solution. I am also aware of the fact that it's probably no longer possible. You didn't let me get that part out.

[Interviewer / Host]

Okay, okay.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Which is really kind of important to this whole conversation. I would agree, and it's very disappointing. I mean, and there's a lot of blame to go around for why we got there. Yes, I would like to see a two state solution. I am not naive as you just described, to know that it's simply not on the table at this point and that creates a massive, massive problem. But the idea, again, that the easy Solution is okay, we get rid of the Jewish ethnostate and the details of how Israel is currently running their country. There are Arabs in the parliament, but there are parts of it that aren't okay, so we get rid of that. Okay, so what's your idea for what replaces that? You say you're not convinced that it'll be a Hamas run thing.

[Interviewer / Host]

Well, I've offered that. Listen, I, but I really honestly think that this is something for Palestinians and Israelis to decide. I don't know why it is the American taxpayers business to fund this, but

[Representative Adam Smith]

again, that's why I voted for the mass humanity.

[Interviewer / Host]

But it makes an idea.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Here's an incredibly.

[Interviewer / Host]

You're saying, you know, you don't support a, you know, there is one state solution. You don't support a two state solution. There is no good solution. That's where you are. That is the reality of where we are now. Good solutions.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Yeah. And I'm open to ideas. But let's understand the history of this. There's a great book called Palestine 1936 that described what was going on there. So you were coming to the end of the British Mandate and you had. The Jews had been coming in since the 19th century. They'd been there a long, long time ago and they were looking for, you know, a place to be. The Palestinians were looking to drive out the British and the Palestinians and the Arabs reached a conclusion in the mid-1930s and said, okay Jews, you can stay but you're not going to run anything. Okay, Jews said, no, we can't stay. So they started a civil war. Okay? And they fought. And then of course 1948, they got the country created, another war was. Started a war. And I know people say, well, this is a war to drive the Palestinians out. It was also a war to eliminate Israel, to basically kill Israel in the crib in 1948. And they fought and they fought and they fought and they fought. And at no point was there ever anything carved out for the Jews. And so the Jews have been fighting an existential fight. And to just.

[Interviewer / Host]

It's so hard for me to. Because I know you consider yourself, I think, liberal. You would describe yourself that way, like in the classical liberal sense.

[Representative Adam Smith]

But there's no liberal option on the table here. That's what I'm telling you.

[Interviewer / Host]

You keep saying but what?

[Representative Adam Smith]

No, but illiberal Jews, illegal Jews, we cannot have illiberal Palestinians are fine.

[Interviewer / Host]

No, but why should.

[Representative Adam Smith]

And I voted for it. It shouldn't. I already answered that question. It shouldn't.

[Interviewer / Host]

Okay, so. And Is that your answer for this particular amendment or will that continue to be your position moving forward?

[Representative Adam Smith]

That's where we're at.

[Interviewer / Host]

So you're done with the US funding Israel? I think working out themselves?

[Representative Adam Smith]

Yeah. I'm not 100% sure. I got to see. I mean, look, if tomorrow there's a peace agreement, okay, and they actually go forward with something where they create a reasonable alternative for the Palestinians in Gaza, if they actually stop what they're doing in the west bank and get to peace in Lebanon, that may change. I don't see that happening, which is why I give you the answer I gave. But again, this notion that somehow there's a liberal option on the table and how could we possibly support the illiberal state of Israel? What's going to come in there? Okay, that's going to be liberal. Now, I'm with you on the taxpayer dollar.

[Interviewer / Host]

You mentioned Rahm Emanuel's speech. You said you associate yourself. If memory serves, he supports banking sanctions on Israel. You know, we sanctioned our time South Africa. You support that?

[Representative Adam Smith]

I am one of the original co sponsors of the. What is it? It's the West Bank Violence Prevention act. Which sanctions Israel for what they're doing in the West Bank. Yes, absolutely. It's wrong. It shouldn't be done. Yes, we should sanction them. And we should specifically sanction Smotrich and Ben gvir, who are advocating so so much of this. Yes.

[Interviewer / Host]

Bite into a stacked sandwich made with Herobread or a fully loaded bagel and the only thing you'll think is delicious. You won't think it's up to 19 grams of protein, but it is. You wouldn't believe it has 11 to 32 grams of fiber, but it does. Herobread makes loaves, buns, tortillas, bagels and noodles packed with taste but without all the net carbs. We're talking 0 to 5 grams net carbs per serving. With Herobred, there are no compromises, just flavor. There's none of the stiff baked goods you'd expect from better for your brands. There's just the soft, fluffy bread you crave, plus small batch drops of indulgent favorites like the popular 2 gram net carb Hero croissant and 3 gram net carb Hero pain au chocolat. And right now, Herobred is offering 10% off your order. Go to Hero Co and use code Iheart at checkout. That's Code Iheartro Co. All figures per serving of Herobred. See nutrition facts on Hero Co. A

[Representative Adam Smith]

burst pipe, a dead water heater, the AC Calling it quits. Who do you call? Homeserve is an easy way to handle unexpected home repairs with plans covering stuff basic homeowners insurance usually won't. Instead of scrambling for a contractor, you make one call to get the repair process started. Join the millions of customers who trust HomeServe right now. Go to HomeServe.com podcast for 50% less your first year. That's HomeServe.com podcast savings compared to renewal price void in Florida some so called SUVs feel more like toys. You need a real vehicle that'll handle real life. A real SUV like the all new 2027 Kia Seltos with its best in class interior room. It'll make the others feel like toys. Check out the new 2027 Kia Seltos X line. It's real world ready Kia movement that inspires limited inventory available comparison based on publicly available data regarding Cargo Room and 2026 entry All Wheel Drive CUVs as of May 2026 entry All Wheel Drive CUV class as defined by Kia segmentation

[Interviewer / Host]

Let's move on to some of these broader disagreements and I guess a good transition into that is how much do you think the question of the relationship with Israel Palestine is serving as a litmus test in Democratic primaries? You know, from my perspective it's been very important because it serves as a proxy for kind of a host of other issues and concerns that the Democratic base has with the Democratic Party at this point. But I'm curious your perspective on how important that has become and the reason why you think it has become an important issue.

[Representative Adam Smith]

It's becoming more important. It's not the most important issue. The most important issue. It's not even close to the most important issue in these primaries. The most important issue that is driving the anti establishment feelings in the primaries is two things. Number one, the belief that we have not effectively fought Trump. Okay, when you look at what really drives these people, yes, Israel's part of it, but it's also going after you were part of the establishment, how come you didn't beat Trump? Now I have a complaint here and that is that a lot of the policies of the DSA and the left, open borders, defund the police, the idea that you can't possibly spend enough government money, identity politics, a lot of those things are what gave Trump his power. And part of the reason those of us in the establishment struggled to beat Donald Trump is we were having to defend policies like open borders. Okay? And Trump walked right into that. All right. So the notion that there is just the establishment that led to Trump losing, I think is a mistake place.

[Interviewer / Host]

Can we pause there for one second? Go ahead, get to your critique.

[Representative Adam Smith]

So, you know, and so, and I certainly. But I also think that the establishment Democratic Party, I mean, the whole Joe Biden thing, nominating, you know, even thinking about nominating Joe Biden because of his age. Well, because he was. He couldn't. I don't care how old he is. He just couldn't speak. Okay. He couldn't communicate clearly.

[Interviewer / Host]

Yeah.

[Representative Adam Smith]

You know, whether that was because he was old or because he couldn't communicate clearly, you know, it had the same effect. And then the second big issue is income inequality. It is absolutely true that whoever has been governing for the last 20 or 30 years hasn't done enough to create opportunities for enough people. Those two issues I think really drove the feeling of, let's try something different. Now. The question is whether or not the DSA agenda of, you know, is, is actually going to achieve either of those objectives. Is that what's going to help us defeat Trump and maga? Is that what is going to build a more broad based economic thing? But this is where I am very sympathetic with the dsa. I'm an economic populist. All right. I think we should rewrite the tax code to actually tax rich people. I've been working with a woman, Ray Madoff, she's a professor up at Boston College who wrote a book about how we built our tax code so that investors don't ever pay taxes. Taxes. Let's change that. Okay. I'm very pro union stock buybacks. Why do we have stock buybacks? They didn't exist prior to 1982.

[Interviewer / Host]

Yep.

[Representative Adam Smith]

So obviously corporations can exist without them on that agenda. I'm there. You know, part of the problem I have with the broader agenda is you can't have free stuff for everybody all the time.

[Interviewer / Host]

A.

[Representative Adam Smith]

And another message that the left gave us in the last 10 years was that deficits and debts don't matter. Are you familiar with modern monetary theory?

[Interviewer / Host]

Of course, yeah.

[Representative Adam Smith]

It's absurd. The idea that we just spend as much money as possible is not a problem. Now. I want to tax people. I want a better social welfare state. But to argue that we could have a better social welfare state because the debt doesn't matter I think undermines the

[Interviewer / Host]

credibility of that argument of the US Dollar and potential risking of the US Dollar as a reserve currency. It's something we have to think more about now. But here's. Let me drill.

[Representative Adam Smith]

That's the understatement in the morning, by the way.

[Interviewer / Host]

But yes, let me drill down a little bit on a few things. Things you've said. So you've argued both from a. Most of your argument against the DSA thus far, I think you could characterize as an electability argument. You think?

[Representative Adam Smith]

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It's bad policy.

[Interviewer / Host]

Okay, so let's.

[Representative Adam Smith]

I don't think having unlimited immigration is sustainable. I don't think getting rid of the criminal justice system is a smart way to govern. It's not just electability.

[Interviewer / Host]

So here's a question I have for you. So back in 2018, you worked together with Pramila Jaya Paul on a bill to abolish ice, which is a key demand.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Yeah, yeah, I worked with her on a. Here's what the bill did. Okay.

[Interviewer / Host]

Well, it's a slogan. We have an article here from the Seattle Times, your local paper. US Reps Pramila Jayapal and Adam Smith aim to abolish ice. Restructure immigration enforcement.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Exactly.

[Interviewer / Host]

You were one of the Democrats, actually, who was in office when you voted for.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Can I tell you what this actually does so we can have an intelligent conversation?

[Interviewer / Host]

Of course, yeah. Well, number one, do you still support this?

[Representative Adam Smith]

Let me tell you what it does,

[Interviewer / Host]

okay, because you still support it.

[Representative Adam Smith]

But that doesn't help anything because. What is this? Can I, Can I. Yeah, of course.

[Interviewer / Host]

At first. Do you still support. And you can explain more in detail what it is.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Let me tell you what it is.

[Interviewer / Host]

Okay.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Okay.

[Interviewer / Host]

Yes.

[Representative Adam Smith]

When we created the Department of Homeland Security, we took immigration enforcement away from the Justice Department and we put it into DHS and created ice.

[Interviewer / Host]

Correct.

[Representative Adam Smith]

What this does is it puts immigration enforcement back at the Justice Department and

[Interviewer / Host]

gets rid of ice. Right.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Well, it gets rid of.

[Interviewer / Host]

Yeah, no, but that's my position too. But here's we're on the same page here.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Yes, but it doesn't get rid of immigration enforcement.

[Interviewer / Host]

Okay. So.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Ok, so hold on, let me hold

[Interviewer / Host]

you to account again. Tell me which candidates specifically not a policy paper that there theoretically says which candidates have said we should get rid of all immigration.

[Representative Adam Smith]

I forget the name. That the woman who beat Andrew Espalot. Absolutely.

[Interviewer / Host]

Dari Lisa said it. Chevalier.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Yeah.

[Interviewer / Host]

So you have one candidate who said that. Do you think that. Do you think that her views should be associated with everyone under the DSA label or do you think that each should be evaluated individually?

[Representative Adam Smith]

Many, many conversations with many, many immigration advocates and I always ask them and look, I'm in favor of a robust immigration system. I think what immigration Enforcement is doing right now is an absolute crime. Okay. And it should be limited. And I think we should go back to the Justice Department. That's what I said.

[Interviewer / Host]

And you still support the bill to put forward? Absolutely. So you support abolishing ice?

[Representative Adam Smith]

Abolishing ICE is just a rhetorical.

[Interviewer / Host]

Yes. You don't like the label, but you support it.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Right, but the problem is it means different things to different people. Different. Okay. If you're talking about. No, let's go back to a Justice Department enforcement mechanism, that's fine. But there are a lot more people who support eliminating enforcement. And let me tell you the question I always.

[Interviewer / Host]

You giving me one.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Let me tell you the question I always ask and the answer I always get from dozens of different immigration advocacy groups. I said, look, in order for this work, you have to be able to tell me who would you deport and who wouldn't you let into the country? And they literally never answer that.

[Interviewer / Host]

Are they in Congress?

[Representative Adam Smith]

They are advocacy groups.

[Interviewer / Host]

I mean, here's my other question for you, is, you know, you want to take the most extreme positions that you can find in the DSA platform or that.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Let me ask you this.

[Interviewer / Host]

Let me finish my question, please. Sure. That one candidate, Darieliza Chevalier, who I agree, has positions that I think can legitimately be characterized as radical. Right. You want to take those positions and you want to tar an entire group of candidates with them.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Well, let me ask you this.

[Interviewer / Host]

Aren't you. Hold on. Aren't you effectively doing the work of the Republicans there?

[Representative Adam Smith]

Yes, that's always the case.

[Interviewer / Host]

They're all so crazy. I don't want any.

[Representative Adam Smith]

I'm not.

[Interviewer / Host]

They don't want any borders.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Let me consolidate for you. You've done your thing. Let me do my thing.

[Interviewer / Host]

They could easily characterize your abolished. Ish position as just as crazy and radical as Daria Eliza.

[Representative Adam Smith]

But my abolished. I can't because the Justice Department's going in force. Let me ask you this. Joe Biden, his policy, okay. So not just one person in a platform, whatever. Do you think his policy was too lax in terms of border security?

[Interviewer / Host]

I don't, but I acknowledge that politically, that helped fuel the rise of the return of Donald Trump. So let me say now, that is something that's. But hold on a second. Which wing of the Democratic Party does Joe Biden come from? He doesn't come from the DSA left, does he? He comes from the establishment. And so to go back to one

[Representative Adam Smith]

of the original, wherever he comes from, how did he govern?

[Interviewer / Host]

Well, he funded a genocide. So he governed in a lot of right wing ways. But to go back to your original point about electability, I think it's very hard.

[Representative Adam Smith]

I never made a point about electability.

[Interviewer / Host]

You said that you thought that these positions, if you listen to your original answer, you said you thought these positions, the dsa, were part of what brought Donald Trump.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Fair enough, fair enough.

[Interviewer / Host]

Fair enough.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Yes. But there's also policy concerns.

[Interviewer / Host]

Okay, but on the electability point, how can you argue that your camp within the Democratic Party has a lot of credence when it comes to electability? When I argue the exact opposite.

[Representative Adam Smith]

I argued the exact opposite. I'm with you.

[Interviewer / Host]

When Hillary Clinton loses to Trump, Biden wins by adopting some left wing views, then loses to Trump. It was the establishment that propped him up, that forced war, sort of a primary. So how could it be the fault of the left that we're losing?

[Representative Adam Smith]

There's three things, Okay. I always say that the fall of the Democratic Party is a tragedy in three acts.

[Interviewer / Host]

Okay.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Number one, we didn't do enough on the economic issues. And I think that Obama and Clinton get way too much of the blame for that. I think they really tried to get after broader economic issues, certainly the Affordable Care Act, a whole lot of other provisions that were put in there, but we didn't do enough on economic inequality. Number two, the left came along and took some positions that weakened us. I'm not blaming one group. Everyone's like, well, you're blaming us. What about them? It's like there can be collective responsibility here, okay? It's not an either or choice. Yes. We didn't do enough in economics. And then some of the positions of the left and there were a lot of people running around. And when people say abolish ice, do they mean abolish enforcement or do they mean change enforcement? Okay. And that's where you get into that difficult issue. We've had criminal justice problems. You know, the defund the police movement did not help us in any way. And it was a thing. And everyone said, oh, no, we never did that. Okay. And then three, Joe Biden. Yeah, those three things are what led to us and you. And every time. And I want to bring them all in, but people say, well, if you blame the left, you're just being a Republican. Well, can't we learn as we go?

[Interviewer / Host]

Well, my problem is not with your. I have my own critiques of the left. Right. I think that not to. I actually think the identity politics thing came out of the Hillary Clinton campaign and was a way for the establishment to Beat back the rise of the Bernie Sanders left. No doubt the left embraced it. I have been a critic of, quote, unquote, woke. Although I hate the word at this point, I don't. Politics. That's my, you know, my position. I'm a class versus leftist. So I have my own critiques here. I'm not saying you can't. I'm saying when you caricature an entire wing of the party at this point,

[Representative Adam Smith]

aren't you caricature the entire wing of the centrist in saying that?

[Interviewer / Host]

No, because I'm not caricature. I'm not trying to say you have the same views as John Fetterman. I don't think that you do, or Josh Gottheimer for that matter.

[Representative Adam Smith]

And I'm not saying they all have the same views.

[Interviewer / Host]

You are trying to take the views of, let's say, Daria and the DSA platform and saying this is what the entire.

[Representative Adam Smith]

I'm not, I'm just, I'm just saying it's an issue and it's a challenge.

[Interviewer / Host]

Let me get you to. So I think the most prominent example of socialist governance in the US Right now is Zoran Mamdani in New York City. He got asked a question that's very relevant to this conversation about, you know, what about people who are concerned about socialism or concerned about democratic socialism. Let me get you to respond to what he had to say. This is E2.

[Representative Adam Smith]

For all of the fear mongering around democratic socialism, the best response is to show what it actually means. And what we've shown over the last six months is exactly that. We've shown that a city with a democratic socialist vision is one that paves more than 170,000 potholes, 50,000 more than the prior administration by this point. It's a city that has delivered the lowest recorded number of shootings and shooting victims and murders in New York City's history. It is a city that is on a pathway to universal childcare, saving thousands of parents more than $20,000 a year. And it's a city that is doing all of these things while fighting for the people who are often left behind. Workers who we've secured more than $10 million for tenants more than $64 million. These are all indicators of what is so scary to a right wing that has built its entire power and framework on the idea of debating who should be left behind.

[Interviewer / Host]

So is Zoran's version of socialism a version that you could get on board since he's really focused on the affordability pieces that you Have I am encouraged

[Representative Adam Smith]

by what he's doing. And I think that form of trying to get things done, that's the other problem is so much of the left, and certainly we experience this in Seattle, you know, became an academic exercise. They were spending all day long talking about, you know, the history of racism as opposed to going out in the community and saying, these are people who have been discriminated against. Let's get them access to capital so they can start businesses. Let's get them access to capital so they can get homes. Let's do a job, you know, let's do workforce development so they can get jobs. It became an academic exercise about the history of the US and about are we just irreversibly bigoted, racist? And that's all interesting. What are we doing to govern effectively? And actually everything that Mamdani said right there, I'm encouraged. If you govern and focus on getting things done. So called sewer socialism from back in the day when you had mayors who were socialists because they were going to go out and work. That's great as an academic exercise where you want to explain to me the history of oppression. When you say things to me like, well, that person can make that argument because of the power dynamic. And we operate in this weird intellectual world that's got nothing to do with practical problem solving and logic. Okay, that's where I have a problem. Michelle Wu up in Boston, also on the left, governing really well. There are other folks who haven't governed so well because they got trapped in this sort of ideological thing where the whole focus was on oppressed and oppression as opposed to actually governing. Well. So yes, I am encouraged by what I've seen in the last, what are we now, six, seven months in Mandani's term? I'm a working class, blue collar kid. I'm in favor of economic populism. And if socialism can work on that level now, I think you also have to recognize that private industry has to be part of it. Okay? We have to have businesses that grow. But yeah, I heard someone, I was up in New York a month or so ago and someone said, you know, the problem is we took the guardrails off capitalism. And over the course of the last 50 years, that's what we did, we took the guardrails off capitalism. So let's put those guardrails back on. And if you want to call it socialism, whatever you want to call it, I don't care, but let's govern more effectively.

[Interviewer / Host]

So let me ask you then Josh gottheimer said if you're a socialist, you're not a Democrat. It sounds like you don't agree with that.

[Representative Adam Smith]

No, I mean, but again, the problem with this, and it's the whole abolish ICE thing, you throw a term out that means 15 different things to 15 different people, and then you're like, do you support this? It's like, well, which One of the 15 versions are you talking about?

[Interviewer / Host]

I'm not asking you to support it. But he and others have said, basically, we don't want these people in the party. We don't want to share the tent with them. It doesn't sound like you're in that place.

[Representative Adam Smith]

I am not. Now, I think we ought to be able to have a conversation about the issues. I was sick to death. And. And you did it to me again when I was trying to say, hey, look, on immigration, we need to show that we are in favor of enforcement. Well, you're just giving me Republican talking points.

[Interviewer / Host]

I didn't say that.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Yeah.

[Interviewer / Host]

No, no, no, no, no. You said something about me like sounding like a Republican. No, no, no. What I said, why can't we have

[Representative Adam Smith]

a conversation about it?

[Interviewer / Host]

What I said is that when you take the most radical position of one person or from a policy platform and you paint with a broad brush, you're handing Republicans a talking, oh, this is what the people are. And she did say the Republican. What I'm saying is that you could easily be put into that camp.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Sure.

[Interviewer / Host]

Given some of your positions that you continue to hold. For example. Fair enough.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Yeah.

[Interviewer / Host]

Whether you want to call it dismantling ICE or reorganizing ICE under a different agency or whatever you want to call it, you support getting rid of ice.

[Representative Adam Smith]

It's not actually a joke. It's how are you going to enforce it? What sort of enforcement are you going to do? And going back to the Justice Department makes sense to me. And, you know, ICE would no longer exist, but you'd still have immigration enforcement. But this is the biggest.

[Interviewer / Host]

Could you. Actually, I am curious your view, because the counter to that would be, well, if you're just gonna do enforcement any, why not just keep ICE and reform ice? Right. There's a, you know, some group of people would say, oh, it's too radical to get rid of ice. We need to just reform it, vet better, etc. Why do you think that it needs to be taken apart? Cause obviously, I agree with that.

[Representative Adam Smith]

What Trump has done with it, I think just puts it in a category. And I don't know. I mean, theoretically, within the department of homeland security. I suppose you could have immigration enforcement. That made sense. But I think at this point we need a clean break. And look, the biggest thing that I want in all of this is the ability to have a conversation. All right. And this is where this is my biggest problem with the left. I have been unable to hold a town hall meeting for a year because a bunch of leftists show up and scream at me and don't let anyone else speak. We had a hearing in the University of Washington on whether or not to divest from Israel after all the protests. We're going to have a hearing. So the first three people got up and testified in favor of divesting. Fourth person got up and testified against divesting. Two sentences in shouted down, screamed at, wouldn't stop the meeting. The meeting. You talk about illiberal. Ok, having people stand out in front of my house screaming death threats at me and threatening my wife. Okay. And the left, oh well of course we don't support. We're peace activists. We would never do something like that. Okay, how about you just say no, they did it, it's wrong, we're against it. We are going to be liberal, we're going to stand up for stuff. I think that whole thing has created a major problem as well. And that's what I try to have these conversations and people wow, you're just a Trump support. We have to be able to have an intellectual discussion. I guess I'll positive thing I think Mamdani has done that I don't agree with that he's doing but he's having legitimate thoughtful conversations instead of screaming matches over who can threaten the loudest.

[Interviewer / Host]

Let me just last question cuz I know you have a briefing that you need to get to as a result of your vote on the Massie amendment which would block aid to Israel. AIPAC said basically we're done with this guy pulled your name off their fundraising website. You're a person who, you know you are in a very important position for them. Ranking member. They've given you a lot of money in the past. Have you spoken to them about that decision?

[Representative Adam Smith]

Yes.

[Interviewer / Host]

And would you in the future do you want their money back? Because I know Pat Ryan was in a similar situation. He said I'm done with them, I don't want their money. You know, I think, I don't think that we should.

[Representative Adam Smith]

This is another thing that I've ever bought into.

[Interviewer / Host]

Well I'm not my question. He said effectively I don't think we should be in league with this right wing Foreign government and an organization that supports it. Do you share that view or you would be open to taking their money again?

[Representative Adam Smith]

I'd be open. I mean, I. Given my position, I don't think that's going to happen. It's always been my position. I vote, take positions and people decide whether or not to donate. And that's another thing that I don't think the left should take no money from corporations. Corporations are evil. They're awful, they're terrible. I don't think that's in keeping with how the country's going to run. We need businesses and look, I've had many donors.

[Interviewer / Host]

I mean, AIPAC's not a business, but.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Well, no, but it goes beyond aipac. We're not supposed to take any money from any people. How can you put. And I think that position divides us and not necessarily as far as AIPAC is concerned. You understand that they count anyone who's ever donated to aipac. I have a lot of friends that supporters going back decades who give money to AIPAC and give money to me. Okay, I'm not going to.

[Interviewer / Host]

You have taken AIPAC contribution. That's not in this character's issue.

[Representative Adam Smith]

No, no, no, no. Absolutely, absolutely. But the whole broad thing of, you know, I it.

[Interviewer / Host]

Well, they make it in fairness because I think it's very difficult thing to track. They intentionally, you know, they create puff and they try to hide some of this money now that it's become a toxic name. But final real last question for you. Abdul El Sayed, running in Michigan against Representative Haley Stevens. APAC and affiliated groups have spent $30 million in that race to support Haley Stevens. You're someone who can. Is concerned about democracy. I mean, do you see that as a crisis for democracy when you have tens of millions of dollars of outside money, whether it's a big pharma or whoever coming in and backing one candidate. Is that something that should band Democratic primaries?

[Representative Adam Smith]

I support McCain, Feingold and I think Citizens United was one of the two or three worst Supreme Court decisions ever made. You ought to be able to limit ies. And I don't care if it's coming from business, if it's coming from aipac, if it's coming from labor, if it's coming because left groups have big ies too. I mean, everyone acts like they don't have any money. I remember the.

[Interviewer / Host]

It's no competition for what's coming in on the other side. But just to put a fine point on it, the Democratic Party could itself. You know, it's hard to change The Constitution and the Supreme Court, et cetera. Democratic Party itself could ban that type of spending.

[Representative Adam Smith]

No, they can't.

[Interviewer / Host]

In primaries they can. Of course they can. No, the whole DNC can set their own rules for how their own primaries are run.

[Representative Adam Smith]

They can't block an island.

[Interviewer / Host]

Yes, they can.

[Representative Adam Smith]

No, they can't. What are you talking about?

[Interviewer / Host]

They can set their own rules for what type of money can be spent in these campaigns. Is that something you would support?

[Representative Adam Smith]

I would, but.

[Interviewer / Host]

You would support it, but you don't believe that it's possible?

[Representative Adam Smith]

No. The ies are independent. They can do what they want to do. The Democratic Party can't come. You think the Democratic Party could just come in and tell AIPAC not to spend money?

[Interviewer / Host]

Yeah, I think they could run their own primaries the way they want to run their primaries and set the rules for that? They absolutely could. That's something that was part of the debate for the last DNC chair.

[Representative Adam Smith]

I'll have to look into it.

[Interviewer / Host]

Take a look at it. But you would, in theory, you would support it?

[Representative Adam Smith]

I would support anything that bans ies. But ies are by their.

[Interviewer / Host]

And you think it's a problem for democracy where the money is coming from?

[Representative Adam Smith]

Yeah.

[Interviewer / Host]

Okay.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Absolutely.

[Interviewer / Host]

Congressman, spirited exchange. I appreciate it, genuinely. Thank you for coming in.

[Representative Adam Smith]

Happy to do it.

[Interviewer / Host]

All episodes of Desperate Housewives are now streaming on Hulu and Hulu on Disney. Every show you love about scandalous women with secrets, Desperate Housewives is the blueprint. Before suburban drama became an obsession, there was Wisteria Lane, the original, the iconic, the housewives that started it all. Stream every episode of Desperate Housewives on Hulu and Hulu on Disney for bundle subscribers. Terms apply.

[Representative Adam Smith]

It's called soccer. It's called football. Soccer. Football. Domino's best deal ever lets you get any pizza, including stuffed crust with any toppings, for $9.99. Okay, we can agree on that. Yeah, fully. So. Pineapple. Don't ruin it. Get any pizza, including stuffed crust, with any toppings, for 9.99. Finally, something everyone can get behind. And if the refs disagree, that's between them and Domino's. Which means the only thing left to fight over is who's ordering. Dom Mano. Price is higher for some locations. Excludes XL and specialty pizzas. Select this offer from 615 to 726 on size. Availability varies by crust tank max, 7 toppings, 6 for pan and New York style crust. Minimum purchase required for delivery. Prices, participation, delivery area and charges may vary. Whether it's help with hormone therapy, weight management, or sexual health. Every woman should have access to affordable prescription medication and personalized care that understands the whole woman. Join me Dr. Doug Lucas, clinical lead of Hormone Optimization and longevity at LifeMD, along with other leading experts on the podcast. Here's something good on women's health and longevity. To learn more, go to lifemd.com iheart

[Interviewer / Host]

this is an iheart podcast. Guaranteed human.