B (7:26)

I'm doing good, man. Having a, having a good time.

A (7:29)

All right, good. Well, first time for you running for federal office, I'm sure that's an interesting adjustment. Talking about sort of a bit of a different set of powers and issues we'll get into in a second. But you didn't get to hear my Intro here. But I talked a little bit about, you know, the neighborhoods of the district and it crosses two boroughs and some of the demographics. But how do you talk about the district, describe the 7th congressional district to people who might be unfamiliar with its contours and its. And its people and its neighborhoods. How do you talk about the 7th congressional district and what it is and what's important to it?

B (8:05)

Yeah, so New York 7 is a very interesting district. I think the best way to really center it is. Nydia Velasquez is the current rep of the district. And just understanding where she came from in fighting for this district to be a majority minority district, mostly focused on Latinos, is how I guess we could center it. But just talking on a neighborhood by neighborhood site. Williamsburg, Bushwick, East New York, Cypress Hills, city line, and then in the Brooklyn side, Sunnyside, Lic, Astoria, Glendale, Maspeth, Ridgewood. I'm pretty sure there's more neighborhoods that I probably missed there. But these are locations where many Latino immigrants settled, where gentrification is hit significantly in the waterfront portions of the district. So it's a. It's a district that is skewed, is super progressive, is what I want to call it. Very young district, diverse. And I think it's the progressive qualifier of the city of New York. And I think Nydia became the progressive qualifier and the district followed suit.

A (9:25)

Say a little bit about how you're thinking about representing the different sort of constituencies within the district and the different concerns that you're hearing. You as you got at there's. This is a district with a lot of, you know, like, like so many in New York. It's a district with a lot of longtime residents, but a whole lot of recent, you know, newcomer in recent years. And that includes immigrants from all over the world, but also people moving to New York City from other parts of the country, heavily rentered district, you know, a lot of, as you said, younger people, you know, moving into the district to start making it in New York City, so to speak, as people have been doing for centuries. But say a little bit about sort of some of the different constituencies in the district and the needs and concerns of people that you're hearing from as you have started to run this campaign.

B (10:16)

Yeah, well, I think the affordability being censored around what people are thinking about right now is important. And what I think is a general consensus or common denominator across the district, no matter if you're here five days or you're here 50 years. What I would say is that in our Mayor Mamdani and in the conversations or what Governor Kathy Hochworth are talking about, it seems like affordability has been front and center in their agenda, which I think is important to know. While we talk about what's happening at the federal government, which I think is where most of the ills and pressure and nonsense is coming from. In our district, we have a mayor and a governor that for the most part are looking out to figure or trying to figure out a way to help working class people. And the federal government is getting in our way every step of the way. Also, this district in this city is an immigrant centered or immigrant centric city. And again, ICE terrorizing our communities is something that this district specifically is not happy about and wants to fight against. So the two central issues right now are affordability and ice. And in the affordability, obviously, housing comes down as something that's important. The federal government can play a huge role in being able to help us make New York City more affordable. So, again, the common denominators, whether you got here five days ago or been here for 50 years, is affordable housing, affordability for child care and things that are expensive energy costs. And also just pushing back against the nonsense and the rhetoric of the Trump administration when they talk about immigrants and pushing ICE into our streets and terrorizing our communities.

A (12:12)

Let's come back to immigration enforcement in just one second. But on the affordability issue, what are a couple of federal levers that you'd be looking to pull if you were a member of Congress to make things more affordable in New York City? Are there very specific areas that you'd be looking to change policy or change funding formulas or increase tax credits or whatever it might be to increase affordability in New York City?

B (12:36)

Yeah, I think one. One thing about my campaign that I think is going to be very obvious eventually to folks is that my experiences are what led me to want to run. But my experiences speak to what I'm fighting for. I was a kid that was raised in Section 8 housing in this district, and government really showed up for me in a real way. And I want to make sure that we could pay that forward. But right now, we're seeing Section 8 frozen at the federal level and not expanding opportunities to access that subsidy that could lead to housing for a significant amount of people. The Fair Cloth Amendment right now at the federal level stopped the federal government from being able to build housing in the 1990s. So since then, it hasn't been a major player in helping us solve for this crisis. We had a crisis after the Great Depression, that allowed us to build a ton of housing and really solve for a problem that we had at hand. And we have the same problem right now. And the federal government is right now putting fighting with one hand behind its back by not being able to build new NYCHA developments, for example. So right now, if and when we get to Congress, we're going to make sure we focus on expanding section 8, making sure we support NYCHA through repairs and maintenance, but also, you know, removing the Faircloth amendment and ensuring that we could build more NYCHA style development housing in the City of New York.

A (14:06)

Now, I'm sure a lot of people listening hear you say that and go, wait a second, NYCHA's falling apart. Now obviously you're saying you want to bring in resources from the federal government to help NYCHA with current needs, but how would you think about setting up a situation where more public housing could be built in New York City and not have it, you know, deteriorating in, in a couple of, you know, in a few decades? Because there, there isn't the help that it needs? Are there different ways to be, you know, establishing public housing that can make sure it's on better financial footing for the long haul?

B (14:42)

Yeah. So Ben, I want to change this, this narrative about nycha. NYCHA is the most successful affordable housing program in the history of this country and it saved many lives and stabilized our city when it was introduced. What we have thereafter, it's a bunch of elected officials that decided that it was more important to get political wins than it was to maintain these properties and maintain this housing. We have elected officials like Cuomo who took money away from NYCHA to give to the mta, for example, for a prep project on airport project, for example. It's just like what we need to do is once we build the housing, have a foundational or substantive like lockbox maintenance budget so that we can take care of the building as we go on. Like that's the idea, is that we build housing and have a maintenance and operational budget that is real and that can help us sustain dignified housing long term. It was there for nycha and as years went on and new governors and new mayors, they kept trying to, they kept picking away at this budget to the point where we weren't able to catch up or maintain the housing that exists right now. But the model existed, it was working, and we just need to be able to not allow for elected officials to touch this money that is there specifically to, to maintain these housing.

A (16:09)

Does that not include more federal funding, support for nycha or is that sort of a given in the background of what you're saying?

B (16:16)

Yeah, exactly. It is a given in the background.

A (16:19)

So on the current state of nycha, since we're talking about it, you've really carved out a voice in recent years that we've talked about on this podcast and you've talked about many places being more of a pro housing leader, especially in the progressive movement. And a lot of other progressives have come along with you during that time of seeing more housing as a real solution to help fight the increase in rents and displacement that we've seen. Do you see? Are you on board with this idea that more infill development in NYCHA that might be mixed use? I mean, I'm sorry, mixed income housing on NYCHA land that could also then have a benefit to bring in capital funding for existing NYCHA units. Is that a solution in your mind? That is something that should be really pursued and accelerated by a combination of the Mamdani administration, perhaps with state and federal help.

B (17:16)

Yeah, I think that the cities, the NYCHA trust that was recently enacted at the state level is the best answer to help us solve and close the gap on the billions of dollars of disrepair that exists right in its capital budget. So I think that's the best way that the infill is something that we can talk about, but it takes away from it's a scarcity mindset. The city of New York has countless neighborhoods that have done absolutely nothing when it comes to building housing and building affordable housing. And what we do is we keep going after industrial property, we keep trying to build more housing in already dense neighborhoods or dense areas that like NYCHA developments and just I think it's a very narrow minded way of thinking about where and how we can build in this city. The infill conversation made sense when it was the only way we could possibly pay for repairs. But now that we know the trust exists and it's a model that can help us get there, I think we should be focusing on making sure there are the places that are traditionally like white affluent neighborhoods that they start building the housing and contributing to the greater good that can get us out of this hole. So that's why I'm a pro supply person. Williamsburg, Bushwick, East New York. They've built tens of thousands of housing of housing units over the last 10 years. But if you go south of Empire Boulevard, it pales in comparison to numbers. So like we just need to have a conversation of building more everywhere, right?

A (18:50)

Yeah, I mean you and I have talked about this and you've. You've stressed exactly what you just said, that you want to see, you know, more growth and more density in places that have been opposed to building. And obviously the rewriting of the city zoning under city of yes, you were, you know, vocal that it didn't go quite far enough in your view, but it's a significant step on adding more housing all over the city. I'm a little surprised. I mean, you got it at sort of the end there, but I'm a little surprised that you wouldn't be more supportive of NYCHA infill along with those other solutions and, you know, sort of an all of the above approach.

B (19:20)

Now, this has been like. I want to be honest that it. I think it's. And I'm not saying you're obviously asking a question, so I want to make sure you don't feel like I'm calling you this, but I think it's a lazy approach to how we. We build housing. I think it's. It's easy to build in black and brown poor neighborhoods. It's easy to build in and around nycha. It's easy to stack poor people on top of poor people on top of poor people and keep folks away from what we call high opportunity areas. The best place to raise a child is in Park Slope and Carroll Gardens. Those are the places where they have the best schools, the best transit, the best parks, the best healthcare. Why not build in those areas and allow for those opportunities for those. Those young people and new families to be in a place that has maximum opportunity. Instead, we pile them up in neighborhoods that are already struggling with resources, whose schools need more help. So what I want to do is, yes, I'm open to having that conversation, but right now, it's the only conversation we ever have. So I think at some point we have to see if other neighborhoods and other places, especially high opportunity areas, can contribute to the greater good here and then have a conversation about asking these poor black and brown neighborhoods to do more.

A (20:29)

Well, as I got it with the city of yes, you know, change to the zoning and then also the. The charter changes that were approved by voters. Some of that seems to be on the way. So we'll see how it all shakes out here as those, you know, those. Those new tools start to be used and there's, you know, fast tracking of housing in areas that haven't been built, building housing that's now going to come into play. So somewhere you're talking about seems to be moving a bit. But we'll see if we'll see how it all actually gets implemented. Let me come back to your other top issue that you mentioned on immigration enforcement and ice. You favor abolishing ice. That's become especially given how federal enforcement has been going in places like Minneapolis and many other places in the country, and some in New York City become sort of the broad Democratic position is either significantly reform ICE or abolish it as an entity. But say a little bit about how Democrats in Congress, again in the minority right now in the House and the Senate, but how Democrats are doing on this and how you would, you know, push if you were there, if you were in the minority, how do you, you know, think Democrats should be getting more done or using their voices differently, or are they doing a pretty good job right now, but since they're out of power, there's only so much they can do?

B (21:47)

Yeah. I think the movement we're finally seeing congressionally on ICE is a direct response to the actions we're seeing on the streets. I think people organizing is what's motivating Congresspeople now to talk about abolish ICE and making it. We've we've turned it into a mainstream fight. And for a long time, abolishing ICE was something that was radical and something we really didn't discuss. And I think it's the work of the people that have made it so that it's a topic or something that we can discuss in earnest, as opposed to before, where it was something that it's a lot of talk but something we would never see. So I just want to say, traditionally, when radical things happen, it's always because the people have shown up, and that's what's happening now. So the role of Congress as the purse, I guess, of the federal government is deeply important, and we got to hold the line. We've had these conversations as a council member, for example, when I was in the city council, we made sure that we kicked ICE out of Rikers and we weren't having these conversations with ice. And that was long before it was popular. We did it under a Democratic president in Barack Obama, and the city council was right. They would say, I guess its history has vindicated it, and if it didn't. So I just think that it's an example of how we've been able to fight and already do this work that we're talking about from the city council to the federal government, but also in making sure that when we are discussing the budget at the federal level, that we get these moderate Democrats That I think are the ones that are making more damage or hurting the Democratic Party than anyone. But having them feel what's happening on the ground, and I wish they would be able to do that long before polls come out and reaffirm what we're saying and validate what we're saying and would have a pulse in the community. But we need elected officials, progressive elected officials that are willing to fight within the party to move this conversation to the left and actually abolish ice. So again, we've. I've done it. When we were able to remove Rikers ICE from Rikers, I voted against the budget of the city council twice before. It was cool then, specifically because I thought that the city council and the city was increasing the police budget while decreasing the budget for education, for child care, for after school programming. And it's not something that I would accept. And that, and I did that during a de Blasio and Melissa Mark where they were both allies of mine and I was willing to vote against that budget to send a message that I need them to move to a different direction. It's the same type of work that I would be doing when I become congressman.

A (24:51)

Are Democrats in Congress right now doing enough? Is the leadership, I mean, the leadership in Congress for Democrats are both from Brooklyn, like you, Hakeem Jeffries in the House, Chuck Schumer in the Senate. Are they doing enough to put up a fight? Are they doing enough to use the leverage they have right now?

B (25:07)

I don't think so. Let's be perfectly honest. I think that what we're seeing is like a crisis level action by the Republicans and Donald Trump. And we don't have a crisis level response coming from the Democrats. I do think we have a crisis level response coming from the people on the ground. It's why you're seeing hundreds of thousands of people in the streets fighting against ICE and pushing back against Donald Trump. But we're not meeting that energy wholeheartedly and fully. So I do think they could do more. We're seeing little things, though. For the Senate to be able to negotiate a separation of the DHS budget alongside the primary budget is an example of Chuck seeing that we need to discuss ICE in a different way. Does it mean we get what we want? I don't know. We're not there yet. But I'm hoping that they see the moment and don't fold and do the bare minimum is something that I'm expecting.

A (26:01)

But we've already bare minimum requiring certain reforms at ice.

B (26:05)

Yes, anything that's not the beginning of the abolishment of ICE is not meeting the moment. The cameras are not it. Extra training is not it? This. That's not what we're talking about. ICE is a. Like, right now, it's terrorizing our streets, especially in New York City where immigrants are deep and important. Part of what makes us amazing. And anything that the leadership is doing that doesn't lead to the process of abolishing ice, I think would be a huge failure.

A (26:39)

So in your view, the Senate really has the leverage here, the Democrats in the Senate, because some are needed, typically to advance things to get to 60 votes, where in the House it's just a bare majority that Republicans have. In your view, Senate Democrats, led by Senator Schumer need to insist on some agreement that includes some kind of initial steps on a pathway towards abolishing ICE that needs to be part of this fund of some kind of funding deal.

B (27:09)

I agree 100%. Yes. And I know it sounds. It sounds, it's part of how the Democrats show that we still have some level of power and opposed to the people. The Republicans have stalled the budget and have pushed back against Republican Democrats when we were in power from things that are much less impactful and important than this. But this is more important and more impactful to the people in these cities. So they need to meet the moment. And yeah, then Chuck has to do that. And, and I hope he. He's listening and he's seeing it, but he has to do that.

A (27:45)

Now. A lot of Democrats will say, you know, I want to abolish ice. There still needs to be some immigration enforcement. You know, we do still need to have some level of removing people from the country. You know, it might be based on things like even, you know, New York City's sanctuary city laws where people convicted of a certain number of serious crimes, if they're, you know, eligible for deportion, deportation, they have those orders that once they are convicted, they can be removed. How do you sort of explain that to people who might hear abolish ice and they're worried that you believe in no immigration enforcement. How do you, you know, what's your sort of response on that other side of the equation?

B (28:26)

We have a process about millions, millions

A (28:29)

of

B (28:32)

immigrants that are in this country that have been convicted of crimes get deported every single year. Long before we used ICE as a military terrorizing force in these communities, it was already happening. It happened under Barack Obama. It happened under Joe Biden. Millions every single year were being deported because that is the process in New York City. If you are an immigrant and you commit a crime, you will be you. There is a relationship then in which the federal government will get a hold of you and be able to make a decision on whether or not you can stay in this country that already exists. ICE was, I thought, a very cynical and unthoughtful way of trying to bring. Bring forth a scalpel to be able to find the criminals that were harder to get to, that weren't in the process in some way figured out a way to move through the machinations where they're not a part of the judicial system. Instead, we're going after people that are in court, for example, going through the process that we've asked them to go through, and they're being taken by ice. And that's the problem. We turned ICE from a very niche small agency that shouldn't exist, but a very small agency that are very particular work that they needed to do and just turned them into this mass military force that is causing havoc on our country. So we already had a system by which we can remove criminals from this country. ICE is unnecessary to make that happen. It's not this idea. I think people like to connect it too much or think, oh, they don't want to get. They want all the immigrants, if they're criminals, to stay in this country. It's not the case. We've been getting rid of millions, deporting millions every single year in Republican and Democratic presidencies for the last 50 years without ice or before ice and during ice when their budget wasn't this expansive. So it's just, it's just not a winning argument. I think people are getting hip to it. I think people are seeing what ICE is doing. Unprofessional, untrained people.

A (30:36)

The poll numbers are showing, showing what you're talking about there for sure.

B (30:40)

We've been talking about this again before. Like, I want to be clear that it's cool now to say abolish ICE, but we've been on an Abileish ICE path for 13 years, you know, for 12 years. So I just think that we saw it 12 years ago. Our leadership needs to see it now.

A (31:01)

So you've been endorsed by Congresswoman Velasquez to succeed her as she's retiring here at the end of this year. Say a little bit about anything, you know, where you want to build on her legacy in Congress in particular. She's obviously been one of the most outspoken advocates for Puerto Rico. So I'm sure that's towards the top of the list. And Thinking about how to, you know, uphold and build on her legacy there. Maybe it's that, maybe it's other things. But how are you thinking about if elected and in talking with people in this campaign, specifically about areas of focus for her that you think are important to uphold and build on?

B (31:42)

Yeah. So I. I believe the congresswoman had a role played a role in. In building a legacy of hard work, honesty, sincerity, and accountability. And I want to be able to continue to do that. If you met Nydia and you ever talked to her, you would know that she's speaking from the heart. She wasn't this political calculator that looked out for, you know, the interests of a few. She just always did the right thing. It's why, as her 30 years of being our congressperson, she's evolved and continue to grow with the community, learn on issues and move to where her community is asking her to move. She's been very thoughtful, never held the line, never was never angry at her constituents or never felt like they were the other. Always embraced the change in the right way. And I want to be able to continue to do that, too. Listen to the community, what are they asking, and be a leader for them. But also on Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico does not have a federal representative. It's a commonwealth. And Nydia played that role. And for Puerto Rico, without Nydia, a lot of what we're seeing would be much worse. And I want to do the best I can to continue that advocacy for Puerto Rico's right to self determination. And I'm going to do it by surrounding myself with amazing Puerto Rican scholars, thought leaders, including Nydia, that are going to help guide me and validate whatever I say on Puerto Rico. I'm not going to do it off of a whim. I'm not going to do it in a disorganized manner. It's going to be very intentional that I want to be a voice for Puerto Rico, and I want to do it through the support and the foundation of Puerto Ricans from the island and from here in making sure that they feel that my voice is. Is a. Is a real one that is centered around them.

A (33:49)

And so what. What are you thinking about in terms of actions that would be most beneficial for Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans and how to pursue sort of a different path ahead, whether it's statehood or something else. How are you thinking about what that looks like?

B (34:06)

Yeah. So, like right now, what we're saying is self determination. Is there a system by which we can allow for Puerto Ricans to make the determination of what they want to look like, want to look like in the future without the interference or the influence of big money, of political institutions and establishments in the island. And right now that's not the case. It can't be done. The amount of influence and systems that don't allow for the general population of Puerto Rico to really decide what their outcome is without influence or interference, it's just not there. So we want to build a process by which we can get there. And Nydia has been fighting for this for a long time, but it's not in the interest of the powerful and the few in Puerto Rico and in the United States of America. So they've been fighting against it. So my job is to help dismantle that and really allow for a process by which the Puerto Ricans could finally decide what they want to see for their future.

A (35:04)

Interesting. Coming back to leadership in Congress right now, if Democrats take the majority in this coming election, now you obviously are running to be a Democrat replacing a Democrat. It's almost certain that a Democrat's going to represent this district, the seventh Congressional District, but if Democrats are successful more broadly in taking the majority in the House, but you see still have a minority of Democrats in the Senate, and again, that could could be different depending on how the elections go this year, there could be any combination of things in the two houses. How would you look to exercise and influence the power that a Democratic majority in the House wields come January? What would that look like? What would be top priorities that we haven't mentioned already? Obviously, you'd be looking to rein in, you know, immigration enforcement in certain ways and other things. We've talked about affordability issues. But is there anything else, if Democrats have a House majority that you'd be looking to push towards the. The forefront of the agenda?

B (36:06)

Yes, I want to be focused on accountability. So we love to make a play for the Judicial Committee. I think we should be investigating, we should be subpoenaing, bringing subpoenas to people. We should be using our oversight, oversight ability to really hold people accountable for what I think is a lawless, illegal actions that have been taken not only by the president, but a lot of members of Congress and folks out in the country that continue to move us towards an undemocratic and unrecognizable country. So what I want to do is not let that just be par for the course. I think that after Trump's first term, a lot of Democrats thought we were done with a Trump era type of politics. Politics and Just allowed for. They just kept the business as usual. And I think what we're seeing is that when bad things happen, when people do things that are illegal, when folks are, they have to be held to account. And if they are not, then we open the door to much worse, which is what's happening right now. So as once we get power, we're going to have oversight and it'll be exclusively ours. And we can do it. And we have powers that we have to be able to use. We can do that without the Senate. We can do that without the presidency. So we have that authority given to us by the Constitution. Let's use it and hold people accountable and investigate, investigate, investigate.

A (37:31)

If you are in the House Democratic Caucus, are you going. Are you planning to be supportive of Hakeem Jeffries as the next speaker of the House if Democrats have the majority, or are you not ready to make that commitment yet?

B (37:45)

I will be supporting Hakeem Jeffries to be the next speaker of the House. I think it's. He. What we need to do is be as united as possible. He is the current minority leader and has the support of the majority of the Democratic Conference. And what we need, we need a united front to prepare our, our fight against these, the Republicans and Donald Trump. So I will be, I won't be wasting our time in, in deciding whether or not Hakeem should be our leader. He. He's going to be the leader. I will be supporting him. And then we'll do everything we can to, to, to push back against the Republicans and Trump.

A (38:23)

I know it won't be. Wouldn't be your House of Congress, but if Democrats retake the Senate, do you feel the same way about Senator Schumer?

B (38:30)

I'm not a senator. I'm not running for Senate. So that's not a decision that I make. I've never been asked about that as a council member, as a borough president, and it's not a decision that I have to make. So I want to allow for the Senate to make a decision on whether or not Chuck Schumer should be their leader.

A (38:47)

Who do you see as the national leaders of the Democrats right now? Do you see it as Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer? Given that Democrats are so out of power and those are the two congressional leaders, do you see other voices from the Democratic Party as really taking the national mantle right now? Obviously, Governor of California Gavin Newsom has been, you know, pretty high profile and out there lately and, and obviously leads, you know, one of the biggest states the Biggest state in the union. But are there people you see as leaders of the Democratic Party right now, whether they're in an elected office or not? Who do you look to as sort of the leaders of the party right now when the party shut out of power at the federal level?

B (39:29)

Yeah, I think, I think like Gavin Newsom and Pete Buttigieg have been doing a good job at really trying to hammer home the message. But I actually, actually think that Alexandra Ocasio Cortez is an example of what I think the leader of the Democratic Party looks like. If there was a. Unfortunately, she can't walk around all day saying I told you so, but if she could, it's just like a lot of what we're talking about, this affordability crisis is something we've talked about a long time ago when we talk about ICE and immigration reform. We had the House, the Senate, and the presidency under Obama never passed comprehensive immigration reform. So it's like this, this what I call accentuous or establishment Dems that have really given us a hard time. And Alexandria Ocasio, I think, is a practical progressive that is really centered around trying to find solutions for the working class and really put this party in a position to be successful. So I see her as somebody that I want to model, that I want to be around, that I want to make sure is supported by the work that I'm doing and, and somebody that I look up to. And I think that the Democratic Party would be smart to, to put her in a position of leadership to help drive the conversation of what the future of the Democratic Party looks like.

A (40:42)

And I guess that quickly leads to whether you want, you think she should be running for Senate or president in 2028. Is that, you know, are you, is that something you look to her to do?

B (40:52)

I, I don't. I don't know what people's futures are holding. I would just say that Alexandra Ocasio Cortez would do well in any position, Congress and others for this country. And I think that it would be an awakening to see how popular she would be in any of these positions, as the American people are being very clear about the type of leadership they're looking for. And it looks and acts like.

A (41:22)

Congresswoman Ocasio Cortez, you just mentioned this, this issue of, you know, sort of the progressive versus centrist, you know, progressive versus moderate debate and, and sort of battle within the Democratic Party. Do you see it breaking down along those lines? There's a lot of people who sort of have been rethinking some of that in terms of you can have, you know, more sort of moderate or centrist views on a lot of issues. Maybe you represent a district that's a pretty purple district or, or a purple state or something along those lines, or even sometimes Democrats who are representing more Republican leaning states. Happens at times or districts. But that it's a lot of it is about sort of certain principles and about who's kind of a fighter versus someone who doesn't have as much of a backbone. How do you think is sort of that intra party debate that's happening right now? You have someone like Congressman Pat Ryan who represents a little bit more of a moderate district in, in upstate New York, but still is sort of pretty vocal on a lot of the things we've been talking about in this conversation. How do you think about those divides in the Democratic Party and how to solve them?

B (42:30)

I think the divide is corporate Democrats versus everyone else. I think if we can become the party that looks out for the interest of the people versus the interests of the powerful and wealthy, I think we could change this overnight. If we as a party say we're not taking corporate PAC money just overnight, just say that and no one does it, you will start seeing people vote in the interests of their constituents versus the interest of corporations. So I don't think this is a left to right. I don't think it's even Republican versus Democrats. I think it's the powerful wealthy and well connected versus the rest of us. And it's hard and it's hard to compete against that. And I think that the fight that we're seeing right now is just that. So of course Democrats that are moderate, you could be a moderate Democrat and not take corporate PAC money. And it means that when your constituents want to do something that's more moderate than what I believe you have the right to do that. But if your decision making is based on, you know, the last lobbyist that came to your office and how much they gave you for your campaign account, I think that's the biggest problem we're seeing right now. We have very practical things that we're asking for that are hard to come by when, you know, corporate interests come

A (43:44)

into play the field in this race. You have two opponents now that are both Queen's elected officials, Assembly Member Valdez and Council Member Juan. All three of you are, you know, have pretty progressive stances on a lot of things. Not necessarily a lot that jumps out that would be apparent differences, although I'm sure there might be some differences in priorities and approach and you know, know I'll talk with them and get their, their top priorities like I did with you. But how would you describe for people the differences? You know, you obviously have been in elected office in politics longer, longer than both of them around a little while longer. Is, is that the main difference, that you have more of a, more of a resume doing this work than they do or how do you capture for people how you separate yourself from, from the competition here?

B (44:33)

Yeah, I just like what I focus on is the work that I've done and the time that I've been in office is not the most important thing. It's what I've done with that time. Before I got elected, I was organizing childcare providers to be a part of the U of T. They were looked at as glorified babysitters and we saw them as early childhood educators and we did that work. And now the UFT is joined by childcare providers and are going to Help with the 2K and 3K rollout and the universal child care rollout. They're going to be central in that and they're a part of that union thereafter. I started New Kings Democrats as before I got elected. I was doing New Kings Democrats which is a organization that fought against the corrupt Brooklyn Democratic Party. And I did that as a 23 year old before I even got elected or was involved in politics. And then when I got elected I did tough things. I passed the Right to Know act, which was police reform. And everyone told me if I do any police reform work that I would be committing political suicide. And I still did it and stood my ground. Commercial way zones, corrupt private carding industry that hadn't seen reform since 1970. And I decided as sanitation chair to do something about it. It was a very tough fight and a very tough vote and we got it over the finish line. Outdoor dining during COVID when I had to be creative and thoughtful about how we can help people. 100,000 jobs were saved by that piece of legislation that I carried during COVID And trying to be creative and different on how we can actually accomplish goals. I spent $45 million on maternal health to save black women's lives. Right now it's a gross inequity when it comes to childbirth and black women. And I wanted to solve for it, not incrementally, not give a million dollars here or a million dollars there. I gave my entire budget to do it. I did radical things while I was there. I had tough fights while I was there. I fought party bosses, I fought speakers, I Fought mayors, all to look out for the interests of my people. So my time while I was in office has been a time that has shown effective leadership on how to get things done. And I want to be able to bring that to Congress, show people that you can talk about it and do the work. And I consider myself an elected official that is strong on outcomes in the work. So, yeah, the policy differences are going to be far and few in between, but the work that I've done, the meaningful work that I've done, is going to be very apparent by the time we're done with this campaign.

A (46:57)

Do you see anything that would be in the future that would be come before you in the House, you know, in the next session of the House that would be differentiating, that you could see yourself acting differently on than your opponents here. Do you think you would all wind up taking the same sort of votes on everything, or do you think there would be differences of, of opinion on things that might come before you? Or maybe it's just things that you, you might think that you would prioritize differently than them.

B (47:24)

I think we'll agree and vote 99 of the time the same way. I think the difference is who's going to be effective in making that work. There's a lot of people in the city council and in this, in politics that sign on to hundreds of bills and just keep it moving and like that. Yeah, we can sign on to bills. The thing is, how are we going to be like, affected? I can move people. Police reform. Nobody wanted to do that. In the time that we were talking about it, everyone thought that they did the CSA work with Jumani Williams and Brad Lander and thought the more police reform was unnecessary and just a waste of time. And we moved people in three years to get us to where we need to get them. If we want to abolish ice, we need somebody that can help move people and actually get it done. And I've shown that I can do that. So it's not just about signing on to bills and showing up to press conferences is can we actually get this done? And I've been an elected official that has gotten things done. So I want to not only agree with policy on the folks that I'm running against, but I have a track record of getting things done.

A (48:23)

It seems like some of the people involved with DSA or supporters of Assemblymember Valdez say one of the differences is she was out there early speaking up against how Israel was prosecuting the war in Gaza and that you sort of Came along quite late on that issue. Would you agree with that characterization and how you responded to those events? Obviously more of a issue to focus on if you're in Congress versus the Brooklyn Borough president's office. But still, you know, something that lots of people have been weighing and weighing in on. Would you agree that, you know, you were slower than a lot of other Democrats in New York City to speak up on those issues?

B (49:06)

I felt like I had a role to play as the brick and borough president in making sure that we kept the temperature down here when it came to anti Semitism and Islamophobia and just really figuring out a way to make it so that what was happening internationally was not affecting or hurting people here locally. And I really felt like that was my role. So every time I got an opportunity to call out anti Semitism, Islamophobia, I did that. And I wanted to protect the people that I represent here in Brooklyn in a municipal role. But I'm running for Congress now, and you have to make sure you let people know where you stand. And right now, what I'm focused on is making sure that people know that what's happening in Israel and Gaza is unacceptable and that we as a country have been complicit in allowing for the genocide to continue. And when I get to Congress, I'm going to make sure that we are not partners literally in crime over what's happening, what Netanyahu and his regime is doing to the people in Gaza. So, like, yes, and what does that look like? But we got to be, we. We need to make sure that we're not sending weapons of war to. To Israel. We got to make sure that when the budget comes up, we don't vote for anything that continues to support a regime that could care less about our opinions or what we think and moves with, moves independently and expects support from this country without any accountability.

A (50:34)

So does that mean you're putting conditions on aid? Does that mean you're. You're thinking differently about, you know, defensive funding versus offensive weapons of war? How are you sort of thinking about that more specifically?

B (50:48)

Yeah, like, we have a standard that we have to set internationally, whether it's Israel or not, on what we expect our partners to be doing when it comes to conflict. And, you know, human rights and international human rights law need to be abided by for everyone. And if you don't abide by that, there are repercussions. There are things that we, that we are going to, to make very clear. And right now, the Netanyahu regime is not doing those things. So we would hold back not only offensive and defensive weapons, it's just any aid until we see a change, or until not even a change, like we won't support war crimes and genocide. Like we don't support that. And it's unequivocally we just don't have that conversation. And if you're doing it, the last country you should look to for any support is the United States of America. So I wouldn't support any relationship here monetarily, I guess, or funding to Israel.

A (51:53)

The dynamics of this race. Let's talk a little bit more about sort of the electoral playing field and path to victory in our, you know, final several minutes here. You have the support of the outgoing congresswoman. That seems like a very big boost to your campaign. Obviously in this district that, you know, she's represented in different contours over decades, but you have a district that was the strongest Mamdani district in the city. He is supporting Assemblymember Valdez. She has the support of the DSA and that very strong ground game. How do you see the sort of electoral playing field? And can you. Do you have and will you have an operation that can rival what the DSA can sort of put on the ground in door knocking and leafletting and all of that on the ground work? How do you think about the sort of of on the ground electoral combat here and how that's going to shake out in this race?

B (52:53)

Like I want to say that before the DSA was here, New Kings, Democrats, Churches United for Fair Housing, make the Road New York, nycc, all organizations that have supported me are the organizations that were doing this ground game work already. We were winning races against the Democratic Party in North Brooklyn specifically because we learned, we organized and we doorknock. And I think that the organizing history of this district is going to rise up and I think they're going to see something that they might not see in other districts. Like we are not a district that just wins off of name recognition and a couple of mailers. We win because we do the door knocking and we have a ground game. So you're going to see folks come out in mass for this campaign and then the folks that are going to come out are folks that are representative of the people that I think are rooted in this community for a long time. So we're going to have NYCHA tenants knocking at NYCHA doors. We're going to have people from the south side knocking south side doors. We're going to have child care providers knocking on doors talking about their history and how I was raised by a child care provider. The idea here on the ground is we're going to match it with a diverse coalition. We're going to have the most diverse coalition of any campaign in this race. We're also been endorsed by three unions already, and we're expecting more to come through. So to have Unite Here 100, to have RWDSU, to have HTC mean something to these folks, they want to know that we're on the side of labor. And it's going to be very clear when it's said and done. I've been endorsed by almost every single council member, Jamani Williams, any non DSA representative in this district. So we're going to continue that work to build a coalition that can win this race. We're going to be thoughtful and hardworking, and we're going to show folks what organizing looks like here.

A (54:51)

There's an argument to be made that as Brooklyn Borough president, with your track record in the City Council and all this work you're talking about, that you're the favorite in this race. And then there's an argument I've heard from some DSA folks, folks that given DSA just ran the Mamdani campaign and now they're coming back and knocking on a lot of those same doors to talk about Assemblymember Valdez. And they've got the palm cards that have the mayor's face and endorsement for her on them that she's actually the favorite, even though, you know, she hasn't really been in elected office very long and, you know, represents only a portion of the Queen side of the district. Do you consider yourself a favorite here? Do you consider yourself an underdog? Given those dynamics, how do you think about that?

B (55:31)

That, Yeah, I, you know,

A (55:34)

a lot of confidence in your opponent side.

B (55:36)

I'll say not listen, of course they got to project confidence. But I'm not Andrew Cuomo and I'm not Eric Adams and she's not Zoran Mandani. And like, I want to be very clear that I think that what you're going to see here is that, yes, I supported Zoran Mamdani, my mom voted for Zora Mudani. We are a progressive district. And when we won, the contrast that we're talking about here is is Cuomo versus Zoron. It's going to be very clear who we're going to go with. This is also the district in the borough presidency that I won with the largest margin as well, and I've been representing it for 12 years. But more than that, I've lived in it my entire life. This is a district that raised me. People know me personally. They stopped me in the street, not because I'm an elected official, but because they saw me grow up. The teachers know me by first name because I went to the schools that they're working in. Like that's gonna all matter. But, yeah, look, Zoran is very popular, and it's. It's a. A boost and something that gives her validation. But when it comes down to it, I think people are going to want somebody that knows the district but also gets the work done. And we're. We're excited about it.

A (56:46)

Congresswoman Velasquez expressed in an interview with the New York Times some real frustration with the mayor about, you know, backing the assembly member and sort of DSA and the mayor going their own way after she had been supportive of him. Do you share those frustrations? Is this frustrating to you that after you've been representing these areas for so long and doing all this work, you're pointing to that, you know, the mayor and others in this political movement are sort of putting up this big of a fight? I mean, nobody owns a seat, obviously, and it's an open race. But. But, you know, the outgoing congressman was. Was pretty frustrated about this.

B (57:23)

Yeah. I just think that her frustration came from a lack of communication and collaboration. We've done so much work with the DSA in this district. We supported Zoran and made ads for him in Spanish and made ads for him in Brooklyn. Like we were ally. We are allies in this work. I've worked with the DSA before. I'm working. I'll work with them now, and we'll be working with them in the future. I just think there was an opportunity here to have a conversation about this district in earnest where we could have come together and really figure out what we want to do for the future without having it to be a fight. And I don't think that we were awarded that opportunity. And in doing so, this is frustration, not an unnecessary, but it's a fight that maybe we don't need to have if we have that conversation. So I think her frustration is less about who he endorsed, so it's more like how he did it. So that this race is not Zoram Amdani versus Nida Velasquez. It's Tony Reynosis versus Claire Valdez. So when it's all said and done, the conversation of the past and what happened in the past is not going to be. Is not going to be Something that is going to be present come May. So I got to do the work, and other elected officials have to do the work, and we'll see what the outcome looks like.

A (58:35)

Last couple quick things for you, and I'll let you go. You mentioned AOC as a. As a model and as a Democratic leader. Obviously, she's been close with Representative Velasquez and others, you know, who are supporting you, but she's also close with the DSA and the mayor. Do you see her weighing in on this race, and do you think you have a shot at her support?

B (58:58)

I don't know what Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio Cortez is thinking on this race and what position that she's going to take. So, you know, she is.

A (59:08)

You must be trying to get her endorsement, though.

B (59:11)

I think that the endorsement that I was trying to get was Nydia Velasquez is Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez's endorsement. I think that that was the. A very important one and one that showed that, you know, her legacy in this district is deeply important. I would love to get. I would love to get everyone's endorsement, including aoc. Like, it would be foolish not to think that, but, you know, we'll do our best to present to every elected official what this campaign looks like and whether or not we can be successful. And if they're willing to join, you know, this campaign, we'll, we'll. We're more than happy to have them.

A (59:46)

And are you and Brad Lander are going to do a cross endorsement? He's running for Congress, you know, sort

B (59:52)

of next door in, in this race. I don't. I don't know if I would even. I don't know if I. There will be no congressional races outside of mine that I would be paying attention to. None. This is the most important race of my. Of my life, of my career, and I'm going to be slowly focused on this. So I don't. I won't be expending resources helping other candidates.

A (60:15)

And we just saw a whole bunch of endorsements for Governor Hochul, including from Mayor Mamdani and Attorney General Tish James and some unions and so forth. Are you planning to weigh in on the gubernatorial primary? And if so, are you with. With Governor Hochul or Lieutenant Governor Delgado and his challenge against the governor?

B (60:33)

There is. I will not be getting involved in any races outside of this one. Look, if I, if I, I want to be honest, if, you know, there. There are assembly members within the district that I think have done a great job There, you know, senators that I think have done a good job. Do I support them in those conversations like I always have? Probably. But these more, you know, know, these races, like governor and for other Congress people are just not where I want to be. I really want to focus on things that are essential to winning this race.

A (61:05)

All right, so close us out on this. You've been a New York City government guy. You've got a pretty nice gig as Brooklyn Borough President here. You just got reelected. Why Congress over Brooklyn Borough President? I mean, people wanted you to run against Eric Adams for mayor and, you know, before that whole race got crazy, that you were being recruited by, you know, lots of progressives to be the progressive candidate against Eric Adams, clearly a favorite for or a strong candidate for a citywide seat, you know, in future cycles, which of course could still happen if you're in Congress. But why leave, you know, why do you want to leave city government to go to Congress when you have this position as borough president? What do you say to people who are like, hey, I just voted for you to stay as Brooklyn Borough President, now you want to leave? What about Congress is better in your mind for effecting change than being Brooklyn Borough president? Staying in city government? Government.

B (61:57)

I think the crisis of the moment is in the federal government. And I want to make sure that we send our best, brightest, strongest, and toughest fighters to Congress to fight against the Republicans and Donald Trump. And I want to be one of those people that go up there and do that type of representation. I actually think the city is in good hands with Mayor Mamdani and that we're in the right direction. It's somebody that I think is going to look out for the interests of the people instead of the connected, the well connected. I think that the state is moving in a good direction with Kathy Hochul. I said that in the beginning of this podcast. I think all of our crisis is coming almost exclusively from the federal government. When Nydia decided that she was going to retire, I thought that I could continue her legacy and be somebody that could push back better than anyone against the Republicans and Trump. So. So it's why I decided that I wanted to run for this seat. But also, it's been a dream. I'm a brick and borough president in a borough that's mostly black and white. Latino population is very small. I don't do identity politics in the work my career. But one in eight New Yorkers is Dominican, and we only have one federal representative in all of this city in Adriano Espallard. And I think for you want to be represented by people that look like you, that have been through your experiences. And I feel like I could be. I could be that for Dominicans as well. So there are many things that made it so that I think that this is an important seat for me to run for. But the number one thing is I really believe that I'm the best candidate and the best, best position to push back against all the madness that's happening in Congress, in the federal government and Trump.

A (63:45)

We will leave it there. Antonio Reynoso, thank you for all the time and thoughts. And we'll be in touch as the race continues to unfold.

B (63:52)

Thank you, Ben. Spread love. All right. Thank you.