B (6:20)

I'm good, Ben. It's great to be with you again.

A (6:22)

Thanks for taking the time. So there is so much going on right now, nationally, internationally, locally, of course, a lot of intersecting lines there. How do you think about and capture for people what really matters right now, how to prioritize, how to put the right amount of attention on different battles that are happening between Democrats and Republicans or whatever it might be. How are you thinking about priorities, where to focus your attention, what's most important for the district and the country right now?

B (6:56)

Yeah, this is a challenge because Donald Trump's strategy, of course, is to flood the zone. And you know, one of the things I was just thinking about is over the past couple weeks as he has escalated the militarized invasion of Minneapolis with ICE or has dethroned Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela without even talking to Congress or having any plan, we're not talking about the Epstein files, which is something that he very intentionally is trying to avoid. And so figuring out how where to, to push back and where to focus on is, is difficult. It's a challenge because there's so much and I, I take a, all of the above approach to it. I, I don't think that while the, some of the worst stuff he is doing is really attacking our most vulnerable communities. And, you know, I've been pushing back against the snap cuts, the Medicaid cuts, the ice invasion and disgusting dragnet and demonization of so many people, including, you know, both immigrants seeking a better life here, but also American citizens. That really does resonate, I think, nationally. But we cannot leave just to the side his very methodical and intentional attempt to usurp all government power, to make himself Vladimir Putin, and to break down the basic tenets and foundations of our democracy. And so everybody in Congress, as I've learned, having been there there for over three years now, it's. It is a team effort in many respects, and different members have different strengths and different areas of expertise. And so for me, I. I really do take a special interest in the rule of law and in his absolute tax on our democracy and using our government for his own personal gain, whether that's, you know, crypto grifting and corruption or the Department of Justice as a political arm and weapon to go after his political enemies or to extort other officials like Jerome Powell into doing what he wants him to do, while while also really trying to focus on Congressional Republicans who have completely abdicated their responsibility to be a check and balance. And that's how I think we can be the most effective. And how we've started to see some cracks is the more pressure that we're putting on House Republicans means the more pressure they are putting on Donald Trump. And I learned this in the impeachment. Donald Trump does not care what I say. He does not care if I send him a subpoena. But he does care what his allies think. And so if we can get them, that's how we leverage against him, and we try to make change, because we cannot wait until January 2027.

A (10:21)

Say a little bit more about those cracks. I was just gonna actually ask, before you mentioned that, about how challenging it can be to be in the minority. And obviously, that's the case in both houses of Congress right now. Democrats really have very little real power, although there's opportunities for leverage. So what are those cracks? I mean, obviously there's Representative Massie around the Epstein files, as you noted. There's been also some falling out with, you know, other Trump allies. But then what winds up happening in a lot of these cases is these Republicans decide not to run for reelection because they're so worried about Trump and his movement unseating them if they do, or the attention that comes with calling him out. So say a little bit about what you see as those cracks and those points of leverage and is anything actually getting anywhere or is it just sort of moments of cracks, but there's not a lot of progress to point to.

B (11:13)

Yeah, look, this is, this has certainly been what I've been focusing on for, for a year is you got to kind of build the case, so to speak. And obviously as a former prosecutor, I, I think about things a lot that way. But what we're seeing is in the last, what, two months maybe there have been more discharge petitions passed than in the last 30 years. And for, for those who don't know, the majority totally controls the House. The minority cannot put legislation on the floor without the majority's agreement. We cannot issue subpoenas without the majority's agreement. We cannot file a lawsuit without the Republicans agreement. And so we've been using, and I've been really aggressive in this and trying to use different tactics and part of it is just to continue to put the pressure and it is gradual, it is not going to happen overnight. But the fact that we passed the ACA three year extension for those tax cuts and now the pressure is on the Republicans, the fact that, you know, we've been able to restore Social Security benefits for veterans through a discharge petition. There are a number of things that now, because of all the pressure on Trump and his lackeys and leadership, Mike Johnson, etcetera, The rank and file Republicans are starting to stand up against them. And those are the cracks. And we saw it this week, Ben, when Donald Trump tried to clawback $2 billion in mental health and substance abuse treatment. And we all went into action on the Democratic side, but you also saw a lot of Republicans balking at it. And within 24 hours he rescinded his, his order to, to hold back the funding. And so it is, it is unsatisfying sometimes that it is slow, but the progress is real. And the Epstein files are another example of using the, the discharge petition to put a lot of pressure. And ultimately the Republicans buckled under the pressure. And now Donald Trump is doing everything he possibly can to defy the law and keep those Epstein files secret because it's quite clear that he is going to be very prominently involved in them.

A (13:52)

There's also an effort right now debate over homeland security funding. Can you explain a little bit about what's happening related to those appropriations and how there's seemingly a split among Democrats about how to approach support for that funding? And obviously there's so much outcry you got at about what's happening in Minnesota, but you know, happening in other places around the country to different degrees around immigration enforcement and so forth. But there seems to be some disagreement among Democrats about how to approach those appropriations bills and what's happening there. Can you say a little bit about what's happening and why there isn't seemingly a little bit more of a united Democratic front?

B (14:38)

Yeah, I mean, let's take a step back for a second, because what is happening with ICE and this immigration dragnet, which it really is, is becoming, I think, the civil rights issue of this era. I went to law school to become a civil rights lawyer, and it's certainly been my career focus and passion. And it is. It is beyond comprehension to me that the American government would send unqualified, untrained, masked agents into our cities to snatch and disappear people who simply look like they may be immigrants. And for those who are, most of those who are arrested, they are here escaping horrific conditions, pursuing the land of opportunity and the land of refuge that the United States has always been. My grandmother escaped anti Semitism and came through Ellis Island. And that's a story that so many Americans have and so many New Yorkers have. 40% of New Yorkers are immigrants. And this absolute militarized attack, using excessive violence, actually demanding that people prove their citizenship on the streets, this is authoritarian, just through and through. And it is so un American that it is. It is really hitting at the core of so many people, both immigrants and non immigrants. And what we have now seen is this escalation in violence, and it's intentional, because Donald Trump is, and I've been saying this for months, sending in this militarized ICE secret police machine to inflame tension, to incite violence. They are the cause of the violence. And we saw this this past week.

A (16:46)

That.

B (16:47)

That is with an express purpose, because he now is talking about invoking the Insurrection act, which would mean that he would send the military in. It would be challenged. But. But he has to have grounds to do that, and he is trying to create those grounds in order to usurp more power. And so what we need to do is push back in every possible way we can. It is very clear that Kristi Noem has to be removed. She should be fired today. She is destroying our values, our democracy, our country, and she's totally unqualified. And even in one hearing I had when the Homeland Security Committee with her a month or so ago, I even got her to admit that she is violating the law by deporting people with open and asylum cases. And she's denying Congress our rights to conduct oversight. But impeachment is worthwhile and important and we should push it. But when you talk about the appropriations, the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill is coming to the House floor next week. And there are, as in the minority we were talking about, there aren't that many times when we have leverage, and we have leverage here because they need 60 votes in the Senate to pass it. And frankly, even in the very narrowly Republican majority in the House, there are Republicans who have to be concerned about what's going on with ice. And my view is that we cannot fund the Department of Homeland Security without significant reforms in that bill to what is going on and that we have to go to the mat on that because this is the opportunity when we have leverage right now and we need to use it and we need to use it aggressively to stop this dragnet that is going on around the country.

A (19:03)

Two things to follow up on that. One, when you said impeachment, you're talking about of Kristi Noem or you're talking about of the president?

B (19:10)

No, Kristi Noem. I mean, well, look, I there are too many impeachable offenses to count, or at least seemingly by the president. But in this particular case, focusing on ICE and focusing on Kristi Noem, there's a new Robin Kelly, my colleague, has introduced articles of impeachment which refer to some of the work that I've been doing on this issue as well. And there's been a groundswell of support to move forward on those because we have to use every tool available to us to stop what this Department of Homeland Security is doing.

A (19:54)

And so what are those points of reform that you're saying Democrats should insist on and hopefully bring some Republicans who might be in swing states, like a couple of New York swing districts, rather like a couple of New York Republicans, perhaps try to bring some Republicans along or try to insist on things that would have a chance as you're getting out of actually passing the senate with the 60 votes. What are a couple of those examples of things that you want to insist on? And do you have a unified Democratic front as you're getting at with the narrow margins in the House? In a lot of cases, for Democrats to be successful using leverage, you need sort of the entire Democratic caucus to be together on things. So A, what are a couple of the top reforms that you think you should insist on or that you are insisting on? And B, do you have a united Democratic frontier?

B (20:44)

Yeah, look, I, I mean, I would go down a list of the legislation that I've introduced over the last six months as a good Starting point, I introduced the no Secret Police act, which would unmask ICE agents and require them to show id. I introduced a bill that would prohibit ICE agents from arresting immigrants who are showing up for required and mandatory court appearances or check ins. I recently announced that I'm introducing the ICE out act, which would change qualified immunity for ICE officers so they can be held accountable for murders like was committed on Renee Goode a week and a half ago. And then we need much stricter guardrails. We need to be able to access ICE detention facilities as part of our oversight abilities. I. I came up with an idea for a lawsuit that 11 of my colleagues joined to in a rare instance where we had standing and, and we successfully fought back against their efforts to prevent us from doing oversight of these ICE detention facilities. And I was able to go in, and the first time I went in, I saw four cleaning people there. And that's the point of oversight. That's why we're pushing for it, is we saw videos of last summer of just horrific conditions at 26 Federal Plaza. Completely unacceptable and unconstitutional as determined by a court. When I went in, it was very clean and only nine people were there. And that's why oversight matters. And so all of these things are, you know, on the list that we need to be insisting on. But it's also really to put serious guardrails around what ICE is doing. More transparency. We know that the hiring process for ICE agents right now is a joke and that it is completely unacceptable. There are unqualified, unvetted, untrained ICE officers who are using excessive force and excessive violence. And so we need to tackle all of the different aspects of this ICE invasion of our cities.

A (23:10)

And what about a united Democratic front? Where do House Democrats stand on this? Is Leader Jeffries able to get everybody aligned, or what's the status of that?

B (23:24)

I think there's a lot of unity. I'm not sure that whether there's unity on every single issue that I just mentioned, but there is tremendous unity in using the leverage that we have right now. And Senator Chris Murphy, who is the ranking member on the Senate subcommittee and Appropriations that deals with the Homeland Security funding, has really been leading the charge, doing a great job, and he has a really significant role in, in the Senate, where the filibuster exists and where you need 60 votes. And so I think we will ultimately coalesce around some of these demands, and I think you'll find a very unified Democratic Party next week.

A (24:12)

I know you don't love slogans, but in the Actuality of the matter of the policy. Where do you stand on this push by many Democrats to abolish ICE as an entity?

B (24:27)

You know, we need some immigration enforcement that is important. There are people who are here who are committing violent crimes, who should be removed, and so we need some enforcement to do that. But I have come to the conclusion now, based on this infestation of misconduct and violence and authoritarian tactics, that I don't believe that ICE can be that agency moving forward. And we need to. I have thought for a while we need to dramatically revamp ice. But I think at this point, we need to. We do need to eliminate ICE and start over with a different agency or entity that should be doing the core job that ICE is responsible for doing, and that it has just gotten so far away from

A (25:35)

you actually working with your primary opponent, Brad Lander, who we'll get to in a minute, but working alongside him and others have called on the NYPD to be enforcing state and local law against abusive federal immigration officers. How do you see that playing out? Where does your conversations with NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch stand on this? You know, how would this happen in the streets of New York City if there are federal agents, as you were talking about earlier, you know, demanding to see papers from people or snatching people out of cars without seemingly any real justification? How does that play out? What is your conversations with Commissioner Tisch been like? This is something, actually, that Mayor Mamdani talked about when he was running for mayor about wanting the NYPD to do this. But now, you know, I don't think he's commented on it since actually taking office. And there's a big difference, of course, between campaigning and governing here. Say a little bit about what you think should be happening there, and any conversations you've had with the commissioner about how this would actually happen if we do see more and more federal immigration raids in New York City?

B (26:48)

Yeah, look, this is another example where I used my experience and understanding of the law to change the conversation. When I wrote that letter to Commissioner Tisch urging her to train her officers to be able to identify when ICE agents are acting outside of their official authority, which is generally when, if and when they are arresting American or detaining American citizens, they are normal citizens, and if they use excessive force, they should be charged with crimes, it got a lot of traction. Obviously, the mayor started talking about it. The president was asked directly about my letter, and in response, he just called me stupid, which I felt was kind of weak for him. But it changed the conversation from questioning Whether or not the NYPD was assisting ICE to changing the attention and focus as to what the NYPD job is, which is to protect New Yorkers. And if New Yorkers need protection from ice, then that's what the NYPD needs to do. It is unlikely that there would ever be sufficient evidence or grounds to arrest an ICE officer on the scene. But what is really important is that the NYPD change its framing so that it is out there prepared to protect New Yorkers. And it has happened because even when there was that Canal street action invasion by ICE and there were lots of protests, they went to 26 Fed and the NYPD actually just formed a line in between the ICE officers and the protesters to simmer tensions so that there wouldn't be any more violence. And I think what we're seeing in Minneapolis, you know, is, is another example where the ICE officers are the ones that are creating the chaos, that are initiating the violence. And that's just unacceptable. And so if that means that state and local police, you know, need to step in and intervene, then that's what they need to do. As crazy as it is to imagine state or local law enforcement having to push back against federal law enforcement, it's wild, it's just unconscionable. But we have to protect the citizens and the residents of our cities. And if that, that means the, the NYPD or other police departments have to, to do that.

A (29:35)

So what does that actually look like? Can you give an example? And again, do you understand that this is a live conversation among the new mayor or the Police commissioner or perhaps District Attorney Alvin Bragg or other district attorneys. But a lot of this is obviously happening in Manhattan, so that's why I name him. What would be examples of, or even just one example of how this would go down and how you see it playing out. And do you have that buy in at this point from the Mayor, the Police Commission Commissioner and any relevant district attorneys?

B (30:09)

Well, look, I mean, as I said, I think the, the nypd, the focus on the NYPD has to maintain calm and protect residents of, of New York or other cities. But you've seen DAs like Larry Krasner in Philadelphia say that he will arrest ICE officers who use excessive violence outside of their official duties and responsibilities. And ultimately if that's going to happen, it will be an, it will be an after incident investigation by the District Attorney. I don't think any police officers, given the escalation that could result, are going to arrest ICE officers on the scene. But you know, with video, for example, in, in Minneapolis, where the FBI very intentionally has excluded the state law enforcement from joining them in that investigation because they're trying to cover up what happened. Donald Trump and Kristi Noem had already determined within a couple hours, without seeing any of the evidence, that this ICE officer was acting within his. His duties, that it's even more important that we have these separate investigations to hold them accountable. And so I know from talking to my colleagues in Congress who, many of whom have approached me about that letter I wrote, and they have been having conversations with their own district, district attorneys in their districts about how to handle this and, and what to do. And so it is an ongoing conversation that should be had and is being had around the country.

A (31:50)

Interesting. Broadly speaking, do you feel like there is enough sort of fight coming from Democrats and especially congressional Democrats? One of the biggest criticisms, as you know, out there, is that Democrats are not quite fighting enough. And especially at the leadership level, there's. It just so happens, of course, that both of the congressional leaders are from Brooklyn and are New Yorkers. Hakeem Jeffries in the House and Chuck Schumer in the Senate. But we've seen Senator Schumer's approval ratings among Democrats plummet. People feel like, you know, he's not out there enough. Democratic leadership is not strong enough. You've obviously been doing all the things we've been talking about in this conversation and sort of trying to meet the Republican escalation with your own escalation. And a lot of Democrats have. How do you feel broadly about how Democrats are approaching this? I know you're critical of the Democrats in the Senate, sort of where they landed on reopening the government. So how do you feel broadly about this? And is there a difference between what's happening in the House and the Senate based on the leadership?

B (33:01)

Well, look, it's hard. I don't want to speak for the entire Democratic Party. What I can say is my view is that we need to be using absolutely every lever available to us to fight back as strongly and aggressively as possible. And I'm trying to do that in every which way, personally. You know, obviously standing up to Donald Trump, putting pressure on the Republicans, going after the cabinet officials to expose their misconduct, initiating litigation so that we can get access to do that oversight using, you know, and, and I hope. I really wish we had held out longer on that shutdown because we were winning the messaging war. And I thought another week, a week and a half was going to cause the Republicans to cave, as awful as the shutdown was. And let's be really clear. It was really, really terrible for many people. And certainly I was very focused on trying to help people get through it because it was so important for us to aggressively hold out. And so I am trying to be a leader in fighting back, in coming up with creative and effective ways to do that. That's always been my approach to this. And you know, I'm not only a fighter, but I have had success in standing up to Donald Trump. Whether it was, you know, that impeachment, whether it was this litigation or the Kristi Noem testimony, all of that stuff starts to make a difference. Because if there's a, if we are winning litigation, it is putting a, it's creating a deterrent for them to do more. If we are putting pressure on the House Republicans so that they realize they're not going to get reelected, if they continue down this road, then it can have and has had, you know, an effect. And so I'm not just out there aggressively fighting, which is certainly what I'm doing in every way I can, but I'm really trying to figure out ways to be effective. And that's true, as I said, on the macro national level. But we've created a triage center for families of immigrants who have been detained in our district office across the street from 26 Federal Plaza, where we've been working with court watchers and advocacy groups and clergy to have families of those who've been arrested come straight to our office afterwards where we make sure that they have food and that they will have shelter and medical care if they need it. And then we get them to sign a privacy release form so that we can advocate for them with ice, which is much more effective than if they're doing it themselves. And then we're working with organizations make the Road New York Immigration Coalition, nilag, that are both advocacy groups and lawyers so that we can, they can get habeas petitions filed right away, which is essential to be able to keep the immigrants in New York and get them out of immigration detention. And we've been able in the last month and a half or so to get 10 people out of immigration detention because we have this operation that is a really seamless process and is working really well to be able to act as rapidly as as we need to. And we just did that. You know, we helped the, the speaker of the Council, Julie Menon, do that this week when a New York City Council staffer was arrested at a routine check in. And we got word of it about 3 o' clock and by 9 o' clock. There was a habeas petition that had already been been filed. And so I really do view this as a 360 degree effort, which is that we've got to be aggressively standing up to Trump. We've got to be messaging and introducing legislation to put pressure on the Republicans to respond to whether or not they support ICE wearing masks and being, you know, unidentified and snatching and kidnapping people. But we also have to be doing the work on the ground to really help the people who are being directly impacted by it. And that's the way I approach the job. And I try to set an example as much as I can for my colleagues and continue to aggressively fight back.

A (37:48)

And if Democrats do retake the House through this year's elections coming this fall and have a majority come January of next year, I assume you support Hakeem Jeffries to be the speaker.

B (38:03)

Oh, absolutely. And I think what you're seeing is that in a, perhaps a more methodical and quieter way than what people may want, he is really doing an excellent job. And whether it's really started with the shutdown, which this was the first time that in any of the recent shutdowns, the, the party that was seeking some concession actually was winning the messaging war. And then it went into these discharge petitions, into the ACA tax credit argument, which we won and certainly then got it passed. He is effectively governing in many ways from the minority right now, and we're making progress. It's not enough and it's, it's frustrating and we've got a lot more to do. But I think he's really figured out how to use those levers, use that leverage when it is there and get, get results.

A (39:13)

And I know it's not your chamber, but do you extend those same broad comments to Senator Schumer? Do you feel similarly about his leadership or.

B (39:21)

Look, I, you know, as Senator Schumer often likes to say, the Senate is a different animal in the House. And I'm going to be honest, I don't, you know, fully understand all of the dynamics over there because I'm not in that body. And so, you know, I'll let them figure out what's, what's best for that, that body.

A (39:39)

Okay, you're running for reelection here. All of the action in this district really is, is the Democratic primary. You've got this challenge from former comptroller Brad Lander. What's your answer to people when they ask why he's challenging you in this race? I assume you're getting that question. Sometimes you're out meeting constituents and now beginning to campaign, launching your reelection. What's your answer for people about why he's challenging you here?

B (40:13)

I don't really know. I haven't heard a coherent rationale,

A (40:19)

you

B (40:19)

know, other than some sort of, you know, one off things that aren't really related to the job. And so, you know, that's up to him to put together a substantive and, and coherent rationale. I'm very proud of the work that we've done over the last three years. And I think that, you know, I am really focused on helping the people of this district. And there's a wide range. It's a fabulous district that, you know, has goes from 31 NYCHA developments to wall street and kind of everything in between. And my focus has been on really being thoughtful, creative and aggressive in pushing forward a very progressive agenda. There is no question that we need that. Our system is broken. It is broken. I mean, I am the true beneficiary of the American dream, but that American dream is just not available for too many because wealth inequality has skyrocketed. And so, you know, I introduced a couple months ago a bill called the Robin Hood act which would make the wealthy pay their fair share and generate $30 billion of revenue, which would be able to pay for universal childcare across the country, which is something that I have always supported and is a pillar of the Dad's Caucus that I co founded. And it would enable us to dramatically expand the social safety net so that we are giving everyone that higher floor so that they can focus on the opportunities available, they can access the American dream. And that's been the sort of framework that I've approached it. And I think I'm excited for the folks in the district to learn much more about the work that we've been doing that even in the minority, we've been able to be effective and to get some results. And it ranges from affordable housing. I was very involved in getting the low income housing tax credit reform passed and into law. And that reform will allow there to be twice as many affordable units built because of the federal bonds in this federal program. And HPD here in the city has already said that they're going to be able to build 70% more affordable housing. And I've been focusing on small businesses and getting them refunds for the tax credits that they should have gotten during COVID And then, you know, we've got to lay the foundation for oversight and accountability as we are going forward. And you know, the Kristi Noem admission that she's Breaking the law is, you know, in my back pocket to use whenever, if there is an impeachment investigation this year or next. And I'm eager to be on the front lines of holding this administration and Donald Trump accountable In January of 2027, when we are going to have the majority and we are going to be focused as we were in 2019 when I was a counsel down in Congress, on holding him accountable for all of the absolutely dreadful unconstitutional and lawless actions he's been taking. And, and so, you know, it's up to, I guess, my challenger to, to enumerate a theory of rationale that's, you know, based on the work that is you do in Congress as to why, you know, after, after my three years, he would be better than I, and I haven't heard it yet, maybe there was more to it, but I certainly, yeah.

A (44:24)

Well, let me give you a couple of things he said, and I guess one of those things is you're sort of referencing there in terms of the applicability to what you actually do in Congress. So one of the biggest things he's said is that you're not enough of sort of an organizer. You're not out in the streets protesting. You're not sort of rallying the very active, as, you know, Democratic activists of this district. And I don't mean that as sort of like people in, you know, who work in actual activist groups. I mean, just, you know, the, the sort of voters of the district who are very active here that, that you're not out there sort of organizing them more protesting, more being out in the streets. That's one of the things he points to. I assume that's a little bit of what you're getting at when you say, you know, work that's actually applicable to the job. Will you, will you respond to that criticism? You know, that he says you're not enough of a fighter, an organizer out there leading protests and so forth.

B (45:19)

Well, look, I do think that that work is, is very important. And I think what I have tried to do is play both the inside and the outside game because I think you need both to be effective. You know, I've, it's not true that I haven't been out there. I've been at the Kings rallies and spoken at them. And I, you know, the immigration situation is a very good example of how we are coordinating with the grassroots organizations that are doing the work. And we're basic, we're able to sort of use our power and platform in Congress to work together with outside groups to actually make a difference. And, you know, I think those, the advocacy and the protests and being out in the. In the streets is a really, really important componen of pushing back against Donald Trump. But it's not enough in and of itself to actually get stuff done. And that's why, you know, I think it's very important to be helping with those efforts, which I do, but also to recognize that I'm in a unique position as a member of Congress with constitutional authority and a platform and an ability to introduce legislation and an ability to elevate issues, and that if I'm spending all my time out protesting with the advocacy groups, I'm not effectively using the power that I have to actually not only stand up and fight against this administration, but to be effective at doing so. And so I partner very much with the outside groups and we coordinate frequently with them, and I think that's really important. But the job as a member of Congress is not to be leading protests. It's to be both in Washington and on the ground using the position, using the power, using the authority to complement the outside advocacy in order to get results. And that's what I've done over the last three years.

A (47:36)

He says generally that sort of your general politics are not the right fit for this district, that it's a more progressive district than your politics. Now, I know you've been in this conversation talking about a progressive record and some of the progressive legislation that you've introduced. So hearing all that. But the example again that he points to and some of his supporters are that look at the mayoral election results in this district and in both the primary and the general, this district went very highly for Zoram Mamdani. And yet you didn't support Mamdani and have kept him at arm's length. And it seems like a lot of the politics there come down to a couple issues, but one that Landers pointed to is a different viewpoint on Israel's response to the October 7 attacks and how it waged its war in Gaza and approach to humanitarian aid and whether there actually is a ceasefire when there is supposed to be a ceasefire. So, broadly speaking, do you want to take those in two parts? One, broadly speaking, on your politics and the politics of the district and how that's reflected in the mayoral race and your approach to Mayor Mamdani, and then two, on the very specific differences about how you and Lander have viewed Israel in the war in Gaza.

B (48:58)

Sure. Look, I have always agreed largely with the mayor's affordability agenda, and I'VE always been outspoken in saying I support that. I worked with him directly on a pilot program for free buses. I, as I mentioned, have been a longtime advocate of universal child care. I think it is one of the most important things that we can do to support working families and our economy all in one. I have had conversations with the mayor since the election about helping with the. His idea of the Department of Community Safety, which is something that I have advocated for a long time since my time as a prosecutor, that we need much more mental health and substance abuse treatment in our criminal justice system in our efforts to keep the public safe. And I've the lead of two bills that would expand mental health treatment for Medicaid recipients. I think that it is. I would ask him to point to specific policies that he supports that I don't. And I don't think you'll find any, to be quite honest. And I think our, you know, my voting record is one of the most progressive in Congress. I am not only, you know, advocating for our working families and gearing my entire approach to making this city and this country more affordable and more accessible for many people who are left out. But, you know, I'm doing it to be honest, against my own self interest. And I think what's really important in getting results is to build a broad coalition of people from all sorts of different backgrounds who are trying to get to the same outcome. And that the more different people we have, or different backgrounds or different experiences we have advocating for those positions and those policies, the more effective it will be. You know, I don't think it's worth belaboring, you know, the endorsement, you know, the job of a member of Congress is, is different than, you know, a mayor, a governor, a city official. And my job, you know, is, is not necessarily to, you know, endorse or not endorse, but I find it also

A (51:40)

a little,

B (51:43)

a little unsettling and, and misguided to say that there is one view of the entire district. I had numerous, numerous constituents come up to me and say that mostly Jewish and say that they're really afraid with the rise of anti Semitism, the violence in the name of anti Semitism, with some of the previous positions and comments that the mayor had made. And I had a very good conversation with him where I explained those concerns and it had nothing to do with Israel. I told him, look, we're not going to agree on Israel, but that doesn't matter. That's not your job. But what your job is, is to protect all New Yorkers, make sure. All New Yorkers can feel safe and secure. And many, many Jews were very, and still are very afraid. And I was hoping that he would take concrete steps to address it. He didn't. I stayed out of the race, but I immediately reached out to him after and because he's the mayor and I'm looking forward to working with him and to accomplish our mutual goals of making life better for New Yorkers. And so, yeah, I mean, just to

A (53:03)

be clear, this is a district, you know, when you take into account the entirety of the 10th congressional district and there's some big, you know, over Brooklyn versus Manhattan splits here. But, but the overall district is, you know, final primary 56 Mandani 44, Cuomo. General 60, Mamdani 35, Cuomo. So it's certainly not monolithic by any means, as you're getting it.

B (53:28)

Yeah, it's not monolithic. And, and people vote for different reasons, I think. Zora.

A (53:33)

But that's, I mean, that's the core issue of your concerns about Mamdani in the, in the election and seemingly what Lander is pointing to about, you know, your distance from the mayor. Where are you now? I mean, what have you, have you seen anything from the mayor? I know it's only been 16 days as we're speaking here, but, you know, how do you feel about these core issues and his approach to, you know, how he's handled Israel, Gaza, protests, you know, the various things that have come up. Are you still particularly concerned? Have you seen anything more concerning or encouraging? How do you feel now about these issues?

B (54:14)

Well, look, I think, you know, anybody who sees a protest that is overtly speaking out in support of Hamas, a terrorist organization whose number one mission is to destroy Israel and all Jews, but who has, which has also killed its own civilians and has completely degraded Gaza to the point where, you know, they're using all the money they got for their tunnels for terrorism and not for the people. And that's, I think that's why there are many who are scared. And look, as a representative, you know, and I say this to a lot of people. I was, I heard from many, many Jews. They were, they're not worried about the anti Semitism, and that's terrific, and I was very happy to hear that. But I heard from many that they are, and, you know, somewhat as a representative, your job is to address the problems. And if there are people don't think there are problems, then that's good, that doesn't need to be addressed. But I do think that it is still an important issue. And it remains, you know, I'm optimistic that the mayor will see the issues here and will address it. But what I'm focused on, you know, here with the mayor, with the city, with the country, is making life better for all Americans and all New Yorkers. And that's got to be to make housing more affordable. That's got to be to make health care universal and accessible. That's got to be universal child care so that people have high quality childcare and they can continue their careers and their ascension in our economy and our society. And that's where I'm. What I'm focused on in Washington and in the city, and that's where I'm. What I'm focused on working with the mayor on.

A (56:18)

Did you feel like he was slow and not strong enough in condemning those pro Hamas chants that we heard in Queens recently? About a week ago? No.

B (56:27)

I mean, look, I think it's a difficult job and I'm certainly willing to give him some leeway here in his first couple weeks. But I also think that this is not the job of a member of Congress. It's not what I spend my time on. And, you know, as you talk about.

A (56:52)

You mean critiquing the mayor and his reactions or what, what are you referring to?

B (56:57)

No, I, I just, I, I mean,

A (56:59)

when you say it's important.

B (57:00)

But yeah, you know, I, I think that the, the threats that we are really facing in this district, in this country come from Donald Trump and his administration. And that's both threats to our basic foundations of democracy. But it's also the attack on our working families and taking away health care, taking away food benefits, terrorizing our, our neighbors and friends who are either immigrants or may look like immigrants. I mean, it's that, it's that simple. That's what my focus is on. That's what the job is. You know, the job is not to, of course, it includes foreign policy, but where I think the threats are and what I spend my time worried about is what's happening from within, and that's what really affects the constituents in the district. And that's where my attention is, and I think that's where the dangers are that we are facing.

A (58:05)

Hearing all that, as you know, in the electoral campaign here, some of that case that your opponent's making against you is, you know, not supportive enough of the mayor. When I was, you know, this is Lander speaking, of course, you know, was out there helping him get elected and, you know, defeating Andrew Cuomo. But then part of that extends to this view of the district and your approach to how Israel prosecuted this war and, and basically, again, saying that the politics of the district are. That you've been out of step with the politics of the district in terms of being more of an Israel hawk, let's say, than the sort of district's feelings, especially as time went on. I know you've expressed a lot of concerns about some of how Israel has prosecuted the war and about a lack of humanitarian aid and, and some of those things. But as you look at sort of the scope of this now, did you get anything wrong here? Was there an assessment that you had of Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel and how they were going to, you know, approach a response to October 7th, but then, you know, approach things after an initial response that would, you know, be more in line with moral and legal and humanitarian bounds that they have not been anything. Now, looking back at the scope of these things that you wish you had said differently or spoken out about sooner,

B (59:42)

look, I think when you, you know, you look at the comparison between my opponent and me, you're not going to find many differences on this issue. I think we both were horrified by October 7th. We are both Zionists who support Israel as a Jewish state. We both oppose Prime Minister Netanyahu and this government. And I make a very, I think, important point of drawing a distinction between the state of Israel and the government of Israel, and that that's something that we all have to remember. Just as Donald Trump is not, not synonymous with the United States, Bibi Netanyahu is not synonymous with, with Israel. And we saw even before October 7, the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who were protesting his efforts to undermine democracy there. Not dissimilar to what we've been doing here with, with Donald Trump. I have consistently, as I know Brad, has objected to the settlements in the west bank and the expansion of them and violence there. A month after October 7, I wrote a letter to both the administration, our administration, and the Israeli government that they had to clamp down on that, that that was unacceptable. I have always been a huge, huge advocate because of how horrific everything, you know, unfolded in Gaza, that we need to have much more humanitarian aid and surge humanitarian aid far earlier, far more. And that that was Israel's responsibility as well as the international community. And I'm now optimistic that, you know, my goal, my strong belief in a two state solution as the only path forward actually is closer to reality than it has been since 2000 because we do have a ceasefire, which, by the way, I called for a ceasefire in February of 2024. And we finally now are there.

A (61:55)

Do we do, I mean, do you consider, do you think it is in actuality a ceasefire right now?

B (62:02)

I think it is a. And yes, I think it is a ceasefire agreement that has had many blemishes but is still holding together. And my, my commitment and objective right now is to that it holds together that Hamas does demilitarize so that there can be an international security force that can keep both Gaza and Israel secure and can lay the foundation for the Palestinian civilians to have self determination, which they justly deserve. And they can live with peace and security and prosperity, which they have not been able to to do under the rule of Hamas.

A (62:47)

Last two things on this is one of the differences between you and Lander, the question of wanting to condition US Aid to Israel. He said he was out there even before this current war in Gaza and Israel's response to October 7, that he previously was calling for conditions on US aid to Israel. Based on some of what you just mentioned about settlements, west bank settlements and so forth, is that a difference between you or where do you stand on sort of conditioning US Aid to Israel?

B (63:18)

Well, in the West Bank, I was very supportive of the Biden administration withholding weapons that the Israeli government was giving to the settlers. And I was very vocal about that in support of that. I also, you know, just prior to the ceasefire, was working with a number of my colleagues to figure out a way to prevent Israel from using offensive weapons in Gaza that I thought they were absolutely improperly using and was had absolutely no strategic benefit and was just horrifically destroying Gaza and killing innocent people in a way that is unacceptable. But I do think that Israel needs to be able to defend itself. As we have seen over the last two years, it's not just Hamas. Iran itself multiple times committed acts of war, sent missiles into Israel. You have Hezbollah, you have the Houthis, you have any number of proxies whose sole mission is to eradicate Israel. And so Israel needs to be able to defend itself. And what I was focused on was figuring out an incentive to get an end to the war, which cannot be, which could not be accomplished, in my view, unilaterally by putting pressure only on Israel because we needed to also put pressure on Hamas. So I am certainly in agreement that what has happened in Gaza is absolutely devastating and horrific and unacceptable.

A (65:02)

And you've been asked recently if you agree with Lander and many others in calling Israel's actions a genocide. You said you want to see an investigation and you're not ready to use that, you know, legal term is. Is that still how you feel?

B (65:17)

I don't. Yeah. I don't believe it's. It's a genocide. The Biden administration did not believe it's a genocide. But I think labels are really beside the point in my view because I certainly agree that what has happened there has been just devastating, dreadful, and as I said, unacceptable. And it's been horrific to see innocent Palestinians dying and starving. And it is part of the reason why I have consistently put, voiced opposition to what this Israeli government has done with humanitarian aid, even though, you know, I understand Hamas is, was stealing the vast majority of it and then reselling it. And I get it, but it's just basic values and morals that you make sure innocent people are fed and taken care of. And so, you know, I have been pushing for that. I am pushing for that. I continue to push for that. But I continue to look forward and work towards a two state solution so that Palestinian civilians can live with freedom and self determination as they deserve and that there can be peace for both countries side by side in the Middle east with a secure and prosperous future for both peoples.

A (66:44)

Let me get you out of here on this. I have to let you go and I appreciate all the time and thoughts just to return to the political map for a moment. Speaking of the political map, perhaps making some of this conversation moot, there is this question about whether this 10th congressional district and the 11th congressional district currently represented by Nicole Malliotakis, the lone Republican in the New York City delegation in Congress, there might be those districts redrawn where your home and your, your base in Lower Manhattan would be drawn into a New New York 11. Do you want to see that happen? Are you supportive of that redraw and would that mean that you would quickly pivot if that happens to seeking out a general election against Representative Malia Takis? If that came down here in the next couple months.

B (67:34)

Look, I am fully focused on running for reelection in the 10th district, which I've been incredibly proud to represent. And it's where I've lived and where I've built some really, really important and terrific relationships. And I think our launch event really reflected that, where we had hundreds of people in a room in Chinatown from all parts of the district. We had probably close to 100 people from various different NYCHA developments who were coming out to support me because we've built really good relationships, had numerous people from the Lower east side and from Chinatown and from, you know, Sunset park and, you know, the heart and the brownstone, Brooklyn and all over. And those relationships, I think, are really meaningful to me to doing the work on the ground and helping the people who really need and the help and have traditionally not gotten it.

A (68:38)

It.

B (68:38)

And so I'm. I want to be in this district. I want to represent this district, and I want to represent, you know, my neighbors and, and those who I've really built those relationships with. The number one goal we have right now is to flip the House. And that has to be what our priority is. And it should be where everybody is focused right now. And if that means that this lawsuit is successful and Leader Jeffries wants me to run in a different district against a Republican because it gives us an opportunity to flip a seat. You know, I'm a team player. I have been a team player since I've been there, and I'm certainly willing to do that, but that's not my focus right now, and I have no idea what's going to happen with the legal case. And, and, you know, I'm really eager.

A (69:35)

You won't be filing an amicus brief or pushing. Pushing in one way or another in that case?

B (69:40)

No, not at all. Not at all. You know, in a best case scenario, we'd be able to flip that seat and I would still be able to represent the current district.

A (69:52)

And real quick, you have two neighboring districts where there are open seats right now with the retirements of Nydia Velasquez and Jerry nadler happening. New York 7, Representative Velasquez, district. Do you prefer Claire Valdez or Antonio Reynoso in that, in that race?

B (70:09)

I, I am solely focused on my own district, my own race, and I'm, I have not and don't intend to weigh in on those anytime soon.

A (70:20)

And so that goes for New York 12 as well. The Nadler seat. Okay. I thought. I thought that might be one where you're ready to, to jump in either for your fellow Trump critic, George Conway, perhaps, or Michael Lasher, more likely, I was assuming, might have your support there, but you're staying out of it.

B (70:40)

Yeah, for now, I'm just focused right. On my own reelection and getting the message out that I think my progressive agenda is very much in line with the broader district and that I am not just sort of pounding my chest and screaming from the rooftops, but I'm really focused on being successful and effective and getting results and using some of the creativity that we used on the impeachment to apply to both legislation and policy to make life better for the people of the district. And I'm proud of what we've been able to do and you know, we've closed 6,000 constituent cases over three years which is one of the most in Congress. I have a terrific staff that is all over the district and you know, I'm really proud of the work that we've done and that's really what my focus is, making sure that everybody in the district as has a full picture of what we've done over the last three years.

A (71:54)

All right. Well we got into a lot of it here in this conversation so I appreciate all this time and the thoughts as this campaign really gets going. Congressman Dan Goldman, Democrat representing the 10th congressional district, lower Manhattan and a big swath of Brooklyn. I listed all the neighborhoods in the introduction so I won't go through them again now. But Congressman Goldman, thanks for all the time, really appreciate it.

B (72:14)

Thank you, Ben. Great to be with you.

A (72:40)

It.