Dave Rubin & Ro Khanna Debate: Trump's 1st 100 Days & Are Judges Above the Law?

Summary

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin & Ro Khanna Debate Trump's 1st 100 Days & Are Judges Above the Law?

Release Date: May 1, 2025

In this compelling episode of The Rubin Report, host Dave Rubin engages in a robust debate with Congressman Ro Khanna from California's 17th district. The discussion delves deep into President Donald Trump's first 100 days in office, the administration's immigration policies, the role of judges in upholding the law, and the broader dynamics within the Democratic Party. This summary captures the essence of their conversation, highlighting key points, notable quotes, and insightful exchanges.

---

1. Introduction and Setting the Stage

Timestamp: 00:08 - 03:53

Dave Rubin opens the show with reflections on the rapid passage of time and introduces Congressman Ro Khanna as his co-host. Rubin emphasizes the difficulty in securing open conversations with Democrats, noting past guests like Bobby Kennedy and Tulsi Gabbard. Despite these challenges, Ro Khanna's participation marks a significant moment for the show.

Dave Rubin:

"The whole point of America is that people who think differently about things can live in a country peacefully together."
(00:09)

Ro Khanna:

"It's important that we have an exchange of ideas, free speech, not to have censorship."
(02:27)

---

2. Economic Stagnation and Policy Responses

Timestamp: 05:20 - 09:26

The conversation shifts to economic stagnation over the past four decades. Khanna criticizes policies like NAFTA and the WTO's terms with China, highlighting the hollowing out of American industries such as steel, aluminum, and shipbuilding. He advocates for a "Marshall Plan for America," emphasizing federal investment to rebuild industries rather than relying solely on tariffs.

Ro Khanna:

"We need a Marshall Plan for America... where you need to build industry."
(05:20)

Dave Rubin:

"Did the Inflation Reduction Act not help stimulate the economy? Did it not just actually increase inflation?"
(06:04)

Khanna responds by distinguishing between broad industry support and strategic policies like the Chips and Science Act, which he helped author. He acknowledges the act's success in attracting investments, such as TSMC in Arizona, while critiquing the administration's inconsistent implementation.

---

3. Trump's Tariff Strategy and Its Implications

Timestamp: 08:06 - 09:55

Rubin questions Trump's blanket 10% tariffs on all countries, suggesting they create unpredictability and are not strategically targeted. Khanna partially agrees, supporting tariffs on specific industries like steel and aluminum but condemns the universal application.

Dave Rubin:

"He put a blanket 10% tariff on all these countries... this seems a negotiation tactic."
(08:06)

Ro Khanna:

"He's doing it in a strategic way it should have."
(09:26)

---

4. Immigration Policies and Judicial Overreach

Timestamp: 09:55 - 26:25

A significant portion of the debate centers on recent immigration enforcement actions, particularly the case involving Judge Hannah Dugan. Rubin questions Khanna's stance on her arrest for allegedly obstructing justice by facilitating the escape of an undocumented immigrant, Zachary Abrego.

Dave Rubin:

"You put up a video... she simply stood up for the rights of immigrants."
(09:55)

Ro Khanna:

"We need to demand the release of this judge and have due process."
(10:18)

Rubin challenges Khanna by asserting that Abrego was an illegal immigrant involved in serious crimes, questioning the administration's overreach. Khanna defends the necessity of due process even for undocumented individuals and criticizes the federal government's interference with state judges.

Ro Khanna:

"Imagine the federal government arresting state judges... I just think it's a dangerous line on federalism and separation of powers."
(17:19)

Rubin expresses skepticism about Khanna's use of the term "immigrant" without specifying legality, arguing it confuses the issue. Khanna clarifies his position, advocating for legal processes and a path to citizenship while emphasizing that due process should apply to all individuals in the U.S.

---

5. The Abrego Case and Constitutional Debates

Timestamp: 26:25 - 40:50

Rubin introduces the Abrego case, where Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, was deported to El Salvador despite claims of genuine fear of persecution. He questions the constitutional implications of the Supreme Court's ruling that the Trump administration must facilitate Abrego's return.

Dave Rubin:

"The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must facilitate... we can't force."
(38:50)

Ro Khanna:

"We hold ourselves up to the highest ideals... we preserve due process."
(34:43)

Khanna argues that even though Abrego is a citizen of El Salvador, the U.S. must uphold constitutional standards, including asylum laws and due process. He criticizes the administration for overstepping federal authority and highlights the importance of maintaining the rule of law.

---

6. Impeachment and Democratic Party Dynamics

Timestamp: 42:34 - 49:13

The discussion shifts to impeachment, with Rubin referencing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Bernie Sanders' positions. He questions whether impeaching Trump is beneficial for the Democratic Party, suggesting it may alienate voters.

Dave Rubin:

"Do you think this helps your party? Do you think that widens the tent that now is the Democrat Party?"
(44:00)

Ro Khanna:

"We need to be focused on our future as a party on the economy... new economic patriotism."
(44:28)

Khanna emphasizes moving beyond political theater and focusing on substantive economic policies to address the needs of neglected communities. He criticizes the party for not prioritizing economic reform and technological advancement.

---

7. Academic Freedom and Harvard's Admission Practices

Timestamp: 51:28 - 62:00

Rubin brings up Harvard University's admissions practices, citing a report on alleged anti-Semitism and biased admission rates favoring African American applicants over Asians. He questions Khanna's stance on race-based considerations in admissions.

Dave Rubin:

"If you are Asian and you apply to Harvard, you have a 12.7% chance of getting in. If you are African American, it's 56.1%."
(53:53)

Ro Khanna:

"Race and diversity of race is an important consideration... but not dispositive."
(54:18)

Khanna defends the consideration of race as one of many factors in admissions to ensure diversity, akin to military academies' practices. He rejects the notion of quotas but supports a holistic approach that includes economic and social factors.

Dave Rubin:

"Why do you think race matters? I don't think race matters."
(54:51)

Ro Khanna:

"We need to have our leadership reflect the beauty of this country... diversity is a consideration."
(57:05)

The debate highlights the ongoing tension between merit-based and diversity-driven admissions policies, with Khanna advocating for a balanced approach that enriches educational environments through varied experiences and backgrounds.

---

8. Future of the Democratic Party and Leadership

Timestamp: 62:00 - 66:46

Rubin questions the Democratic Party's direction, referencing candidates like Stephen A. Smith and the focus on race over economic issues. Khanna counters by emphasizing authentic engagement with diverse communities and the importance of strong economic policies.

Dave Rubin:

"It sounds like Democrats have a big mess on their hands... consider impeachment."
(65:12)

Ro Khanna:

"We have to show a willingness to go everywhere, an authenticity, a spontaneity... improve people's lives."
(66:46)

Khanna critiques the party's internal dynamics and calls for leadership that prioritizes economic security and technological advancement, moving away from identity politics to address the real needs of American citizens.

---

9. Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Timestamp: 67:15 - End

As the episode wraps up, Rubin reflects on the conversation, expressing frustration with the Democratic Party's current trajectory but acknowledging the value of open dialogue. He invites Ro Khanna to future discussions, highlighting the importance of diverse viewpoints in shaping America's future.

Dave Rubin:

"I think this perfectly shined a light on exactly why the Democrats are kind of screwy at the moment."
(67:28)

Ro Khanna:

"I genuinely believe we need more conversations like this... find constructive solutions."
(67:15)

The episode underscores the complexities of contemporary American politics, emphasizing the need for bipartisan discussions to navigate challenges related to immigration, economic policy, judicial authority, and party unity.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Ro Khanna (05:20): "We need a Marshall Plan for America... where you need to build industry."
• Dave Rubin (14:08): "If you had an illegal in your house and ICE came to your door and you hid them... the second he walks out of the courtroom, he should be arrested."
• Ro Khanna (37:51): "Every person in America also has free speech. I don't think we have lesser standards of due process for people in our borders."
• Ro Khanna (56:17): "Having talked to a lot of cadets, they're very, very qualified and they're also diverse and they're doing extraordinary work for our country."

This episode offers a nuanced exploration of pivotal issues facing the United States, reflecting the ongoing debates that shape the nation's political landscape.

Transcript

[Ro Khanna]

All right, guys.

[Dave Rubin]

Hello, I'm Dave Rubin. This is the Rubin report. It's May 1, 2025. I had to confirm with the team what the date was before we started just now. Holy cow, the year is going. I don't know. I've said this to you before, I don't know if this is just like a middle aged thing or something, but it just seems to me that the days, the weeks, the months, the years are just going by faster and faster. I mean, we're almost halfway through 25 already. I do apologize that we're running a few minutes late today. Congressman Ro Khanna, Democrat Ro Khanna will be the co host on today's Show. He's in D.C. right now and he was hung up in a meeting, so he'll be on any minute. We were trying to delay long enough, but I can't have you guys sitting at your computer for six minutes just staring at. I know what you were doing on that other tab, by the way. And you naughty and nasty, I'll tell you that much. But Ro Khanna will be joining us in just a moment. And I do want to say if you did not see my interview that we did with Congressman Khanna, it was about four months ago or so in dc. I have tried over the last couple years to have Democrats on. The last Democrat that I had on before Ro Khanna was Bobby Kennedy when he was a Democrat. The last Democrat I had on before that was Tulsi Gabbard when she was a Democrat. Obviously it's become incredibly difficult to find Democrats who are willing to have open conversation. Every time we go to D.C. we do the same exact thing. We throw out about 20 invites to Republicans, about 20 invites to Democrats. I don't hide my opinion about any of these things. So people know who I am, they know basically what I think. And Democrats never even respond to us. They don't even respond. However, Ro Khanna did. We had a great sit down for an hour. We had some agreement and some disagreement. I think he's just getting in his chair right now, so we're gonna bring him on in just a second. And I do wanna just preface all of this by saying whatever our agreements or disagreements are in some sense is irrelevant. We both love the country. We might see things a little bit differently, particularly as it pertains to what's going on with immigration and deportations. But the whole point of America is that people who think differently about things can live in a country peacefully together. So with that note, I welcome the Congressman from California 17th district, Ro Khanna. Ro, how are you?

[Ro Khanna]

Great, Dave. Thank you for having me back on. I saw you got some flack from your own audience saying, you got this guy, sometimes he says progressive things. Why are you putting him on your show? But I appreciate it because I think even when we disagree, it's so important that we have an exchange of ideas, free speech, not to have censorship. And so I'm appreciative for the opportunity.

[Dave Rubin]

Thank you. I have no doubt you got a little pushback too, from perhaps some of your more progressive constituents. But yes, you're totally right. And that's why I prefaced the show the way I did. And, well, let's just dive into it because we did. We had a little Twitter spat. It's okay. Everyone's gonna be okay. But we had a little Twitter spat the other day. As it pertains to.

[Ro Khanna]

You gotta have me and our vice president, J.D. vancy. We can settle our Twitter arguments on your show.

[Dave Rubin]

You know what?

[Ro Khanna]

You know, if you want to have both of us next time, that'd be great.

[Dave Rubin]

I will message the vice president personally after this and see if we can make that happen.

[Ro Khanna]

But before we get into it, I'll get you that last point. And I don't want to. He was a Marine, of course, I respect his service. And he was one of our mutual best friends, Cullen. They were Marines together in Afghanistan and many stories. So I think we've gotta move in this country where when we disagree, we can still respect each other as individuals and have an argument on the ideas.

[Dave Rubin]

I'm with ya. It's why I started doing this show this way, and again, why I'm appreciative that you're here, because it has been very, very difficult to get Democrats on the show. But, you know, before we get into the little Twitter thing, I wanna read a quote from you. You gave a speech at Yale recently and listen to this. Allow me to quote you, if you don't mind. This is directly from your speech you wrote. But today a great anger grips the public. Burned by years of war, wearied by economic stagnation, and fearful that the foreign born among us now compromise a larger share of our population than at any point in a century. From this disquiet rise is not a call to reform, but to dismantle. To cast off the judges in their robes, the scholars in their gowns, and the press with its inconvenient questions. I thought that actually might be an interesting way to tee us up here because a lot of what you're Saying there, I agree with, in some sense, but I think we probably put much of the blame on, let's say, different people. So the press, I do blame the press largely for lying about an awful lot of things. I do think it's quite possible that a certain amount of people are not making the distinction between legal and illegal immigration, which then and causes people to use accusations of racism and everything else. But I guess my question would be, how was the reaction to your speech in Yale? Because you kind of gave it to both sides to some extent.

[Ro Khanna]

You know, it got the most reaction probably of any speech I've given. And there were two central points to it. One, that institutions have failed us at the current moment, that people have been left economically stagnant. People feel that they don't. Their way of life isn't being respected. But at the second point was that we need to have a robust defense of academic freedom, freedom of thought, not having censorship. And I was. I've been concerned about the attacks on, on universities. I think now I understand that universities need to make sure that they have conservative voices and that there's robust debate and we can have that argument. But attacking them, in my view, is not the solution.

[Dave Rubin]

So, okay, so we'll get to Harvard and some of the things that are going on there. So when you talk about economic stagnation now, it seems to me you, in this speech, you were applying this to the current administration. When you see things like the Inflation Reduction act that the Democrats passed, that Biden pushed through, I mean, did that do anything to help stimulate the economy? Did it not just actually increase inflation?

[Ro Khanna]

It did. But first of all, my economic stagnation, I was talking about the last 40 years. I mean, there's some things that I agree with conservative critiques. NAFTA was a huge mistake letting China into the World Trade Organization on those terms. Huge mistake. We hollowed out steel, we hollowed out aluminum, we hollowed out shipbuilding, we hollowed out drug manufacturing. Industry after industry left places like Lorain, Ohio, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, Galesburg, Illinois. You know, they've lost population, churches have been shrinking, storefronts are abandoned. And this country didn't do anything. And what we need, in my view, is a Marshall Plan for America, not, not. Not just for what we did for Europe. Let's rebuild these places now. Where I have a disagreement with Trump is they think tariff policy is going to solve all of it. But before you can protect industry, you need to build industry. My view is we need investment, federal investment, and federal purchase agreements to be able to do that. That's what the Chips and Science act was about, that I helped write with Todd Young, a bipartisan act. And, you know, with all this money that's coming in in Arizona of tsmc, all of that started because of the Chips and Science act, by the way. It was a Trump administration idea. The guy, Keith Crouch in 2018, an undersecretary under Trump, came up with the idea of chips and science that we ended up writing into law. So I don't understand why the administration's backing away from that. And the IRA had a lot of investments that are going to create good jobs in red districts. Was it perfect? No. Can it be implemented better? Yes. But do we need industrial policy in this country? I believe we do.

[Dave Rubin]

So do you not think that Trump using the tariffs as leverage to get better deals, which, again, we'll find out where this all lands in about 70 days from now. He gave about 70 countries about 90 days to figure this thing out. Do you not view that as a just a negotiation tactic which will clearly have other countries coming back us with better deals? Because that seems fairly obvious to me. I mean, I think we've seen that already from several countries.

[Ro Khanna]

He's put a blanket 10% tariff on all these countries. Like Europe has said that they were willing to negotiate zero for zero tariffs already. So I don't know why, if it was just negotiation. They've come to the table before any of this saying that they're willing to eliminate tariffs on American products for many products. And the other thing is that you could have this negotiation without imposing the kind of tariffs he did, which has created unpredictability. I guess I would have. I did support him on steel tariffs. I did support him on strategic tariffs on aluminum. I did support him on strategic tariffs on China. Where he lost me was when he did it for every country, where he did it across the board at 10% and where he went so high as he has on some of the numbers. I just think it hasn't been done in the strategic way it should have.

[Dave Rubin]

Right. Okay. All right, so let's leave that there for a moment and get into what got me to have you on the show today. Because obviously a lot of the stuff that's happening right now with deportations and with judges that are going against the administration, and you can probably argue the administration going against the judges, et cetera, et cetera. You put up a video, we're gonna show about 30 seconds of it talking about the Wisconsin judge who, in your view, was standing up for the rights of Immigrants go judge for simply standing.

[Ro Khanna]

Up for the rights of immigrants. This is without any historical precedent and truly terrifying. Every American, every person who cares about the rule of law and freedom needs to stand up and speak out. We need to demand the release of this judge and have due process and the rule of law this morning.

[Dave Rubin]

Okay. Okay. So the line that got me there was that you said, simply standing up for the rights of immigrants. So I responded on Twitter the way everybody does, and I said, what are you doing, man? You responded. You responded respectfully. Enjoyed our chat. You don't think the federal government arresting a local judge in handcuffs for how she ran her courtroom is a scary overreach of federal power? That was the question you were presenting back to me. I responded with this. I said, you said, quote, she simply stood up for the rights of immigrants, not noting illegal, but also she actively broke the law. People get arrested in handcuffs. I enjoyed our chat, too. But this, as I mentioned many times, is another reason why I'm done with the Democrats. So before I have you chime in, let's just have Pam Bondi, the current attorney general who did do this, chime in on what happened.

[Ro Khanna]

No one is above the law.

[Dave Rubin]

In Milwaukee, an illegal alien from Mexico.

[Ro Khanna]

Was in court being prosecuted for domestic violence. He was charged with violently attacking a man, punching him in the face 30.

[Dave Rubin]

Times, strangling him, and then attacking a.

[Ro Khanna]

Woman by punching her in the face with his closed fist. Both victims were brave enough to be in court. The judge, Hannah Dugan, learned that ICE.

[Dave Rubin]

Was outside to arrest him after court. She is now charged with obstruction of.

[Ro Khanna]

Justice for sneaking this criminal defendant, an.

[Dave Rubin]

Illegal alien, out a back exit through.

[Ro Khanna]

Her chambers to avoid his arrest, leaving.

[Dave Rubin]

The victims and prosecutors sitting in court.

[Ro Khanna]

All morning waiting on justice.

[Dave Rubin]

All right, Ro, it seems pretty clear cut to me, so let's just do the first part first, which is that you wrote simply standing up for the rights of immigrants. You acknowledge this was an illegal immigrant, not just an immigrant, correct?

[Ro Khanna]

I acknowledge that he very well may be undocumented, and he very well, maybe.

[Dave Rubin]

But it's not very well. I mean, there's. He's an illegal immigrant. I mean, that's what they.

[Ro Khanna]

I mean, the term I use is undocumented. But, yes, I acknowledge that he. That from everything I've read that he doesn't. He doesn't have legal status in the country.

[Dave Rubin]

Right. And is there anything in there that Pam Bondi said that is not true? As far as you know?

[Ro Khanna]

Here are the facts as I understand it. First of all, my concern is that the judge shouldn't have been arrested. I mean, if they wanted to put a. Some complaint against the judge, etc. Obviously, I don't condone anyone interfering with the law enforcement. I think arresting a judge for what she did, maybe I. You correct me, my facts are wrong. My understanding is he was let out of the jury room. The door. He ultimately had to go in a public hallway. The public hallway. The de. The ICE agents, basically, or others were there with him. They rode the elevator down. And so this is not an example of some judge who's sort of saying, okay, I'm going to take a secret exit where someone is fleeing the building. The person was ultimately in a public hallway in the building and didn't want the person arrested in her courtroom. And I guess my view is, isn't that a state, local judge saying, I don't want the person arrested in my courtroom? It doesn't strike me as a criminal offense. And it doesn't seem that we'll have to look at the facts. But the guy was arrested. He was in a public hallway.

[Dave Rubin]

Right? Well, again, I mean, it is the job of ICE to apprehend illegal immigrants. I mean, that is the job of ice. And it sounds like she, at the very least, obfuscated or confused their ability to do their job. Now, your issue, I think also was that she was put in handcuffs and everything else. I mean, at the end of the day, if you had had an illegal in your house and ICE came to your door and you hid them or snuck them out the back, they would arrest. Not you're a congressman. They would arrest me, yes.

[Ro Khanna]

But that's very different. If I'm hiding someone who's broken the law in my house or telling them to evade arrest, yes, that's a crime. But let me ask you this, because you're being very thoughtful about it. If a judge says, do not arrest someone, let's say she didn't have him go out the jury room. Let's say she just had him go out the regular. Sorry, would you have a problem with that?

[Dave Rubin]

Literally, just as you made your point that that sentence your audio cut out, so if you could just repeat that, please.

[Ro Khanna]

Would you have a problem if she just said, I don't want anyone arrested in my courtroom? You can, you know, and it wasn't a question of, okay, they used the jury door. Let's say it was the other door. Do you believe that a local judge should be able to say, look, in my courtroom, I don't want someone to be arrested. A church could say that in a church or that's not concealing someone's arrest. It's just saying in this courtroom, I don't want ICE arresting someone.

[Dave Rubin]

Well, I don't know what the legal. The actual legal procedure is as it relates to that. Whether ICE is allowed to literally walk in the courtroom or not, I don't know what that is. But the idea that a judge would do anything so that it would confuse, at the very least, ice's ability to do their job does seem illegal to me. And then the issue about the handcuffs, it's like, look, I don't think judges are above the law. I mean, I just don't. If you harbored an illegal alien, you'd be taken away in handcuffs, and so would I. So I don't see why a judge would be treated any better than us, I suppose, or better than anyone else as to whether it happened in the courtroom or not is somewhat irrelevant. But the second the guy, let's say, even if I grant you that right, again, I don't know the legal ramifications of all that, but the second he walks out of the courtroom, he should be arrested.

[Ro Khanna]

And my sense is he was. He goes to a public hallway, they don't arrest him. I don't understand why they don't arrest him right at the public hallway, but then they eventually arrest him. I would have a very different view of the facts of the case if she had said, come to my house, or here's a car. Go drive away, or here's someone who's going to escort you to safety. She basically said, exit the courtroom. A lot of times when there's a lot of press or other things, people exit through the jury room. We'll see the facts. If the facts come out showing that she was actually trying to have this person evade the ICE agents, then I still don't think in this context, in the courtroom, it's a criminal matter. But I'm not going to condone that in any way. But my point is just this idea of the federal government arresting state judges. Imagine, look, there is going to be a Democratic president at some point. Imagine a Democratic president now federalizing the powers and saying, okay, if we disagree with a state judge and think that the state judge is violating in some way the laws, maybe they put the Ten Commandments up in the courtroom and they think it's an a violation of establishment that we're going to send in people to arrest the judge. I just think it's a dangerous line on federalism and separation of powers.

[Dave Rubin]

Right well, it's interesting. I like when I hear that Democrats still care about federalism and separation of powers. So I will give you that. But let me throw to Tom Homan's opinion on this. As I said from day one, you don't have to support ISIS operations. You can support sanctuary cities if that's what you desire to do. Sanctuary cities can stand aside and watch ICE keep their communities safe. Because any public official, whether you're mayor, city councilman, or governor, their number one responsibility is protection the communities. And ICE has been clear we're targeting public safety threats and national security threats. I can't believe there's any elected official, and especially a judge that doesn't believe we should be doing that and they should be helping us. What I said from day one, you can sit aside and watch. You can, you can argue against us all you want and protest all you want, but when you cross that line, I've said this a thousand times, when you cross that line to impedement or knowingly harboring, concealing an illegal alien mice, you will be prosecuted. So, again, so I just agree with that wholeheartedly. And that is connected to what Bondi said, as per what the judge did. It sounds like you have a slightly different take on that. But I do wanna just get back to the phrase illegal again in the video, when you said immigrant, like, are you intentionally trying to confuse illegal and legal? Because I think that's the way it reads to most people, even if that is not your intent.

[Ro Khanna]

No, I think that people should come into the country through the legal process. And I think that that is the law of the country. And I certainly am not encouraging anyone to come in, not through the legal process. My parents came here as immigrants. They got a student visa, they got a green card, they became citizens.

[Dave Rubin]

So why not just say illegal? Why not just say illegal instead of just saying immigrant? Which does confuse the issue. If this was a legal citizen of the United States and ICE came for them, nobody would be for it. I'd be screaming about that, of course.

[Ro Khanna]

Well, look, I could have said an immigrant without legal status or without documents. I think that the question is, in the Abrego case, where I acknowledge the person doesn't have status, is that the person still has some due process. And I guess that's one of the questions is there's. This is where I got into a back and forth with the vice President. His argument is, and I don't think I'm distorting it, is that people who are undocumented in this country who don't have legal status are entitled to less due process under the law because he thinks that it's too much of a burden on American citizens. The 14th Amendment says that you have to have due process for every person in America, that every person in America also has free speech. I don't think we have lesser standards of due process for people in our borders.

[Dave Rubin]

That's just what would you. Okay, so putting aside the constitutional argument there, what would you make about the literal argument that if 10 to 15 million people came into this country in the last four years, which is what it sounds like, about 10,000 people a day, that quite literally. And again, I'm slightly putting aside the constitutional argument for a moment. How else are we supposed to get rid of people, whether they are beating women or raping people or bringing fentanyl or they're just illegal in the first place? How else are we supposed to do it? I mean, nobody was talking about it for four years that they were breaking the law coming here in the first place.

[Ro Khanna]

Well, I think that we have to deport people who have been convicted of serious criminal offenses. And I have confidence in our legal process to be able to do that. I think you can give someone due process and then adjudicate that and make sure that they are convicted and deported if it's a violent. If it's sort of domestic violence, if it's violent felony for a lot of people.

[Dave Rubin]

But how do we do that? How do we do that for 10 to 15 million people? And by the way, not all of them are criminals. Not all of them are violent criminals, but they are all criminals. I mean, it is illegal. If I just wandered into Mexico and they found me, they would kick me out immediately and it would be well within their right.

[Ro Khanna]

Well, I think we need to have secure borders. But certainly, I don't know if it's your view. Do you really believe that everyone who's undocumented in America and the estimates range from 12 to 15, 18 million? I don't know the exact numbers. I don't think anyone does. Do you really think if it was up to you, you would have all of them kicked out of the country?

[Dave Rubin]

I don't know about.

[Ro Khanna]

Under Trump and Vance and a lot of them.

[Dave Rubin]

Well, first off, I think there's absolute. I think you can make a completely moral, clean, legal argument that, yes, every single one of them have to go. I don't know. That's exactly my position. For people that have been here for a long time and have jobs and have family here and have Been law abiding, but that's part of the problem. There's no way to deal with these massive numbers. But let me show you something that Ilhan Omar said. I would say one of the more radical members of your party and let me just see if you agree with her here. Across this country, millions of us are standing up for our human rights and our democracy. Judges are fighting back to block these unconstitutional executive orders. Here in Congress, we are fighting back every single day.

[Ro Khanna]

We are fighting to protect immigrant families.

[Dave Rubin]

From mass detention and deportation. We are fighting to prevent horrific cuts.

[Ro Khanna]

To Medicaid, SNAP and Social Security.

[Dave Rubin]

It won't be easy, but we must.

[Ro Khanna]

Continue to organize, to speak out and to build a future that reflects our highest ideals.

[Dave Rubin]

Okay. This is a woman who, as far as I understand it, married her brother and broke immigration laws. Do you know anything about that?

[Ro Khanna]

No. And my view is a lot of those things are rumors that people that we shun traffic in unless people have actual facts. I mean, look, one of the things I do, I've done this with the vice President, tremendous disagreements with is I always praise ushavants and his wife and his family. We've got to stop dragging people's family and personalized. Let's just stick to the issues and debate the issues in this country.

[Dave Rubin]

Sure. I mean there's quite extensive reporting that she actually did marry her brother for his immigration purposes. But putting that aside for a moment, again, she says protect immigrant families. This inability to make a distinction between illegal and legal, I honestly think it is the most destructive thing to. It's not my party, it's your party. I think people hear that and they go, these guys are bullshit artists. I really believe that. I'm trying to give you a little nugget here to use.

[Ro Khanna]

I would say two things. One is whether you are here through the legal process or whether you don't have legal status. In my view, you should be entitled to due process in America. That's what makes us an exceptional country. That's our Constitution. We can talk about having a more secure border. I said to someone, you know when, when people knock on your door that you say who's there? I think it's perfectly reasonable for Americans and people are knocking on our door to say who's there? And to vet people before they come in.

[Dave Rubin]

Sure. So did the previous administration do that?

[Ro Khanna]

Not well enough, no. I mean, look, I'm not going to defend that 8, 8 million or whatever the reports were of people undocumented came into the country. I mean, that's not that no one, no one is not an unreasonable request for Americans, which are an incredibly generous people. Where my parents came as immigrants, I've had an incredible experience. As a son of immigrants, I've had an incredible experience. You know, my, my, my father in law tells us they came through the process. My father in law tells a story about how he came here in the 1960s and 70s and people would give him a place to stay for free. It's, Americans are very charitable people. And I don't think it's unreasonable for us to say we just want to know who's coming in before and knock on the door and have a process to vet. I think that's perfectly reasonable. The point is, though, we have people here now. Many of them have been here for four years. Some of them are working, they're paying, they've got young kids, they're paying taxes. And then the question is, how do we deal with them? And if they're violent criminals and convicted, fine, deport them. But for the vast majority, that's not the case. My view is we've got to have some path, I believe a path to citizenship, but at least let's have a path to legalization so they can have some status so they're not depressing wages and they're working here in a transparent way and not living in fear. And can we get to that, get to that place as a country?

[Dave Rubin]

And what would you say to the person, and I'm genuinely not saying this is my position, but I am sympathetic to the argument. What would you say to the person who said, well, they broke the law, it does not matter how long they've been here. It doesn't matter if they got married and are paying taxes and everything else. We either are a country or we're not. And we just know if I showed up in Mexico and they found out I'd be kicked out. If an American showed up in China or an American showed up in Canada for seven years and then they found out he was illegal, they would just be kicked out. I mean, what would you say to that argument?

[Ro Khanna]

I would say, I understand, I'm not condoning the breaking of law, but I want to see how we move this country forward. And even the person who's ran on the most anti undocumented immigrant platform, Donald Trump, is in his first term, there were still 12 million undocumented people. My guess is at the end of his second term, there'll still be 12, 13 million undocumented folks. And the question is, do you want them living in the shadows of society resenting the country, living in fear? Or do you want their kids and them to become integrated into the American experience? One of the great things about America is we integrate people to believe in America. And unlike France, right where you look, go there in the Algerian community, still generations of Algerians who aren't American. Here you have a son of immigrants, an Indian American, literally representing the most economically consequential place in the world, Silicon Valley. That's possible in America. And I would just say as a, as a nation, we have to find a solution to it. Though I don't condone the initial entry.

[Dave Rubin]

All right, let's take a quick ad break and then we'll have more on Trump's first hundred days. You know that one house chore you always forget? For me, it's changing the air filters. I didn't realize how bad it was until everyone started coughing. That's why I'm fired up about today's sponsor, Filter Easy, which is proudly made in North Carolina. Here's the deal. 82% of people forget to change their filters, including me. Filter Easy ships the right filters to your door. No more dirty air and no last minute runs to the store. Their magic filters are awesome, too. They promote better airflow, which lessens stress on your H vac system. Filter Easy takes care of your air filters so you can take care of everything else. Go to filtereasy.com Dave and use code Dave for 50% off your first order, plus free shipping forever. All right. I hope we showed people you can have some disagreements on things and still be able to do it in a civil way there. So far, I think we're doing okay. Congressman, let's jump over to Trump's hundred days, because I think we're day 102 right now. Victor Davis Hanson, I think, has been probably the leading intellectual backer.

[Ro Khanna]

I read him all the time. I read Victor all the time.

[Dave Rubin]

Well, let's find out what you think of what he said here about Trump securing the border. And then we're gonna cut directly to Chuck Schumer, one of your guys, basically saying he doesn't trust the numbers.

[Ro Khanna]

He has completely reversed. 10,000 people coming in a day, over 300,000amonth, 12 million in four years to essentially 97. 98% of the border is secure. In fact, there is no open border now. Now he has pivoted to try to address the 12 million people that Joe Biden not only let in, but scattered all over the United States on often state, federal, local subsidies. That's going to be a task. But he has shut the border. No comprehensive immigration reform. None of the things they said was necess necessary. None of the things that said that it was impossible, that hampered by. He just did it. It's. We've never seen anything like it. On border security, the White House and Republicans are doubting the claim that illegal process are down by 95. Guard Ways, as they call them, are down by 99. And only nine foreign nationals were released into the country compared to many more under the Biden administration.

[Dave Rubin]

I'd say one thing to you. I don't trust Trump's numbers. Okay, so you said earlier maybe around 8 million people. Victor Davis Hanson said 12. The numbers are very confusing. Some people say it might be as high as 15 million. But okay, so let's say it's somewhere between even 8 and 12. It does seem very, very obvious that the border crossings have completely closed. I mean, what do you make. Well, I guess. Do you agree with Victor Davis Hansen and what do you make of Schumer's response? We're all watching the same movie and just having two very different emotions.

[Ro Khanna]

It seems to me that he's taken provisions on the border that have brought down the numbers. I don't know the details, but there's obviously a decline. But the problem I have is that's not what he's the only thing he's focused on. He's doing things like the Abrego case of deporting folks without due process. This kid, this mother who I understand that, that she was deported because she was undocumented, but she's got American citizens, 2 year old, 4 year old, 7 year old, and then they are pushed out of America because the mother says that I don't want to be separated from my kids. Really? Do we have to deport the mother? I mean, you know, he's doing things like that that I think have distracted and taken away from efforts that were bipartisan that said we had to do a better job securing the border.

[Dave Rubin]

Right. I mean, I think a case with the mother, with the two year old kids, this is why the sort of meme of bleeding heart liberals like she was illegal. That's just the truth. Whether it's 99% down or 95% down. I mean, we don't see videos like this anymore. This is from two years ago. Who do you blame for that? Because when you talk about your parents coming from India. When my parents, my great grandparents that came from Eastern Europe, it was people with one bag, people that were not of fighting age. It was a mix of men and women and children and old people. This all seems to be somehow 20 to 40 year olds, often with young kids. Who do you ultimately put the blame on for what has happened here?

[Ro Khanna]

Of course we needed more border security. I mean, that's obvious. But we also needed, in my view, some path to having ability to work legally in the United States. And then many of the people want to go back to their countries. And you know, George W. Bush actually was trying to propose that, to say, you know, people should be able to come here, they should be able to work, they should be able to make some money and then they can go back to their countries. And we. I blame the Congress for not having. I know the comprehensive immigration reform is kind of a platitude, but the point is there has to be some solution. Vast majority of people often are coming here for economic reasons. It's, I, it's a good thing that America is the place that everyone in the world still looks up to and they aren't. There aren't lines to go to China, there aren't lines to go to Europe or Canada in the same way. But we need to have a process and we should figure out what that process is. Both, so that there are legitimate asylum claims, there's a secure border, and then there's an economic ability to come here, to work, to work with dignity, and to go back. Now, there are people who may say we don't want that. I disagree with them. I think if they're of inability come here for folks to work, to make money and then to go back to their families, and if there's a legal process for doing that, that we should explore that.

[Dave Rubin]

So how is that different from what Trump is doing right now? He's trying to close the border, figure out what the process is and figure out who is here illegally and illegally. I mean, how is that different? Which again, it's wildly different from what the previous administration did. But how is that different than what Trump is doing right now?

[Ro Khanna]

I think he's swung too far in that he is denying people in this country due process. Now you may argue, well, that's a hard thing to do because there's so many people who are undocumented. Are we gonna give everyone due process? And I would say yes. And start by focusing on people who are committing violent crimes and you can get or felonies, and then make sure they have due process and have some sense of deportation and don't send them to El Salvador.

[Dave Rubin]

I mean, you know, so Abrego Garcia, I mean you saw, I assume the court documents from his wife who said he repeatedly beat her and her ex husband who said that he was a threat and she claimed he beat her with a boot. He is in El Salvador, which is his country of origin. That's the country that he is a citizen of, is it not?

[Ro Khanna]

Yes, but the court said that he was a genuine, there, there was a genuine fear of persecution for him. And that El Salvador prison, that's just not who we are as Americans. I mean Bukele is not America. Is that, that's a different standard of justice. What makes him.

[Dave Rubin]

But he's a citizen of El Salvador. Correct. And not a citizen of the United States.

[Ro Khanna]

Correct. But the courts said that we couldn't, we could deport him, but we couldn't send him back to El Salvador. That was the exact order. Because people, he had a genuine fear for his life. And so in that case we, we follow the courts. Now I understand that it's easier as a country in cases that have bad facts like Abrego not to follow the rule of law and to relax the standard and that's the temptation. But that's not America. We hold ourselves up to the highest ideals. We hold ourselves up to this ideal that if someone is innocent, I mean someone is accused of a crime, they're presumed innocent. Even if many of us, we see these things on television, we think of course that person killed the victim, but we believe they should have a trial. We believe they should have the presumption of innocence because we're an extraordinary nation. And I don't think we have to tear at that fabric because of the challenge that we have with people who are undocumented. I think we can still afford that due process that makes us the most exceptional nation in the world.

[Dave Rubin]

Do you think optics wise when the Democrats then go to El Salvador to meet with this guy who by all accounts was in Ms. 13, who was beating his wife by her own account and everything else and then they're there basically singing his praises. At the very least that optics wise, this is a problem. There is an American citizen named Eden Alexander who is somewhere under Gaza right now. I don't see any democrats talking about him whatsoever. He's an American citizen who did not commit a crime.

[Ro Khanna]

Yeah, but our standards are not Hamas's standards. I mean, if you're asking me does Hamas have the rule of law, of course they don't. And of course we should be advocating for.

[Dave Rubin]

Well, no, I'm asking you where are the democrats fighting for an American who's kidnapped and somewhere under Gaza for over 500 days.

[Ro Khanna]

But we absolutely should be speaking out for that and speaking out for the release of those hostages and passionately speaking out for those, the release of those hostages. But I, I think your, your, I was in rural Nebraska and it was a room. I was talking about the cuts to farmers and the funding that was being cut. And people kept bringing up this question of due process in the Constitution and the Abrego case in a room full of largely white Americans, not, not a community with that many immigrants, because they care about the Constitution and they care about believing in the Constitution is patriotism. And they believe that, okay, if it happened to AB it could happen to someone else, and that this is just not a road we should go down. And so to me, it's not about Abrego. It's not about having sympathy for his particular facts. It's about standing for the Constitution at the hardest times.

[Dave Rubin]

All right, so do you think that an illegal immigrant who is in the United States, for whatever reason he is in the United States, however long they've been in the United States, however nice they are, that they should be afforded all of the rights that an American, a law abiding American citizen should be?

[Ro Khanna]

I mean, it's philosophically, the Constitution requires that they have basic due process and they have the same First Amendment rights that the First Amendment says to all persons, the due process applies to all persons. Now, if they, if people want to amend the 14th amendment, amend the first amendment, they can try. I, I think they've served us very well. And now I, I think this is a legitimate debate because, you know, here's the thing I give the vice President credit for. He's not obfuscating. He's not saying, well, we, we gave, we sent the plane to El Salvador and it's not up to us whether we get Abrego back. I mean, that's a bunch of. Come on. If Trump, do you doubt that if Trump wanted Abrego back, Abrego would come back? I mean, people see through that. Vance at least is saying that, okay, he just thinks that Abrego should be given a lesser standard of due process. I disagree with that. I believe the courts will disagree with that. But that's a debate we can have in this country.

[Dave Rubin]

So speaking of the debate, let me read one line on the specifics of what the Supreme Court did. The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must facilitate but not necessarily effectuate the return of a Salvadorian national deportant in March. That's Abrego, who we're talking about stopping short of the full remedy sought by the court's liberal justices. In essence, we can't force. I get what your point is right there, but Trump can't force the president of El Salvador to kick out a citizen of El Salvador and send him back to America where he is not a citizen.

[Ro Khanna]

Look, I get what the Supreme Court is saying. Obviously, we can't force the president of the United States to declare war on El Salvador to get someone back. But as a practical matter, I mean, come on, you would acknowledge that if Donald Trump wanted Bukele to send Abrego back, within an hour, Abrego would be back. We were paying El Salvador to have Abrago. At the very least, he could stop the payment. It's not like El Salvador came and captured Abrego. We sent him there. And I think most Americans. One thing the American people have is a lot of common sense would say, yeah, Trump can bring him back. He just doesn't want to bring him back. Now, the Supreme Court.

[Dave Rubin]

Right, but it's the country of his origin where he is a citizen and he is not a citizen of the United States. I mean, we're agreeing on that. Correct? He is not a citizen of the United States and he is a citizen of El Salvador.

[Ro Khanna]

Yes, but we have asylum law. I assume you support asylum law. Asylum law says, basically, if you really fear persecution, you shouldn't go back to that country. And the courts here, they'd be real concerned. And there should be a concern because he's in a prison that some people describe as is a torture prison. We don't know the conditions in those prisons. And I guess the question is, why not just give him the due process? And probably if he has the court proceedings and he really is a part of a gang or he really has committed horrendous crimes, then he'll be deported through the appropriate channels and deported somewhere other than El Salvador.

[Dave Rubin]

Okay, I think we can leave that there. Let's talk about Rumble Premium for a minute, and then we will get to perhaps an impending impeachment. Free speech is under attack, but Rumble refuses to back down. We've always believed in empowering voices, no matter how unpopular. And now we're taking that fight to the next level. When major advertisers conspired to pull their dollars, even brands like Dunkin Donuts turn their backs. But we're not here to fit a mold. We're here to defend free expression. To strengthen this mission, we're excited to offer Rumble Premium, a completely ad free experience with exclusive benefits for viewers and creators. You'll find exclusive content from creators like Russell Brand, Dr. Dis, Respect, Tim Cast, and the Mug Club with Crowder. It's more than a subscription. It's a stand for free speech. Your voice matters. Join Rumble Premium for a limited time. You can get $10 off the annual plan using promo code. Reuben. Visit rumble.com premium rubin and claim your discount today. Whether you join Rumble Premium or simply keep watching, your support helps keep free speech alive. All right, Congressman, your congressional colleague, AOC who is fighting the oligarchy while flying first class, often in premium private planes, with a millionaire with three houses. Yes, I'm talking about Bernie Sanders. She is also considering impeachment. I mean, we should never take impeachment off the table. We should never take where we see law breaking. We should never take accountability off the table. And I think that, I don't think that we should be, you know, promising anything the way that Trump tries to promise certain, you know, locking up his political enemies. But I do believe that our legal processes exist for a reason. Impeachment exists for a reason.

[Ro Khanna]

And it should absolutely be on the table.

[Dave Rubin]

It should be on the table for every president. Congressman, is she the future of your party?

[Ro Khanna]

She's an important voice in the party, obviously. She's a passionate progressive. She has a lot of people who believe in her. And that's the great thing about our party and about the country, is that we have a wide variety of ideologies. But she's certainly an important voice in.

[Dave Rubin]

The party when she's out there with Bernie fighting the oligarchy. Do you find it ironic that she had no problem that actually more billionaires backed Kamala Harris than backed Donald Trump?

[Ro Khanna]

I think that's a fair point, David, that more billionaires did back Kamala Harris than Donald Trump. And I think it's hypocritical if we don't call out the spending on all sides. I think what we need, and I proposed Maine, actually proposed this and passed it 70%. And it said that you can't give a super PAC more money than you can give a candidate. So if you're a billionaire, why is it that you're limited to give only 30 $500 to a candidate like me, but you can go and spend millions of dollars on a super pac? There were millions of dollars spent on Donald Trump's side. There were millions of dollars spent on Kamala Harris side. It's all wrong. We should get the super PACs out of the business. Of Democratic politics. But we shouldn't be on our high horse saying somehow that Trump's side did it and our side didn't.

[Dave Rubin]

Right. So when Democrats talk about impeachment, and we'll get to your colleague Shri Thanadar in just a second, who's bringing articles of impeachment? Again, we've already done this twice, and nothing came of either one of them. Do you think this helps your party ultimately? Even if, say, some of the legal stuff that you were arguing a moment ago about deportations, even if you disagree with the Trump administration on that, do you think that this ultimately helps your party? Do you think that this widens the tent that now is the Democrat Party?

[Ro Khanna]

No, I think we need to be focused on what is our future as a party on the economy. How are we going to help people? How are we going to bring new jobs? You know what I think is the best contrast for the Democrats? It's to say, look, Howard Lutnick and Trump, they kind of have this romanticization of William McKinley, Andrew Jackson, James Polk, and, you know, if they were in the 19th century, maybe expansionism and high tariffs would have worked. But we live in the world of AI and technology. And what we really need to do is figure out how we're going to have technology supremacy. How are we going to have the new generation of jobs in Lorain, Ohio, and Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and Democratic Party, I call it a new economic patriotism. Here's our vision of how your families, your kids are going to have economic security and independence in the 21st century. Put our ideas out there and then let the American people see who has better ideas. And that's, I think, what the country wants as opposed to just back and forth political theater.

[Dave Rubin]

Right. It's interesting because again, it seems to me that a lot of the things that you're saying that I'm agreeing with are the things that Trump is doing even as it pertains to AI. I mean, David Sacks is now the head of crypto and AI. I know you know David, and he's doing a great job on that. Like, we have, I mean, we have Elon helping us lead that X is now merged with the AI company. So I just see those things as, again, sort of like the immigration thing. It's the stuff that Trump's doing. But let's stick with this impeachment thing for just a moment. So Sri Thanadar from Michigan is bringing articles of impeachment against Trump. Here's what he said. The president is attacking me because I filed articles of Impeachment, asking what the hell did I do? It's all in my seven articles of impeachment. One, defying a 9, 0 Supreme Court ruling. We just referenced that. Two, dismantling federal agencies. Three, imposing damaging tariffs. Four, violating the First Amendment. Five, creating an unlawful office. Six, dismissing criminal cases of donors. Seven, denying due process and other content constitutional violations. This is not normal. Impeachment is how we fight back. I will always defend the Constitution. I mean, I guess we don't have to go through all seven of those, but I mean it's very obvious that several of those have nothing to do with an impeachable offense. Cutting departments and cutting budgets of things have nothing. You may not like it, but it's not an impeachable offense. I mean, are you for impeaching Donald Trump? What do you make of this move?

[Ro Khanna]

I haven't co sponsored it. Do I think that some of the firings of things like the nih, where, which does medical research and now I'm told is only a 30% efficiency is wrong and possibly unconstitutional? Yes, but we fight that in the courts and we fight that through congressional action.

[Dave Rubin]

What would be the unconstitutional part? I can accept that you might think it's wrong, that the staffing, that firing the people is wrong. But what would be unconstitutional? Is it not within the President's purview to decide who's running the agencies and how they're going to run it?

[Ro Khanna]

Well, there are two things. One, we have an 1883 Pendleton act in this country which gives civil servants protections because we didn't want them subject to the whims of the political class. And there are many people who believe that they weren't afforded those protections and were fired because they disagreed for political reasons with the President. Because the President disagreed with them on Covid President disagreed or Robert Kennedy disagreed on vaccines and they're firing people on those views. I don't agree with having civil servants fired based on political ideology. That was the whole reform we had in the penalty Act. The second thing is that Congress has appropriated funds for some of these positions. And I do think that the President has can't just say no to what Congress has appropriated. There's some conservatives who believe that Congress just gets to define what the highest amount of spending is and the President can define it to be anything less. Let me tell you, if you're a conservative, this could be a horrifying mistake. What if you had a liberal progressive president who thinks that we should only spend 100 billion and not a trillion dollars on Defense. Do you think if Congress appropriates a defense budget, that president should just say, okay, we don't have to spend any of this? I don't think that's how the Constitution works. These are complex issues. I believe I'm on the right side of the law, but I also have confidence in the courts and the process to figure it out. And that's where I think our energy should be.

[Dave Rubin]

Okay, so again, so you're not for impeachment, but you would be for having some of these issues hung up in the court? Sort of. That's consistent with what you said as it pertains to deportations.

[Ro Khanna]

I have confidence, I mean, even though it's a conservative court, I have confidence that on these fundamental issues that the courts will vindicate our point of view. And I think let's have this debate go all the way to the Supreme Court? Does the president have to support the, have to spend the money Congress appropriates? I think the Supreme Court should take this up soon and just issue the ruling. My view is it's pretty obvious that the president should have to do that. And what are the protections for civil servants? Let's make sure that we get clear.

[Dave Rubin]

Guidance on this as it pertains to the courts. And I really do appreciate that you repeatedly said that if the shoe was on the other foot, how would people feel? How would conservatives feel about some of these things? Are you worried that part of the issue here, and I know a lot of Trump supporters strongly feel this, that basically any lower court judge can get virtually anything the president does hung up in court, and thus that actually puts us in a constitutional crisis. Not necessarily that what the president's doing is illegal, but that the judicial branch can basically just slow roll the president so that we'll get into midterms. They could potentially lose the House and he's a lame duck and that's it. Cuz I think a lot of people really do feel that and see that that is what's happening to some extent.

[Ro Khanna]

Look, even Elena Kagan, the liberal Supreme Court justice, said that there is some challenge if a single federal district court judge could just have a blanket national injunction on a presidential action. And if there's going to be an honest debate in this country about what it takes of making sure that a president is checked by the Constitution while understanding the president has popular support, I'm open to having that conversation. Maybe there's an expedited review of the Supreme Court, expedited repeal, review of the appellate circuit, but I don't think that the answer to that is just defying court orders. I mean, the answer to that is figure out how you reform the system.

[Dave Rubin]

Fair enough. Let's talk about Tax Network USA for just a moment, and then we'll have a bit on academic freedom. Tax day may have passed, but for millions of Americans, the real trouble is just beginning. If you miss the April 15 deadline or still owe back taxes, the IRS is ramping up enforcement. Every day you wait only makes things worse. The good news, there's still time for Tax Network USA to help self employed or a business owner with messy books. Tax Network USA quickly organizes your finances and gets you back on track, even post deadline. A free consultation can help you act now to avoid penalties, threatening letters and levies. So call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com Dave Let TaxNetwork USA help. All right, Congressman, I know you're tight on time here, so I'm gonna try to read this quickly because you mentioned Harvard up top and academic freedom.

[Ro Khanna]

That's fine. I'll stay longer for if, if we have to be a little bit. I don't, I don't, I don't.

[Dave Rubin]

Oh, there you go. All right.

[Ro Khanna]

They're very civil. So I, I, I, I genuinely believe we need more conversations like this. I was so disappointed. Last time we came on, we had this great conversation. The only clip that went viral was the conversation on transgender rights. So I, and you were very fair. You put it all in context. But I was like, fine, if that's what you want to talk about. But what, how about these broader conversations? How do we get this country talking and debating about serious issues in a way that is substantive? That's what we used to do in America.

[Dave Rubin]

I hate to tell you, my friend, the Internet is not the most enlightened place, but we'll keep trying. And I'm happy to do this with you once a month if you want. And we can. I'd rather do it in person, but. All right, so let's jump to where Harvard's at, and we won't rush as I intended. Breaking Harvard just released its final report on antisemitism and anti Israel bias. It's 300 plus pages and pretty devastating to read. I thought I knew what was going on at Harvard, but even I wasn't prepared for this. Let's break down the most shocking parts. A Jewish student was told they couldn't share their story of their Holocaust survivor grandfather's rescue efforts because he helped Jews reach British mandate Palestine. Organizers said it was not tasteful and inherently one sided because it mentioned Israel. Many Jewish and Israeli students were told their presence was offensive. Some were asked to denounce Israel to be considered one of the good ones. This came from every part of campus, including peers, instructors and faculty. At a Harvard Law event for families of the hostages, Harvard chose to move the Jewish students for safety reasons. While protesters roamed around freely. In a university wide survey, most respondents said they do not feel safe expressing their political views. So, okay, there's one portion and I want to just show you this chart. It's rather shocking or not, I suppose. This is a chart of Harvard applicants having different admission chances based on rates. If you are Asian and you apply to Harvard, you have a 12.7% chance of getting in. If you are African American, it's 56.1. We know they discriminate also against Jews. I have no doubt, I don't know the numbers on this, but I have no doubt they discriminate against Indians. So let's do the latter part first. The Supreme Court ruled that Harvard and places of higher education cannot discriminate based on race. Yet Harvard clearly has been doing this. They've been doing this for decades. By the way, where do you fall on that?

[Ro Khanna]

Well, look, even our military academies, the Supreme Court has ruled for them that you can have diversity as part of the consideration. I think you need diversity. I got into, you know, I went to Yale Law School. It's possible UCHEV ants got into Yale Law School. I'm grateful that my class there and my class at college were diverse classes. Now I think that that should be one criteria, obviously.

[Dave Rubin]

But did you get in with lesser grades than a white person? And would that have been fair?

[Ro Khanna]

I think I did well as a student. But the point is that it's fine to look at the totality of a person. Their resilience, their grit, their extracurriculars, their.

[Dave Rubin]

But does any of that have to do with race? I mean, that seems to what it all boils down to. Fine, you could take extra Spanish after school and you can be in the, you can volunteer and sell Girl Scout cards, cookies. But what does this have to do with race?

[Ro Khanna]

Well, look, I do believe, as the Supreme Court said for our military academies, that race and diversity of race is an important consideration. Why did they say that for the military academies? Why can military academies take race into consideration? Because they want our military to have to reflect the population. Well, if you believe Harvard is a place where future leaders in different areas come out of, then you want it to have a reflection about of the country. But there shouldn't be quotas, and we certainly shouldn't be saving spots for people based on race.

[Dave Rubin]

But how is that different than quotas if race is going to be a consideration? I mean, if you had an Asian kid and a white kid and they had. Exactly. Or if you have an Asian kid, a white kid and a black kid and they all have exactly the same grades and qualifications, in essence, you're saying put the black kid in. Correct.

[Ro Khanna]

I don't think it's that simple where it's just everything is equal. I think you look at, at the life stories and the complexity of it and you have race as one consideration. But you can't just say we're going to save X amount of spots for black kids or Latino kids. Do it the way the military academies do, West Point and the Naval Academy. My view is, having talked to a lot of cadets, that they're very, very qualified and they're also diverse and they're doing extraordinary work for our country.

[Dave Rubin]

All right, so if 56% of black kids that apply to Harvard get in and only 12% of Asians, do you see a problem with that?

[Ro Khanna]

Is that recent? Is that after the decision or before the decision, those numbers?

[Dave Rubin]

Well, it has to be. Well, if it's legal, it has to be before. Because now, just in the last two years is when the ruling came down.

[Ro Khanna]

Yeah. Look, I would want to make sure that they weren't saying X number of people of a certain race need to get in. And that is actually a consideration, but not dispositive. And I don't. Obviously I'm not involved in harbor admission, so I don't know the details, but I want to make sure that there weren't anything close to quotas.

[Dave Rubin]

Sure. I just don't understand. Why do you think race matters? I don't think race matters. I think it has nothing to do with nothing. And wouldn't you, if you were an Asian kid who didn't get into Harvard, if you had great grades and you saw they were putting in more black kids just because they were black, wouldn't you kind of become racist?

[Ro Khanna]

No, because I would say that this story is a story of, of multiracial democracy and that to really come together as a country, I would want to make sure that I understood different parts of the experience. And if someone is coming for the black south, for example, where we had and overcame 250 years of slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow, and coming from that experience, I would say I want that voice to Be part of the American leadership. Just like I want the kid of Indian immigrants. Just like I want the someone who's grandson of the people who scaled the cliffs of Normandy or someone who traces their heritage all the way back to the Mayflower. We need to have our leadership reflect the beauty of this country. And I don't think we can look at it simply from, okay, I didn't make the highest scores, by the way. I also don't think that it's the end of the world where someone goes to college.

[Dave Rubin]

Sure. But. Okay, so your kids, though, who are Indian, they will be considered privileged in this future world that you're talking about where race will matter. So you would be okay? I mean, I just don't understand this notion, but I get it's something that Democrats really believe in right now. But you would be okay with your own children. I get you don't want quotas, so there's no number I can get you on. But you would be okay with your own children being discriminated against so that people of another skin color could get their job or get into the school. Correct.

[Ro Khanna]

I wouldn't view it as discrimination. I would say that they should. They would. I would be fine with that. Their race being one consideration of a whole host of different considerations. But I would also take account of people's economics. I would look at, for example, someone who has been coming from a de. Industrialized steel town and. Or a town in the white working class that has faced opioids. I would look at that experience very significantly. Right. I mean, I think rural America is underrepresented. I think kids from factory towns are underrepresented, I think.

[Dave Rubin]

But to put those. I'm just. I'm sorry, I'm just hung up on this. To put those kids in. I'm not against those kids having chances. You are okay with your own children being discriminated against? Indians do quite well in America. I think they might be the. The highest economic bracket in the entire country. So it would be your own children that would pay the price and you're okay with that?

[Ro Khanna]

I don't think they would. I wouldn't call it discrimination. I would say that they will have plenty of opportunities and that they will be judged on the totality of who they are. And I am confident in my own kids that they're going to have many opportunities to lead. And I would want them in a university setting or in a workplace where they were exposed to diverse communities. I mean, how are they going to be effective as leaders in Congress if That I don't think my kids would, you know, I mean, how are they going to be effective as leaders in general if they weren't exposed to the diversity of this country?

[Dave Rubin]

Well, I think you're exposed to the diversity of country by living. Once you institutionalize these numbers. I get it. That's why you're not giving. Giving me the number, because there's no number that's gonna really make sense. But it will be harder for your children, literally your children, because Indians do well. So Indians are gonna be part of the oppressor class going forward. It'll be harder for your children to get into school and get jobs. And then don't you think we would have a systemic sort of lowering of all of our ability to do things once we keep bringing in people who are less qualified to do things?

[Ro Khanna]

No, because I think that the kids of Indian origin are going to have plenty of opportunities in this country, and they will benefit from being exposed to the diversity of this country. Many of them may not have met someone from the black south or from the Hispanic south or from a rural factory town or a community. And I think that ultimately will be more beneficial to them than going to a place where Indian American kids, generally, I'm speaking in the general, are just focused on academics.

[Dave Rubin]

Sure. Okay. I don't want to harp on any further. I'll just ask you one other. Just like, as clean as possible. So if your son was applying to Harvard or your son was applying to Google and they were told that actually they got passed over because there was an exact equal candidate who happened to be black, you would be okay with that?

[Ro Khanna]

If we're talking about Indian Americans in general, kids of Indian Americans origins, if they were. If Google were to say, we consider diversity as one criteria, I would be fine with that. And I would be confident that Indian American kids are going to have plenty of economic opportunities and that they will be better served working in diverse environments.

[Dave Rubin]

Yeah. All right. Well, that one again, I'm loving this conversation. That one. I just can't imagine why you would be okay with your own children being discriminated. But we'll. We'll go. Let's go to a white guy who's very excited that he's white. He almost became vice president, and he has an ability to speak to white guys, apparently. Although I guess most people didn't buy it. Tim Walls.

[Ro Khanna]

I knew I was on the ticket, I would argue, because we did a lot of amazing progressive things in Minnesota to improve people's lives. But I also was on the Ticket.

[Dave Rubin]

Quite honestly, you know, because I, I.

[Ro Khanna]

Could code talk to white guys watching football, fixing their truck, doing that, that.

[Dave Rubin]

I could put them at ease. I was the permission structure to say.

[Ro Khanna]

Look, you can do this and vote for this and you look across those swing states with the exception of Minnesota, we didn't get enough.

[Dave Rubin]

Congressman. Again I think we could connect this to the previous topic but like this obsession with race and that they brought him in cuz he's white and he's somehow a dude and could talk about football. I mean he seemed like kind of a clown to me. But it strikes me as this is the position the Democrats are now in. You have these white sort of self hating white people that are kind of in charge. You have a really radical base. You have the, you know, sort of the old school Dems that are trying to hang on. It just seems like, well basically it seems like you have a big mess on your hands.

[Ro Khanna]

Well, I go to rural and factory towns all the time. I was just in rural Nebraska. I'm an Indian American, a son of immigrants of Hindu faith. And let me tell you, I connect because I talk about how we're going to create good jobs, how we're going to bring technology, how communities have been neglected, how we're actually going to improve their lives. And I've never felt that my Indian ancestry or my faith was a barrier. I think that this is the most open country and instead of figuring out how quote unquote, we talk to white people, what we should be focused on is how we enlist America and how we have concrete ideas to improve people's lives. And if we do that, this country will respond to anyone, whether they're African American, Indian American, male, female, gay or straight. I have great faith in the American people on that.

[Dave Rubin]

I completely am with you. I think that's why I think this thing about the obsession with race and that he can go code switch, it just sounds, I can talk to white guys just sounds completely ridiculous. I wanna show you one more clip because everyone's curious right now. I mean the polls are not good for the Democrats right now.

[Ro Khanna]

I think there's a senator waiting for me. I could keep House members waiting, but the Senate.

[Dave Rubin]

Okay, I promise it's the last one because the leader of your party in 28 might be a guy from ESPN. Stephen A. Smith may run for president, as you know.

[Ro Khanna]

I hope so. Do you have any advice for Stephen A. If he launches the run? No. Stephen A. He's a good guy, he's a smart guy. I love watching him he's got great entertainment skills, which is very important. People watch him. You know, a lot of these Democrats I watch, I say they have no chance. I've been pretty good at picking people and picking candidates, and I will tell you, I'd love to see him run. All right, there you go.

[Dave Rubin]

All right, one minute. Bring us home. I mean, is the future of the Democrat Party, Is it the more radical progressive wing? Is there any chance for the Blue Dog Democrat to come back? Or is it just we will go into a circus and it will be Stephen A. Smith and I like Stephen A. It's not even a knock on Stephen A.

[Ro Khanna]

Look, I like Stephen A. I, he, he grew up the hard way. He started out as a Philly sports writer. I grew up in Pennsylvania. So, you know, he, he didn't just become a, a celebrity. He had to work his way up. And I had to go on him, Bill Maher show with him. And let me tell you, he got the better of the debate. You don't want to sit there debating Stephen A, a guy who's paid millions of dollars to give in 60 seconds his view on, like LeBron and his kids, you know, he can take that skill and make it about politics. So, you know, I, look, I think here's the thing with the Democratic Party. We got to have an open election. We got to have 10, 15 people run. We got to have people willing to mix it up, have ideas out there, not have a coronation. I think Stephen A. Could add to that. But, but, but what we can't do is just be stale, can't have some kind of pick in, in the back rooms by the dnc. People want to see us mix it up and be out there. And ultimately we need a compelling economic message. But I really think that what the party has got to do is show a willingness to go everywhere, an authenticity, a spontaneity, and not be stale. And that's, I think, why you see the reaction to Stephen A. And others who people say, look, we got to get some new voices in there.

[Dave Rubin]

Congressman, I thank you for your time. And I do want to say that if your kids are considering, not go, how old are your kids?

[Ro Khanna]

You know, I don't, I don't talk about kids these days on social media and stuff just because of, of the environment. But I will say in general, Indian Americans or kids, you know, I'm fine with the diversity that benefits. Even though we disagree on race being a consideration.

[Dave Rubin]

Well, I was gonna say at the Rubin Report, we don't take race into consideration when we're hiring, so maybe they can get a gig over here. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much, guys. I'll finish up for a moment or two without the congressman, but really do appreciate it, Congressman, thank you.

[Ro Khanna]

Thanks for having me.

[Dave Rubin]

Look forward to being back anytime, anytime. All right, guys, I hope you enjoyed that. We got a little rush there. Cause we started a little late and it seemed like he had a heart out. But I do appreciate that he gave us a little more time. I hope you found that thoughtful and sort of what we need right now. I mean, I think in a lot of ways it kind of proves why I can't be a Democrat anymore. I think this thing with race and this, I would say, slight confusion always. You know, I'm always talking about the shell game with the Democrats. They're always worried about everyone else besides American citizens. I just see as an issue. There are some interesting legal debates to have as it pertains to the Supreme Court making decisions that the administration is going against and deportations and all of those things. But I think that perfectly shined a light on exactly why the Democrats are kind of screwy at the moment. Because Roe is. He is for whatever you think of the Democrats right at this moment, he's a moderate for them. Right. That's why he's willing to talk to me. But some of the positions don't quite line up. But I will give the guy absolute credit for being willing to have that conversation. By the way, I will be at the University of Austin giving a speech and doing a debate and a Bunch More on May 13. I don't know if that is that open to the public. There's like 50 spaces. All right. I think there's about 50 spaces that are open to the public outside of the students at the University of Austin. And on Tuesday, May 7, I will be at University of Delaware giving a talk. Also. I think I'm doing a debate there. We've got a couple other things coming up soon. Post game show 30 seconds. Rubinreport.locals.com thanks for watching, everybody.