← Straight Shooter with Stephen A.
Straight Shooter with Stephen A.
Interview Only: Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA), covering domestic policy, foreign affairs, bipartisan cooperation, and political leadership.
00:26:27
Loading summary
Transcript34 lines
- [00:00]
Stephen A. Smith
Foreign. My next guest represents California's 17th congressional district. Please welcome back to the show Representative Ro Khanna. How are you, sir? How's everything going? It's been a while.
- [00:15]
Ro Khanna
It's good to be back on. Good to be back on with you. Not on Bill Maher. My recommendation for anyone watching, do not debate Stephen A. On Bill Maher won't turn out well for you. So I'm glad we're a show like this.
- [00:32]
Stephen A. Smith
I wouldn't go that far. But on a more serious matter, before I even get into Trump and Israel and the Iran situation and what have you, how is the state of California doing in your mind, in your estimation? We know what's been going on over the last few weeks. Obviously, the Israeli, Iran situation distracted us from what was transpiring in California. We have 1400 National Guardsmen, 1700, 700 Marines, United States Marines descended upon the state of California, the city of Los Angeles, courtesy of the president sending them there. What has life been like for you guys in California?
- [01:08]
Ro Khanna
I have a common sense perspective on this. First, no one should be on waymos burning them down. No one should be engaged in violence or harassment against law enforcement officers. No one should be engaged in violence against anyone. And we need to make sure in California, our local police and our state officials make sure that people are safe and that there's zero tolerance for violence or the destruction of property. At the same time, no one in California was asking for the National Guard or the Marines. And the president, in my view, clearly overreached. And I guess people just want common sense. They want California to take care of this. The sheriff can, the police can. They don't want the President Trump sort of grandstanding about it. But they also don't have sympathy for people, you know, burning down, down cars. And they want politicians to condemn that.
- [02:05]
Stephen A. Smith
You know, what about the notion, because you got a lot of people on the right, that they're looking at California as a sanctuary state and they think that that's problematic. And ultimately, you have elected officials trying to get in the way of ICE doing its job and what have you. All of that conflict has stirred up and flagrantly so, I might add. What are your thoughts about that as a representative of the state of California, it being essentially a sanctuary state, the role that a lot of people believe that's played in forcing and compelling the president to take the position that he has taken? You're not a Republican, you're not a member of the gop, you're a Democrat. But obviously, you know what? You exercise Common sense in a lot of ways, and that's why you should be applauded for it. What are your thoughts about that situation in terms of whether or not the President was right in doing what he's done, in terms of because of what's existing in the state of California?
- [02:57]
Ro Khanna
The reason I disagreed with what the President did is it was not like there were people who were willfully standing in the way of ICE enforcement. I mean, if that was the case in a large level, that, that is very different. But I think what most Americans want is if you're a violent gang member, if you are a part of committing violence against anyone and you're here undocumented, that you should be deported after you have your due process. I mean, they want you to have due process and they're fine. But I don't think what most Americans want is if you're working in a farm job, if you're working in a hotel, if you're working in a restaurant, even if you're undocumented and you're paying taxes that we need to rip you away from your families and deport you, I think they believe you should be having some path to stay in the country and work. And you know what, even President Trump has said that, that if you're a farm worker, if you're in the hospitality industry, if you're in the restaurant industry, if you're working here, if you're paying taxes, if you're law abiding, then let's have some path to legalization. So my, I wrote an op ed in the Fox on Fox News saying, okay, Mr. President, why don't we find common ground there? Why don't we look to a path to legalization for hardworking taxpayer people who are undocumented and focus the ICE resources actually on the violent criminals. That's what you said you would do when, when you won the presidency.
- [04:19]
Stephen A. Smith
I'll get back to that. In terms of let's find common ground, that issue a little bit later on in this discussion. But for the moment, I want to transition to the Iran Israel situation that has unfolded over the last few days. You introduced a war powers resolution aimed at preventing Trump from escalating tensions with Iran, co sponsored with Kentucky Republican Representative Thomas Massie, the lone Republican involved in the effort. How did you two come together on this?
- [04:46]
Ro Khanna
We both believe that this country has been in too many endless wars overseas. And by the way, that's been bipartisan. Yes, George W. Bush got us into the Iraq war. That was a mistake. But there were a lot of Democrats who voted for that war, including people like Senator Chuck Schumer. Then we got into a war in Afghanistan for 20 years. Now, I supported the initial strikes on Afghanistan, but. But we should not have been there for 20 years. Then we struck Libya. I mean, I deeply admire President Obama, but he was wrong in striking Libya in an unconstitutional way. And then we were involved in Yemen. We were funding the refueling of Saudi planes to strike Yemen. That was unconstitutional. So Massie and I have been consistent. This is not a partisan issue. This is not against President Trump, whether it's a Democrat or a Republican. We're saying two things. One, you've got to come to Congress first before you go into a overseas war, because that's what the Constitution requires. That's what two thirds of the American people want. And second, the American people are sick of this. They don't want more troops in the Middle East. They don't want billions of dollars in the Middle East. They want the focus here at home, and they want war to be a last resort, and that's why we introduced it.
- [06:00]
Stephen A. Smith
Well, Representative Connor, you and I both know, particularly in the climate that exists in today's politics, there's no way on earth you're gonna get anything done if you got to go to Congress to get something done, because you're gonna have people voting against you just because, I mean, there are people that have given indication we're gonna vote against anything. Trump, we don't give a what it is. And obviously, on his side, there are gonna be people that are going to vote for whatever he wants, just to be in his good graces. So what's gonna get accomplished if you have to go through Congress?
- [06:33]
Ro Khanna
I do think if there's an actual national security threat, you will get Congress to authorize it. Look, George W. Bush, even though I disagree with the war in Iraq, he got Congress's authorization to go in there for Afghanistan. He got Congress's authorization to go in there. Now, I am someone who has introduced a resolution to codify Trump's executive order on lowering prescription drugs. So I'm not one of these people who says everything Donald Trump does is wrong, and I'm going to oppose it. I try to look at things issue by issue. In fact, when Donald Trump was trying to get a deal with Iran and others were criticizing him, Chuck Schumer was criticizing him. Chuck Schumer was saying, no, don't make a side deal with Iran. Don't trust Donald Trump. I was saying, no, let Trump try to get a deal with Iran. But bibi Netanyahu forced his hand. Bibi Netanyahu bombed Iran. They didn't let the negotiation to play out. And then I think that Trump has two people on his shoulders. One of the folks are the Lindsey Graham saying, let's do regime change, let's keep going. Trump tweets out, khamenei should be assassinated. Maybe we should have Iran regime change. But fortunately, there's another side to the MAGA base. Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie. They're saying you campaigned on no more wars. And I'm glad he listened to them. I'm glad he listened to some of us in Congress. And after the strikes, he said, okay, we're done, and we're gonna get a ceasefire and, and no more, and we're not gonna send more of our troops and risk getting into an escalation. So I do think it was important that Congress spoke out, and I think Congress has to. In this case, if Congress is a little slow, that's probably good, because I don't think the American people need more money, more wars overseas.
- [08:11]
Stephen A. Smith
Representative Connor, I just wanna make sure, before I move on to my next question, that you understand what you just said right here over the digital airwaves of YouTube, with millions of people watching you, you just said that you. You actually agree with Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Are you sure you want to be on camera, on the record, stating such a thing, sir? I'm just checking. I'm just checking.
- [08:35]
Ro Khanna
Absolutely. When it comes to keeping us out of the war in Iran, let me tell you, those folks did more than some of the people in my own party. They were vocal. They said that Donald Trump, this is the end of your presidency. They said this is a betrayal of your base. And I give them credit where credit sued. There are a lot of places we disagree. But you know what, Stephen? One of the things that I get criticized for my own party. Oh, you're saying that Stephen Bannon is right on something. But I think the American people want folks to just call it as they see it. They don't want us in partisan prize. When they say something I agree with, I'm going to be honest and say, yes, I agree with them. When they say something I disagree with, I'll make that clear, too.
- [09:18]
Stephen A. Smith
I completely agree with you. Let me move on to my next question. Because you and Thomas Massie structured the resolution as privileged, which could allow it to quickly come to a House vote, Republicans largely align with Trump, as I just stated. How will you move the war Powers Resolution forward. And can you get more Republicans on board?
- [09:36]
Ro Khanna
I do think we can get more Republicans. We got Chuck Edwards. There are a number of Republicans who do not want this war. Now, hopefully the ceasefire holds and that we don't need it to come for a vote if Donald Trump doesn't threaten any further action. But if the action is threatened, it should come for a vote. And by the way, this is not against Donald Trump. It's not even about Iran. It's simply saying that we need to listen to the people and listen to people in Congress before we commit our troops, before we commit young men into a fight overseas. One of the things, Josh Hawley, another Republican who I agree with, he said, look, here's the problem now. We've sent more troops into the Middle East. We've got more young men and women being called up. We're going to have to go to the Middle East. We put our troops at risk. We're spending more money on the Middle East. Why aren't we spending that money on building manufacturing here, on helping people with health care here, on childcare here? So I hope that they do not remove the privilege of this War Powers Resolution. They allow it to get a vote if it's needed, and they make it clear that we're not going to allow presidents to get us into more endless wars, regardless of the party.
- [10:45]
Stephen A. Smith
You've repeatedly stated that anti establishment left and right must find a way to work together. But how much hope is there really in your mind and in your heart of that actually happening?
- [10:55]
Ro Khanna
I think on some issues there is real hope. Let me give you three issues. The biggest problem, money in politics. I mean, you should not have people spending $250 million on a super PAC and then getting someone elected. And here's where I think Democrats get into trouble. We talk about elon Musk spending $250 million. We conveniently forget the billionaires who spent hundreds of millions of dollars on our side. There was more super PAC money for Kamala Harris than there was for Donald Trump. So get rid of all of it. No. Ban these super PACs. Why should someone be allowed to only give me $3,500 if they're contributing to a politician, but then go write a $50 million check to a super PAC. That's one area where we, the left and the right, can come together. Second, prescription drugs. They're ripping off the American people. They go charge three times less in Japan, in England, in Europe, than they charge ordinary Americans. Now, I understand if you're going to sell medicine Into Mexico, into some countries in Africa, developing nations. You got to charge them less. That's humanitarian. But why are we paying three times more than people in the Western world and in places like Japan? So Donald Trump comes on. He says, I'm going to take it to big Pharma. I want to make sure they aren't charging Americans any more than they're charging people in other countries. I introduced exactly his executive order as a bill with Republicans and Democrats. Let's get a vote on that. That's the second area left and right can come together. And third, focus here on home and, and don't get us into this. Huge wars overseas. Our defense budget, over 56% of federal money. People don't want that. They want money in their communities. I think that that is a left, right coalition that is coming together and that will take on the establishment in both parties.
- [12:43]
Stephen A. Smith
Any thoughts on all the noise being made by some Democrats that the bombing by us to attack those nuclear sites, that, that that existed in Iran was a successful venture on the part of the President of the United States, Donald Trump. You have people on the left that saying it's not nearly as successful as he's claiming. And obviously we saw Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth say that's absolute nonsense. But also give us some time to analyze and evaluate the situation. We believe it was highly successful and that we've derailed their nuclear aspirations for a long time to come. Where do you stand on all of that?
- [13:19]
Ro Khanna
Well, let's look at the facts. First of all, you can't bomb know how. Iran knows how to enrich uranium. Second, President Obama, under the jcpoa had a verifiable agreement where Iran could not enrich more than 5% at one facility, Natanz, and there was no violation by the IEA recorded until 2018. Then Trump came in, he ripped up the deal. And by the time we were bombing, it was 60% enrichment in Fordeaux, but it was also enrichment across the country. Now, we don't know exactly how much damage they've done. They have done some damage, and I hope it's a lot of damage. I don't want Iran to have a nuclear bomb. It's a national security interest to keep Iran from having a nuclear bomb. But the problem is that whether it's six months, a year, two years, they. We know from J.D. vance that they've kept some of the enriched nuclear fuel. They can make at least 10 new bombs from there. And we know that they have the know how in some capacity with centrifuges left to be enriching uranium. So we're going to need a new agreement to actually prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. There's some on my party who say, well, Donald Trump ripped up the deal. Let's just bash him. I actually don't even have that view. Fine, he ripped up the deal. He shouldn't have ripped up the deal. Now he wants to do diplomacy. I'm all for it. Go win the Nobel Peace Prize if they're going to give it to you. Go just get a deal where Iran is actually committing to inspections, where Iran is committing not to have ballistic missiles, and let's have diplomacy, go forward. Not this idea that we're going to go bomb Iran every year or two years when they start to develop a nuclear weapon.
- [14:59]
Stephen A. Smith
So you believe that Israel and its efforts have been justified as it pertains to Iran, considering the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah, people like that, were proxies for Iran in terms of their terrorist acts? Obviously the Houthis in Yemen, we had to deal with them or what have you. You don't have any issue whatsoever with any Israel and its influence over America. With America doing some of the things that it has done. You believe that Israel was in the right and America was in the right in terms of the actions we took. Is that a fair assessment, sir?
- [15:27]
Ro Khanna
No, I think we were in the wrong. I mean, we should not have bombed them. We should have engaged in diplomacy. And I think Netanyahu forced President Trump's hand. He should not have been bombing Iran, not just. I think it's fair to say that it's in the United States interest to deny Iran a nuclear weapon. The way to achieve that was not through bombing. The way to achieve that was through the diplomatic type of painstaking work that President Obama did, where you got an agreement where Iran was not going to ENRICH More than 5%. So why does Netanyahu not go along with that? Because the reality is Netanyahu has had a mission, a stated mission of regime change in Iran. And some of the hawks who want from bombing, they want a new regime. I don't think we should have a regime change wars. I think Netanyahu was wrong to bomb and we should have allowed Trump to continue the negotiation. I'm glad there's a ceasefire. Now he needs to go into a negotiation with Iran to prevent them from getting a nuclear bomb.
- [16:28]
Stephen A. Smith
I certainly don't believe that the United States or anybody else should be engaging in a regime change either. I totally am with you on that. I'm Just wondering whether or not Iran is somebody that you can trust when they've chanted death to Israel, death to America, you know, a million times over the years. Are they somebody that you can trust to engage in diplomacy with? That's what I'm wondering about. You really feel that that's plausible or that's possible? When dealing with Iran, you can't trust.
- [16:53]
Ro Khanna
Them, but you can verify. You know, the famous Reagan thing was trust but verify. Just verify, verify. That's what Obama did. Look, Obama doesn't get. There are places. Look, I criticized Obama on Libya, right? So I'm not just a partisan here. But on the Iran deal, they got a deal where they were verifying, they had monitors and people in Iran at the whole supply chain of uranium and they were monitoring it up through 2018, and there was no enrichment beyond 5%. That's not because the Iranian government is trustworthy. It's because they were basically being monitored by the iea. Now, there was one criticism of that deal. That deal did not apply to ballistic missiles, so they limited the enrichment. Iran could still develop ballistic missiles. And what would have been appropriate is for the next president to come in and say, I'm going to strengthen the jcpoa. I'm going to work to make sure that they can't develop missiles. But we have a framework. We know that Iran will negotiate with verification, and that's the policy we should pursue. Not because it's somehow, you know, weak or peace loving, because it's the only thing that's effective. You got two choices. You can either bomb them every year to waste American tax dollars and put our troops at risk, or we can engage in verification and get the IEA inspectors there like we had in the jcpoa.
- [18:16]
Stephen A. Smith
Three quick questions before I let you get on out of here, because we only got a few minutes left. And I thank you so much for your time, Representative. Kind of really, really appreciate talking to you and seeing you again as well. Number one, I want to get to something that's near and dear to your heart. You were here in January to discuss the looming TikTok ban, which has been extended for the third. The third time despite a bipartisan law passed by Congress that mandates Tick Tock's Chinese parent company, ByteDance, sell the app. Where does that stand now?
- [18:43]
Ro Khanna
I'm glad that that law has been extended. We can't kick 175 million people off of an app. We can't kick off people who use this app to make a livelihood. You know, there are 1.5 million people who are content creators in America and make a living off that. To put that in context, there's 70,000 people who make a living in steel. And to just shut all that down would be devastating for the economy, not to mention for free speech. So what we should do is keep the app open. We should require the company to be an American company. We should require the data be stored in America. We should make it criminal for any algorithmic interference by the Chinese. The president is trying to do that, and I actually support that effort. It's one, it's another place where I, I think that Trump is doing the right thing by keeping the app open.
- [19:34]
Stephen A. Smith
Transitioning to another topic. What the hell is this I'm hearing about California legislators are proposing a ban on online fantasy sports? What is that? I mean, what are your thoughts about that? What are they doing?
- [19:47]
Ro Khanna
I'm opposed to that. Look, I'm never going to get into a sports discussion with Stephen A. But, you know, I was on a fantasy, I did fantasy teams growing up. You know, I grew up a Phillies fan, Philadelphia plant fan. I used to collect baseball cards. We used to have a team. My team almost never won my fantasy team. And you know, I never quit quite figured out whether you need to graft the quarterback or the running back first. And, you know, everyone else is looking at points and it always amazed me that you'd be watching these games and folks would be less concerned about, you know, whether the Eagles are going to win or 49ers are going to win. They'd just be cheering for the, like the random offensive lineman because they had them on their fantasy team. That's the fun of sports. When you talk about dumb things the Democratic Party does, it's like, let's go ban fantasy sports and then let's pay $20 million to understand why we're losing young men. I mean, come on. And you wonder why we're in the state. We are as a party. It's laughable.
- [20:45]
Stephen A. Smith
Exactly. Well, I will say this, and this is my last question. Can't say that in the state of New York or the city of New York, New York City, we saw Zoran Mamdani beat former governor of New York, three term governor of New York, New York, Mr. Andrew Cuomo. I mean, he beat him in the Democratic primaries just a couple of days ago. What was your reaction? What was your thoughts about that?
- [21:11]
Ro Khanna
It says one simple message, which is people care about the cost of living. You know, everyone is focused on what was Zoran's position on Israel? What was his position on the cultural issues, what was his position on isis? You know what Zoran talked about? He said rent is too high. He said that you can't afford your groceries. He said that I understand why people voted for Trump because they can't afford to buy a house. And the cost of living, they aren't making ends meet. And what I'm going to do is provide actual policies to lower the cost of living for folks to make New York affordable again. That's all he talked about. He had videos out there going to street vendors talking about why it costs 10 bucks for chicken over rice, a halal meal, as opposed to eight bucks, and what he was going to do to bring the cost of living down. And so what this tells me is the Democrats need an economic message. We need a message talking about how we're going to deal with the affordability crisis in this country. We need a message about how we're going to create good paying jobs in America through technology. And with AI coming, we need a message about how we're going to build things in this country.
- [22:19]
Stephen A. Smith
But Representative, he's a, he's a, he's a self proclaimed socialist. Uh, he was endorsed by aoc, amongst others. And we all know that a lot of people in the general election for the presidency sort of turned against that kind of rhetoric. And that's partially why Donald Trump was voted for. I don't think that's deniable. So do you think this is something that could have a profoundly positive impact on the Democratic Party? When his message, although it was, you know, you know, it was articulated very, very well, I might add. Is that the kind of thing that's going to win you votes in the midterms and a General election in 2028 for the presidency if we take the.
- [23:01]
Ro Khanna
Best of him and discard the areas which we disagree with? It's the Stephen A. Approach. Right? I heard you on one podcast saying you put AOC in your cabinet not because you agree with everything, because you would take her good ideas and you would reject the bad ideas and you'd have some Republican and you take their good ideas and reject the bad ideas. That's what people want in this country. So if Zoran has good ideas about how to bring food prices down, or if he has good ideas about how to deal with rents, let's take those. And you can still say that we should absolutely condemn chance, like globalize the intifada and we should recognize that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish democratic state. The problem in our politics is we've become so black and white as if you have to agree with something when somebody won everything. And I think what this country is hungry for is leadership that starts to bring people together, that takes the best ideas, whether it's from a Steve Bannon or a Zoran, and says we're going to look at the best what people have to offer and offer a unifying vision of this country.
- [24:00]
Stephen A. Smith
Very last question to you. Very last question. You, the way you articulate your message, I mean, you're the kind of person that people should be listening to more, should be hearing from more. To be quite honest with you, I haven't heard your name for the governor's seat of California. Haven't heard your name when it comes to presidential ambition, sir, should you be pursuing those things? And if not, why not, when you seem to be speaking to a vast majority of American citizens?
- [24:31]
Ro Khanna
Well, I was promoting you, Stephen. I was just trying to get onto your ticket. Don't do that, don't do that. That's what the campaign. But look, I think we need more independent voices. That's why I like what you were out there saying. I think we need, let me say the three things I think we need in this country. One, we need people are going to call out both parties if they are right or wrong, not just being our partisan tribes. Second, we need people focused on the economy. My district has $14 trillion, five companies over a trillion dollars. The AI revolution is going to produce huge wealth, but we can't be a nation half prosperous and half in decline. We need people who are going to figure out what this AI revolution, how we're going to create good paying jobs and economic opportunity in places that have been left out. And third, we got to have, people are going to be on Team America who are going to try to bring this country together, not be partisan. You know, I, I'll end with this point. I voted against, I led the charge against Trump on the Iran War Powers Resolution and then I voted to table the impeachment. And on the left, some people are saying, oh, you're a hypocrite. You're a hypocrite. I'm saying, well, there are other presidents who have committed unconstitutional things. I don't want to make this partisan. I want to figure out how we bring the country together in a big coalition. So I don't know whether my type of politics can win a particular primary, but I do know it's where the American people are to be independent, to call balls and strikes, not to be just reflexively partisan.
- [26:02]
Stephen A. Smith
Representative Ro Khan in 17th district of California. Always an honor and a privilege to talk to you, sir. I really enjoyed being on Real Time with Bill Maher with you. I really enjoyed our communication since that time. And I have no doubt we will continue to communicate with one another. You are always welcome on this show, sir. Thank you so much for taking time out of your busy schedule to come on. Really appreciate it. You take care of yourself.
- [26:21]
Ro Khanna
Thank you. It was my honor.