The Senator Going After Data Centers

Summary

Podcast Summary

What Next: TBD | Tech, Power, and the Future

Episode: The Senator Going After Data Centers
Host: Lizzie O’Leary
Guest: Senator Chris Van Hollen (Democrat, Maryland)
Date: February 13, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode delves into the growing impact of data centers on U.S. electricity costs, local power grids, and public policy. Host Lizzie O’Leary speaks with Senator Chris Van Hollen about his proposed "Power for the People" bill, which targets the burden data centers place on utility infrastructure and consumer electricity bills. The conversation expands to touch on federal vs. state policy, the interplay of tech and politics, current government funding standoffs, and Van Hollen’s evolving political stance.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Problem: Data Centers & Rising Electricity Costs

• Senator Van Hollen stresses that consumers, particularly in Maryland and other states on the PJM grid, are increasingly paying for the immense power demands of new and existing data centers.
  • “Consumers are having to pick up the bill for data centers. And the richest companies on the planet, a lot of these AI companies.” (02:19)
• He worries about reliability: unchecked growth of data centers could lead to brownouts and blackouts.
  • “We want to make sure they don’t experience the brownouts and blackouts that are anticipated in the event that data centers start sucking up so much electricity on the grid.” (02:55)

The "Power for the People" Bill: Mechanisms & Goals

Key Features:

• Establishes a separate rate class for data centers—akin to a "super industrial rate."
• Empowers grid operators to refuse data center connections if conditions aren’t met.
• Requires data centers to:
  • Supply and pay for their own power
  • Shoulder the costs of infrastructure upgrades, not ratepayers
  • Favor lower-carbon energy sources and fair labor practices
• Why federal action?
  • State regulations are inconsistent and insufficient for regional grid impacts.
  • “When a company, including a big data center, comes and says, I want to hook up to the electric grid, there's no mechanism in place for that grid to be able to say no.” (03:56)

Industry Response: Pledge vs. Policy

• Companies like Anthropic have stated they’ll cover cost increases and infrastructure upgrades where necessary.
  • O’Leary questions if this is preemptive regulatory avoidance (05:20).
• Van Hollen is skeptical of voluntary commitments:
  • “That's worth whatever the paper's written on. What we want to do is make this part of the statute...” (05:54)

Federal & State Politics

• The White House and DOE have made high-profile announcements, but Van Hollen finds their measures toothless:

  • “They’ve also not focused as much on making sure these mechanisms are in place... DOE ... actually looks more like just a blank check to accelerate the access of data centers to the grids without the protections for consumers.” (06:38-07:17)

• States, notably Virginia, are courting data centers with heavy tax incentives, causing costs to spill across state lines on shared grids:

  • "When a data center moves in Virginia, that additional cost is paid by Marylanders and everybody else who's part of the PJM grid.” (07:51)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On why a separate data center rate class is needed:
  • "We don’t want you, me, and, you know, my constituents having to pick up the bill.” (05:12)
• On industry self-regulation:
  • “What we want to do is make this part of the statute so that ... what people say ... in a press release that it actually happens." (05:54)
• On state incentives:
  • "I don’t think Virginians will like the idea that they're paying higher electricity costs in order to bring more data centers to Virginia.” (07:43)

---

Beyond Data Centers: Broader Political Landscape

DHS Funding & Government Shutdown (10:41–14:00)

• Van Hollen discusses the ongoing showdown over DHS funding, emphasizing that Democrats want to rein in ICE while maintaining funding for other agencies like TSA and FEMA.
  • "Republicans are holding those agencies within DHS hostage because they refuse to rein in the lawless ICE operations." (11:28)

Immigration Enforcement & Local Controversies (15:32–17:55)

• O'Leary questions Van Hollen about local support/opposition to ICE detention facilities in Maryland, to which Van Hollen responds with concerns over humanitarian impacts and community burdens.
  • "The people in that community do not want ICE to have that big detention center.” (16:12)

Political Activism and Presidential Ambitions (26:52–28:51)

• O’Leary notes Van Hollen’s transformation from a “reasonable centrist” to a more outspoken lawmaker.
• On whether he’ll run for president:
  • "I intend to have a significant voice in shaping the direction the Democratic party takes beyond 2026... But to your point ... it can’t just be what we’re against. It has to be what we’re for.” (27:21–28:28)
  • "But I am in this fight for the long haul." (28:46)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:20] — Introduction to data center issues and guest (Sen. Van Hollen)
• [02:13] — Why focus on data centers and Van Hollen’s bill explained
• [03:20–05:20] — Mechanism of the bill; rate classes and federal power
• [05:20–07:21] — Industry commitments, skepticism, and state vs. federal dynamics
• [10:41–14:00] — DHS funding standoff and Democratic goals
• [15:32–17:55] — Local controversy over ICE facilities in Maryland
• [26:52–28:51] — Van Hollen’s political evolution and rumored presidential run

---

Tone & Language

The exchange is pragmatic, policy-focused, and urgent; Van Hollen is candid, critical of both corporate and governmental “toothless” actions, and determined to link day-to-day consumer realities to larger systemic challenges. O’Leary balances skepticism with curiosity, probing for clarity and pressing on political ambitions.

---

Summary

This episode of What Next: TBD shines a light on the escalating clash between technological infrastructure and public good. Senator Chris Van Hollen’s "Power for the People" bill seeks to make Big Tech pay its own way rather than pushing the costs and reliability risks onto ordinary people. The conversation transcends the energy debate, revealing a lawmaker growing ever more assertive—and possibly positioning for higher office—amid a turbulent national political landscape. For listeners, it’s an urgent look at how future tech policy will shape not just the economy, but the resilience and equity of American life.

Transcript

[A]

Hi, this is Kim Holderness from the Laugh Lines podcast. Let's talk about spring break. You might be thinking, oh, no, Kim. Nothing good happens on spring break. Well, I'm here to tell you it's time to redefine our vacation time. We all deserve a getaway that is meaningful but doesn't require a ton of planning. Spring break isn't what it used to be. It's better this spring. Stay three nights and get a $50 Best Western gift card. Life's a trip. Make the most of it. At Best Western, visit BestWestern.com for complete terms and conditions.

[B]

Blood donation is now more inclusive. More people are able to donate blood with the American Red Cross through FDA guidelines that eliminate eligibility questions based on sexual orientation. The Red Cross celebrates this historic change and welcomes those who may be newly eligible to donate blood. There's a place for everyone in the mission of the Red Cross. The Red Cross is committed to achieving an inclusive blood donation process that treats all potential donors with equality and respect while maintaining the safety of the blood supply. Join us and help save lives. To learn more and make your appointment to donate blood, visit redcrossblood.org LGBTQ that's redcrossblood.org LGBTQ.

[C]

Hey, it's Lizzie o'. Leary. You're listening to what Next tbd, a show about technology, power, and how the future will be determined. One of the things we follow on this show is how tech intersects with real life. And right now that is being felt in electricity costs, in part because of data centers. They were a big issue in the 2025 off year elections in Virginia, and they're likely to come up in the midterms, too. Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat from Maryland, just proposed a bill in January to address rising energy costs from data centers, and he's here to talk about it. Senator, thanks for coming on.

[D]

It's great to be with you.

[C]

So there are a number of bills in the Senate, some from your Democratic colleagues, to curb the high cost of electricity associated with data centers. Why your bill? What makes it interesting?

[D]

Well, first, I think it's important to understand that this is a big and growing problem. Right. So I represent the state of Maryland. We're part of the PJM grid network, which is the largest network in the country. And we're already having consumers have to pick up the tab for data centers, those that are expected to come online, as well as some of the transmission costs for data centers that are already online. Which is nuts, right? That consumers are having to pick up the bill for data centers. And the richest companies on the planet, a lot of these AI companies. So what our bill does, and it's called Power for the People, is that we want to make sure that their constituents, consumers, get the power, but without having to pay extra costs that are associated with data centers. We also want to make sure they don't experience the brownouts and blackouts that are anticipated in the event that data centers start sucking up so much electricity on the grid. So this is about consumer reliability and affordability.

[C]

I want to talk about the mechanism a little bit because I think it's helpful to explain how some of this works. Now, in a lot of areas, utilities charge you one rate if you're residential, one rate if you're a small business, one rate if you're industrial. So your bill would create a different rate class for data centers in this kind of load queue thing. Can you explain how that would work and why you need a federal rate as opposed to state ones?

[D]

Yes, because right now the normal law and normal practice is that when a company, including a big data center, comes and says, I want to hook up to the electric grid, there's no mechanism in place for that grid to be able to say no. And what we do is create a mechanism where they can say, you can't come on the grid. And if you want to come on the grid, you've got to meet these conditions. And those conditions include essentially bringing your own power. Right. And paying for your own power, not passing on the costs of transmission to consumers. And we also say that they have to preference those data centers that are going to have less carbon intensive fuel, so less polluting approaches, as well as those that provide a decent wage to workers. It's not that others couldn't get online, but we create a preference system for doing that. And we do also create this different rate class for data centers because we think they should be treated separately because of their unique characteristics and costs.

[C]

Sort of like a super industrial rate, I guess.

[D]

Yes, that's exactly right. It's to be able to say we're going to categorize this set of costs as part of their own class because we don't want you, me, and, you know, my constituents having to pick up the bill.

[C]

I found it very interesting that anthropic just came out and said it would, and I'm using quotes here, estimate and cover consumer electricity price increases in places where it's not able to sufficiently generate new power and pay for 100% of the infrastructure upgrades. That to me reads like either a company that just wants to help or a company that would like to get ahead of federal regulation.

[D]

Well, look, what we're trying to do is require by law that companies that have those aspirations, if they're genuine, that they have to stick with it. I mean, the White House has also been talking about, you know, bringing in, you know, some of these data centers and get them to make certain kinds of pledges. But that's worth whatever the paper's written. It's written on. What we want to do is make this part of the statute so that when grid operators like the PGM and state overseers, the public service commissions, that they actually are empowered and have the tools necessary to enforce those pledges to make sure that what people say and make, you know, do a public announcement about in a press release that it actually happens.

[C]

Have you talked to the White House about this? Because they have done this, as you mentioned, with a couple of the big companies.

[D]

Not directly. We've been following what they're saying. You know, we introduced our bill, power to the People and then a few days later they made some announcements. Announcements. But we have very closely examined what the White House has been saying and doing. And some of it's aligned with what we're talking about, but with no teeth. They've also not focused as much on making sure these mechanisms are in place. Right. For affordability or for reliability. And if you look at what DOE the Department of Energy has been doing, that actually looks more like just a blank check to accelerate the access of data centers to the grids without the protections for consumers.

[C]

But at the same time, you know, a lot of states want these data centers. I mean, Virginia has passed significant tax incentives. I'm bringing them up because they were the focus of the off year elections. How do you balance that? Because at the same, you know, you have states that say, wait, I, I want this, this business to come here.

[D]

Well, you balance it by saying the business can come to Virginia or whatever state it may be, but taxpayers and consumers shouldn't have to pay the bill. I don't think Virginians will like the idea that they're paying higher electricity costs in order to bring more data centers to Virginia. And by the way, when a data center moves in Virginia, that additional cost is paid by Marylanders and everybody else who's part of the PJM grid. So, you know, when I talk to people, it's pretty clear they embrace the principle that data centers should have to pick up every cent of the costs that it will require for them to conduct their business and that they you know, others should not experience these power shortages because data centers are sucking up so much electricity.

[C]

More of our conversation with Chris Van Hollen after the break.

[D]

Foreign.

[C]

This episode is brought to you by Duck AI, a new product from DuckDuckGo. It's 2026 and the news is full of AI. It can be a little overwhelming, especially because it's easy to wonder if what you are asking a chatbot is actually secure. That's why DuckDuckGo built Duck AI. Duck AI is designed to let you choose chat privately with the same AIs you might already be using. Plus, it's completely free. No signups, no subscriptions. Duck AI promises to protect your info from hackers, scammers and data hungry companies. And it's from DuckDuckGo, the company that's been protecting your privacy, not collecting your Data for nearly two decades. If you want to use AI but you're concerned about privacy, visit Duck AITBD today. That's Duck AI DBD from DuckDuckGo, where AI is always optional and designed to be private.

[B]

Acquia Source is a fully managed SaaS platform delivering an enhanced digital operating model. Powered by specialized AI agents. Source automates SEO, accessibility and governance so you can go from prompt to profit in minutes. In the age of AI search, you must be the authoritative answer. Maximize your budget, stop the bottleneck, and let Acquia Source bridge the gap between developer flexibility and marketer speed. Acquia Source Enterprise CMS radically simplified. Visit acquia.comSource tired of your car insurance rate going up?

[A]

Even with a clean driving record, you're not alone. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry compares rates side by side from over 50 top insurers and helps you switch with ease. Jerry even tracks market rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jeri could save over $1,300 a year. Switch with confidence Download the Jerry app or visit Jerry AI Acast Today.

[C]

I am talking to you. On Thursday afternoon, Democrats have essentially voted to shut down the government over DHS funding. Can you talk me through the end game? What do you want? Because DHS already has $190 billion that they got back in July. Where do you see this actually going?

[D]

So first of all, all of the government is actually open and operating on fresh 2026 appropriations with the exception of the Department of Homeland Security, right? So with respect to the Department of Homeland Security, I also want to make clear that Democrats have said that Republicans should not hold the elements of the Department of Homeland Security that don't relate to ICE or Customs or Border Patrol. They shouldn't hold them hostage. Right. So we should immediately fund tsa. We should fund the Coast Guard, tsa, fema, and fema. So I just want to make that clear. Republicans are holding those agencies within DHS hostage because they refuse to rein in the lawless ICE operations. And the White House has just proved that they're not serious in any way at reining those operations in, despite the fact that two Americans were shot and killed. And, you know, it was the White House that called them domestic terrorists. So we want to rein in ICE and Customs and Border Patrol. And we've said, and I've certainly been clear, not one more dime for those lawless operations.

[C]

What does that look like in practice, though? Because I've seen several of the Democratic negotiating planks. I mean, cameras keeps getting thrown around, but there's money for CBP cameras in 2021, 2022, 2023. It seems like you all are tiptoeing around abolish, but not actually saying it.

[D]

No, my view is we need fundamental reform. I mean, you still need a function, the function that ICE carries out. But what Trump has done is, is essentially completely weaponize that function in a way that's terrorizing American communities. And they're certainly not focused on the worst of the worst. In fact, overwhelmingly, they're going after people who pose zero public safety risk to our communities. So what we've said is we want meaningful changes. So, for example, we want independent investigations and reviews when people are engaged in wrongdoing. I mean, you really shouldn't have the people who called the victims domestic terrorists be the ones that are adjudicating these cases. We've also called for changes in the use of force rules so that they have to operate like the police in our communities have to operate. And finally, we've said you've got to have an individualized basis for going after and detaining someone based on their criminal record or whatever it may be. You can't conduct these indiscriminate sweeps and just bring in lots of people. The White House has refused to agree to those provisions. So they're certainly not serious. And again, if they're not serious, I'm not willing to provide another $10 billion in this coming fiscal year to ICE, which is what the White House wants.

[C]

So what happens now? Because, you know, the midterms are several months off. We are looking at the third government Shutdown in five months. I think Americans are perhaps rightly tired of that. What is the alternate vision?

[D]

Well, the alternate vision is the kind of things that we're talking about right here. You know, Donald Trump campaigned on bringing down costs and prices for the American people. He has spent the, the last one year plus doing everything except that. Right. He's gotten us engaged in foreign conflicts. When he said he was going to be the peace president, he claimed that he was going to go after the worst of the worst. But now he's essentially weaponized.

[C]

Right, But I'm asking you what you guys would do. I know what he's doing.

[D]

So what would I do? I would immediately, first of all, reverse their so called big beautiful bill. It was beautiful for billionaires, but not for anybody else. So I would claw back all those additional funds for ice. I would repurpose them and restore the cuts they made to Medicaid. I would pass the Power for the People Act. I would pass legislation to increase taxes on the wealthiest people in our country, the millionaires and the billionaires. And I'd provide actually a tax cut to working Americans. And I think we need to be very clear not just about what we're against, but what we're for, as you're indicating. So I think that's going to be very important. I think midterms tend to be a referendum on the actions of the party in power. But we should say that we're going to take some of the actions. For example, that I just mentioned.

[C]

Let me ask you about a warehouse in Hagerstown, Maryland. DHS and ICE purchased it. The local county commission approved a resolution this week declaring full support for ice. You represent the state that has that warehouse with the local county that's behind it, and also counties that do not want these warehouses there. What do you say to the folks in Washington county who say, yeah, we want this warehouse here?

[D]

Right. So we have a bad news story in Maryland, A good news story in Maryland. From my perspective, this is a bad news story. And I was out with hundreds of people in that same community protesting on a very cold day when we learned that ICE was talking about purchasing this property for a big, big detention facility. So in my view, the people in that community do not want ICE to have that big detention center. And I have written very directly to the commissioners, the local commissioners with a series of questions about how they can justify their actions. It's going to place a big burden on the community. Are they going to make sure that people are treated humanely? Because we know that's not the case in the Baltimore holding center where you've probably seen those terrible videos.

[C]

There have been a lot of videos.

[D]

Yeah. And so look, I think the Washington county commissioners made a very bad decision. Now, they didn't. Essentially, they've ratified a decision. It was the private landowner that made the transaction. But let me tell you a good news story. In Maryland, ICE was also going to purchase a facility in Howard County, Maryland for a detention center. And within one week, the county executive and the Howard County Council passed a law prohibiting that, making that impossible. And I was proud to join them at the bill signing ceremony. So, look, this is a battle all over the country. I think the heroes of this battle are the people in Minneapolis who are blowing the whistles, who are protecting their neighbors, who are calling out wrongdoing against ICE and frankly taking the videos so that when the administration says that these are domestic terrorists, we can all know that that's just a bunch of bs. So again, this is an ongoing battle, but it is the people of this country who I think are rightfully horrified about what's happening.

[C]

You spent a lot of time working with Kilmar Abrego Garcia and his folks. When was the last time you talked to them? And do you know where he is now?

[D]

So, yes, I talked to them a number of weeks ago to both him and his, his wife Jennifer. They're at home now in Maryland. But the Trump administration has not dropped, you know, their effort to politically persecute him. You know, he is essentially being treated as a political target. But this is, of course, was the administration that said that he would never return to the United States. Right. They wrongfully snatching him off the streets of Maryland. They sent him to a gulag in El Salvador. They said he would rot there forever. We were successful after a 9 to 0 Supreme Court decision. Not many of those. And after the publicity around the case, when I, you know, I went down and met with them, I was able to call his wife that evening and let her know he was still alive. She didn't know that. And now, despite what the Trump administration had said, he is back in our system. And this has been a case of. About their efforts to violate people's due process rights. Right. And take away their constitutional rights. And I think again, the American people recognized very clearly that if you can strip away Kilmar Brego Garcia's constitutional rights, all of her rights are threatened. So the good news is right now he's back home with his family. The bad news is the Trump administration continues to Try to prosecute and persecute him for charges that they had never raised at the time they first abducted him.

[C]

After the break, more of our conversation with Senator Van Hollen.

[B]

Dreaming of getting the all new iPhone

[D]

17 Pro, designed to be the most powerful iPhone ever.

[C]

Then stay in bed and let a Boost mobile expert deliver and set it up for you.

[D]

Oh, actually they will have to get up and open the door.

[C]

Oh, right.

[D]

Delivery available for select devices purchased at boostmobile.com terms apply thy ticket lady Jennifer of Coolidge.

[C]

Well, many thanks, good sir. Here is my Discover card.

[A]

They accept Discover at Renaissance Fairs? Yeah, they do here.

[C]

Discover is accepted at the places I love to shop. Getth with the times.

[D]

With the times.

[A]

You're playing the loot.

[D]

Yeah, and it sounds pretty good, right? Discover is accepted at 99% of places that take credit cards nationwide, based on the February 2025 Nielsen report.

[C]

I'd also like to ask you about your back and forth with the commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick this week. He appears to have lied about his dealings with Jeffrey Epstein and his visit to his island. What do you make of that?

[D]

Well, number one, it is important that everybody know that he lied. And as I said directly to him, um, he has undermined entirely his credibility before the Congress, before the country, and frankly, before the victims and survivors because he made a big deal, as we all know, about how he was a good judge of character. He walked into Jeffrey Epstein's, you know, apartment way back in the early 2000s and said he knew that that was a disgusting, his words person. And yet now we find out that he visited Jeffrey Epstein's private island with his kids and nannies. So he lied, and then he took kids and nannies, you know, to this despicable man's island. I've asked him to provide all his own records of any of these interactions with Jeffrey Epstein. And I will shortly go over to the FBI to review the Epstein files and I will continue to look in terms of these interactions that Howard Lutnick had.

[C]

Yeah, I was going to ask you, several of your colleagues in the house have done that. So you have not looked at the unredacted files yet?

[D]

I've not had a chance to. And I want to make sure before I go over and look through 3 million files that I have a strategy for doing it. And we've also learned now that the administration was actually monitoring the searches conducted by my colleagues. I mean, this is like the surveillance state on steroids. And so I, I do plan to go, but I want to schedule it in a way that I can make sure I make the best use of my time looking through those files.

[C]

You sit on, I think, arguably the most powerful committee in the Senate, the Appropriations Committee. Right. That's what you guys do. It must be personally frustrating to feel like you don't have the power of the purse.

[D]

Well, it has been enormously frustrating because from the very first days of the Trump administration, they engaged in illegal withholdings of funds. I mean, Congress had provided funds for various agencies and they had not spent them. They transferred funds illegally. I will say it's a minor step, but it's significant when we pass the appropriations bills, that we have to keep all of the government open and functioning, except for for dhs. We did this time, number one, reject the cuts that the administration proposed in a huge number of areas. Right. They proposed slashing nih. They proposed slashing investment in space science and a whole slew of things. And we not only restored the funding on a bipartisan basis, we finally put up some guardrails such that if the administration tries to ignore the will of Congress, which they may well try to do again, and we actually can go to court and point to the fact that what we're proposing is not just in report language, it's not just guidance. We actually move some of this stuff into the law, into the statute. That's what prevented the Trump administration, frankly, from grabbing a whole bunch of NIH money last year that they wanted to. So again, this is the overall story is what you just said, that it's been enormously frustrating to watch so many of our Republican colleagues, you know, remain silent while the administration just neutered the power of the purse. They are finally catching up, at least on the margins. But we're in a fight. I mean, we're only a year, a little over a year into this administration. This is, this is day by day, it's a lawless administration. They're taking away people's First Amendment rights, rights. They tried to indict six of our congressional colleagues. They locked up students on univers from university campuses who spoke out, taking positions against the administration. They seized Kamara Brago Garcia against his constitutional right to due process. We have a full on attack on our democracy. Now Trump's talking about nationalizing elections. So this is a moment for all of us, right, we the people, to really push back.

[C]

Are you in a fight with the right generals? Do you feel confident that Chuck Schumer is leading Senate Democrats in the right way?

[D]

Look, our whole caucus needs to work together, right it's not just about one person. It's about making sure that we are together as a caucus. I will say, during the first government shutdown that went on for a long time, I wish that it had not come to and end when it did. That said, I do think the American people recognized that Republicans were the ones that were unfortunately, you know, preventing 20 million Americans from getting tax credits that helped them better afford their health care under the Affordable Care Act. I mean, as we speak, do they

[C]

know I live a few blocks from Chuck Schumer and there are crowds out there protesting pretty regularly. And I guess I'm asking you because I see a lot of Democrats seem to want more muscular representation on Capitol Hill. You don't think there needs to be a change?

[D]

Well, my view is that the change is each of us are responsible for doing our job to bring about change. And I have worked within our caucus from the earliest days of this administration to push back on its lawlessness. I think there were too many who failed to recognize the extent of the threat to our democracy early on. But I think at this particular moment, our caucus in different ways understands the threat, the really mortal threat to our democracy. Is that to say that I don't have differences with some of the strategies we pursue. No, that's not what I'm saying. I do believe it's going to be really important that we do more to signal that we are not in a normal moment and we cannot normalize what's happening.

[C]

I covered you when you were in the House, when I covered Congress, and I always thought of you as like Mr. Reasonable Centrist Guy. And I feel like I've watched you certainly over the last 18 months to a year, be more outspoken, make more noise, go to El Salvador. Are you going to run for president?

[D]

Well, I will tell you what I'm focused on right now. I really am focused on.

[C]

Come on.

[D]

I know, I know. But I want to say what I'm focused on. 2026. I intend to have a significant voice in shaping the direction the Democratic party takes beyond 2026. Right. Exactly. What form that takes, I don't know. But to your point that you asked me about that, it can't just be what we're against. It has to be what we're for. I don't think we've done nearly enough. I think it's. It is such an indictment of the Democratic Party that we lost the popular vote to Donald Trump in 2024. And my view is we cannot take that risk again. And so, you know, I think we have too many people who've been finger to the wind for too long, blowing this way and that way. My view is that we should just let the American people know what we stand for. They can judge whether that's, you know, somebody they trust. But I know one thing. They will be willing to disagree with people on an issue here and there if they believe that people are driven by a set of core values and principles rather than blowing to the window. And so I know that's a long answer to your question. You know, I addressed the House Progressive Caucus this week, and I had a couple of my old colleagues urging me to take the plunge. My view is that I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing right now and just see where all this takes us.

[C]

That's what everybody says.

[D]

That's what I'm saying. But I am in this fight for the long haul.

[C]

Senator Van Hollen, thanks for coming on.

[D]

Good to be with you.

[C]

Chris Van Hollen is a Democratic senator from Maryland. All right, that is it for our show today. What Next TBD is produced by Patrick Fort. Our show is edited by Evan Campbell. Paige Osborne is the senior supervising producer for what Next and what Next tbd. Mia Lobel is the executive producer here at Slate. And TBD is part of the larger what Next family. I'm Lizzie o'. Leary. Thanks so much for listening.

[B]

SA.

[D]

Plaza la colonoscopia empacientes de alto riezgo nous escolo Garcia Inflammatory intestinal isierto syndrome es hereditarios o unistorial Persona familiar de cancer de colon Cologuard a tu medico paramas informacion en Espanol. Visit cologuardpun.com Diagonal Pro

[B]

Over 90 of the top 100 US accounting firms trust Bill to simplify and secure bill pay. That's proven financial infrastructure built on over a trillion dollars of secure payments. Visit bill.com proven for a special offer.