Ro, how many times have you been on the

pod now? Is this number four for you?

Three or four?

>> No, this is my uh fifth time.

>> Oh, wait. Sorry. I'm not Ro. Sorry. Over

to Roan. Sorry.

>> We all look the same.

>> You're Sri Lankan. He's Indian. I know

the difference.

>> We all look the same, bro. We all look

the same.

>> It's like you're saying to the Irish

guys.

>> That's how that's how I won my seat. I

just had Indian-Americans, every

Indian-American go knock on doors and

say, "I'm Roana." You know, they all

thought I they thought the candidate

came to every door.

I'm going.

>> All right, besties. I think that was

another epic discussion. People love the

interviews. I could hear him talk for

hours. Absolutely. We crushed your

questions a minute. We are giving people

ground truth data to underwrite your own

opinion. What do you guys think? That

was fun. That was great. going.

>> I will say one of my appearance, I think

this is number four, but one of them was

on election night and it was uh with uh

Trump uh Trump Trump's son uh Donald

Trump Jr. and I actually ran into him in

the green room right before we were

doing Squawkbox and he brought up the uh

Pod interview. So there you go. Bringing

bringing the sides together.

>> It's been pretty amazing. I think it's a

good place to start. how successful uh

Indian-Americans have become and a

really important topic I think for us to

kick off with maybe this time on your

fourth appearance is uh immigration

H-1Bs.

What's your take broadly on what we're

seeing out of the Trump administration

on maybe trying to correct the abuse in

these systems uh and maybe

uh monotize them and and maybe do you

think that's a good strategy for

correcting the abuse? First of all,

there's definitely abuse. Uh second, it

definitely needs to be corrected. The uh

reality is that the some of the H-1B

visa holders are uh being paid below

market wages. Some of them are not going

to super talented individuals or in the

uh jobs that actually require a lot of

skill. And I had a bill, a bipartisan

bill actually, that uh would have

reformed it, requiring paying a

prevailing wage, requiring um making

sure that the categories actually were

skilled categories. I don't love the

blanket 100,000 fee. I think that that's

not the best way to reform it. But if

partly because it puts an unfair burden

on startups, it actually may uh hurt

with with talent. But if you wanted to

say, look, there's going to be some

prevailing wage standard and we need

reforms. I'm open open to that.

>> Do you think that the president is on

the right direction then in actually

trying to reform the system?

>> Yeah, I I I don't I I think in terms of

reforming the system, he's in the right

direction. I don't you know, I don't

agree with the specifics of require the

way he's doing it. Uh like many things,

I think sometimes he identifies the

right issue and he has a solution that I

I don't agree with. Uh but the the the

reality is that it has to be reformed. I

mean I and anyone in Silicon Valley, you

guys know this. I mean it's it's been

abused. It's been abused by uh some of

the mass uh IT outsourcing firms that

just uh just have people coming.

>> It's been very it's been very difficult

to find some of the the best young minds

to work at our startups to your point Ro

because it has been gamed and the people

that have perfected the application

process have won the H-1Bs. And I think

that that's where these systems go off

the rails because it should be, as you

said, the really talented young men and

women that moved to the United States

supported by an American company trying

to do something ambitious. It should not

be because you know how to apply

multiple times through multiple shell

companies.

>> Yeah, I agree. And as you know, some of

the outsourcing consulting companies, I

don't want to go through all the names,

but you know what they are. or taught at

Consulting or Cognizant or others,

they've gained the system and they get a

a bulk of those uh H-1Bs and that needs

to stop and there needs to be uh actual

talent. But I want to make a point. I

was just in China. We had gone to a

bipartisan delegation there. Onethird of

the AI talent is in China according to a

lot of uh the reports. And so I want

some of those folks to come to the

United States so we can stay ahead of of

AI. So there are legitimate uses of the

H-1B program. Uh and what we need to do

is fix uh fix the program so you can

have the legitimate talent still coming

to Silicon Valley and around the nation.

>> Do you think that for that cream

skimming things like national interest

waiverss and 01 visas and EB1s and EB5s,

do you think that those are sufficient

to accomplish the task of that or it

should be factored into the H1B program

itself? I think there needs to be an

H-1B program. I don't I don't think the

national waiver and the the other

programs are uh are enough. A lot of

times, you know, look how Sundra Pachai

came or Satya came who are now leading

Google and Microsoft. They came uh they

they studied here uh and then they got

uh an H-1B. But I would also make it

that you don't stay on an H-1B

indefinitely, that we move towards a

green card, which by the way, President

Trump said on your show in your one of

your episodes, he said, "I'm going to

make sure that we actually move folks

quickly uh to a green card." That to me

seems like a a win-win because you're

then not exploiting an individual.

you're going to pay them the market wage

as they have flexibility of moving uh

and uh at the same time that they're

going to stay in the United States

instead of going back to to China or or

to to India. By the way, a lot of these

companies that if you just limit H-1Bs,

they all have overseas uh a lot of the

big companies have overseas

headquarters. So, they're going to just

offshore the jobs instead of bringing

the jobs here. Bro, one of the one of

the points that Jason has made really

well actually consistently for years is

in order to fix the immigration system,

I think the first thing you have to do

is rebuild trust in the immigration

system.

>> Fair point.

>> And one of the things that the president

has done is effectively now completely

sealed the border. And I think the stat

that he said is that since January,

literally there have been no illegal

immigrants at the southern border. I'm

presuming it's probably similar at the

northern border as well.

Can you just talk about that part of the

immigration spectrum and what you think

the positives and the negatives of what

has happened over the last nine months?

>> We need a secure border. The border uh

let we let in too many people under uh

the uh Biden administration without uh

having uh the proper security. I think

the Democrats need to acknowledge that,

own up to that and say that we need to

make sure that there are uh there is a

secure border. Now, I don't agree with

Trump in the way he's shut down uh

basically all asylum claims and and he's

just taken it to to to zero. And I don't

agree with that approach. But do I think

we needed uh to do things to secure the

border more? I do. Uh now, the question

is, okay, he's done that. I disagree

with uh how he's secured it and in that

he's basically made asylum impossible.

But will he take some of that goodwill

that he's earned in terms of the trust

and do things that I think can be

bipartisan in terms of immigration

reform? One is an industries uh like

agriculture, food production,

construction for people who are here,

who are paying their taxes, who have

been undocumented for a long time. Give

them a path to legalization. By the way,

you want to see food prices come down,

that would be one way to do that in

terms of giving those folks a path to

legalization if they're here. Nonc no

criminal record uh and paid uh paid

their taxes. And I've seen him sometimes

suggest that.

>> Yeah, he came out and said it. He said

we have to look at it, right? He

explicitly said it.

>> I'm a Democrat willing to work with him

on that. And the second would be on this

green card thing, which he said

explicitly, which is look, people are

here. they if they've gotten get a

college degree, we're paying for their

education. Uh we want them here. I

someone comes 600,000 students come from

uh 300,000 from China. I'm glad, by the

way, the president pushed back against

his own base and said that those

students should still come because he

got a hard time uh saying that they

should still come. Well, they come here,

they study at Stanford, they study at

Berkeley, they study at MIT or Harvard

or at uh at a state college. We're

basically financing in some way their

education because all these universities

get federal subsidies. Wouldn't you want

them to stay here and create the jobs

you're an investor instead of going back

to China and doing it in Shanghai or

Beijing?

>> Yeah, I think this is part of the one of

the reasons I love having you on the

program, Ro, is you take a very first

principled and a logical nonpartisan

approach to this. You just gave Trump

his flowers for, hey, good job closing

the border. Good job identifying that

80% of Americans agree with that. I'm

curious what's going on inside the

Democratic party where a large number of

people can't seem to give Trump any

credit, right, for this basic win and

then challenge him and say, "Hey, but

this is where we have to go." So, how

does the Democratic party look at you,

your contemporaries, when you're a

moderate, when you try to tone things

down, when you try to take a first

principled, logical approach to these

issues? How are you within your own

party? Are are you the skunk at the

garden party just for saying that Trump

actually did something right?

>> Well, yeah. And I'm a progressive

Democrat, but what I am is a progressive

Democrat who's tries to call balls and

strikes. And like I said, I don't agree

with uh all of the policies he's done to

to to to shut down the border. But it

would be just foolish to think that we

didn't have a problem on the border,

that we weren't uh didn't have too many

people coming in, that we didn't do

enough to to strengthen the border. I

think that should have been Vice

President Harris's answer. what she

would have done differently. And she

could have even said, "I learned we we

we we made a mistake. We didn't we we

didn't have the the the right uh uh

approach on on border security." That

look, today I tweeted out something

about how I agreed with what Trump's

doing on uh the prescription drug uh

issue that uh he has a a a government

website that is basically going to sell

pharmaceutical drugs at a cheaper price.

Now, that's a policy that if Bernie

Sanders had put forward or Joe Biden had

put forward,

>> that's exactly what I was going to say.

Bernie Sanders had put this out. Yeah.

Sorry. Go

>> ahead. That we'd all be cheering. I

mean, it's not Is it as far as I want?

No. But it's a step in that direction.

So, I guess my point is, well, why not

just then say, "Okay, that's that's

good." Or I've been very critical of uh

the president's policies on the Middle

East, and I was I've been critical of

the policies of Biden on the Middle

East. But today he put forth the plan

that the Arab countries are are saying

that Hamas should take. So I tweeted out

that Hamas should accept this, release

the hostages, Israel should withdraw.

Now that's because I'm rooting for

America to succeed in peace in the

Middle East. That doesn't mean that I

adopt Donald Trump's policy. But I just

think we need as a party to uh to to be

honest about where uh someone is is is

putting forth something that we may

agree with and where they're not. Now,

of course, he's doing a lot of things

that we could get into it that are

unconstitutional and that's and he puts

does antics like having Jeff in a in a

sombrero and and it it you can see why

there is such anger. He's been Randon

Carr threatening to take Jimmy Kimmel

off the air. I mean, threatening

universities with uh with their speech.

So, so there's reason for for the the

anger, but I don't think just being

anti-Trump is the way back for the

Democratic party. Yeah, go ahead.

>> Can just just diagnose this for us

because I think we've entered a phase of

politics where just it seems like

decorum has been lost and underneath

that is it that there's hatred or is it

that there's just incredible competition

now to accumulate power and win

elections? What do you believe is at the

root cause

of why people can't call balls and

strikes?

>> I think it's both. It's that uh

unfortunately there has been more

extremism and hate uh in in our country.

I mean people really uh have lost the

ability to try to see uh the good in

others and to to say look we've got some

humility. We may not have all the right

answers and we want to engage. I think I

used to say money in politics is our

biggest problem. Now, I believe hate and

extremism is our biggest problem in in

in this country. And then you're

rewarded uh if you do the most

outlandish things because we're in an

attention economy. And if you pick a

fight, people pay attention. Uh and so

uh if you're kind of sober, uh you're

you're going to lose support from your

your own party, your own base. But my my

hope, and I I hope this for both

parties, that after the Trump era, and I

think even Trump supporters would

acknowledge he's divisive. I mean, look

at what he said at Charlie Kirk's uh

funeral where Erica

Kirk gives this beautiful statement of

uh forgiveness and he says, "Well, I

can't forgive. I I hate my enemies." But

after eight years of that, I really hope

that we don't devolve into both sides

just hating each other more, mimicking

Trump's style of communication. I hope

uh whoever the Republicans put forward

uh will say, "Look, we want to go

forward. We want it's a new generation.

We've had three 80-year-old presidents

in a row in this country. Like we have a

new generation of governors and we're

going to be aspirational and we're going

to talk about positive things and I hope

the Democrats will do that."

>> Who do you think those are on the

Democratic side?

>> I think there folks that folks like Andy

Basher, there's folks like Wes Moore.

You know, whatever you think of the

three people who are going to win in

November, Mumani, Abigail Spanberger,

and Mikey Cheryl, you know, one thing

all three of those campaigns have in

common, they don't spend a lot of time

talking about Donald Trump. They're

talking about their own vision, their

own ideas about what they want to do uh

for their city, their state, for the

country, and the world. And that's what

politics should be about. The politics

should be about here's what my vision

is. Here's my plan. Uh here's where I

want to take the nation. By the way, Ro,

you know, I don't agree with Ro on

Medicare for all. I don't agree with him

on where he thinks the tax rate should

be. I don't agree with him on having the

state play some role in building modern

factories in in Ohio and this thing he

calls economic patriotism. I'm more

libertarian. I'm for deregulation. He

doesn't understand how you really grow

the economy. That's that's what we

should be talking about. Uh instead,

it's just, you know, everyone's trying

to see how they can curse in terms of

being authentic as if that makes you

intelligent, right? I mean, it's it's

actually just the expression of emotion

without a thought. And I uh I I I'm

hoping that we'll have a more serious

politics.

>> You had a you had a really great moment

on a podcast I heard you on. I can't

remember which one, but you were saying,

"I wonder if comedy is the precursor

now. Being funny, uh being witty on

programs is like the precursor to to

running for president." But let's let's

talk about um I think maybe an

interesting place to go would be how the

technology industry how to win that back

on the Democratic side. You had

essentially the entire industry. You had

monopoly. Let's call it what it is. Nine

out of 10 95 out of 100 Democrats.

>> We even had Shamat.

>> You had Shamat. You had Mark Pinkis. I

mean listen even inside the cabinet.

Bessent Lutnik Trump himself.

I didn't know

>> they were all Democrats. Yeah. All

previous Democrats, including Trump

himself. So, is there a road back? And

then if we were just to do a little, you

know, post-mortem on how the tech

industry was kind of abandoned,

vilified. I know for me as a moderate

basically up until this time have been

like two out of three times I voted

Democrat. Now it's like 6040ish. the

banning of the billionaires, the

demonization of entrepreneurs. It it

must have been uncomfortable for you to

watch. And obviously you see the entire

um digerati at the White House having

dinner. You must be thinking to

yourself, my god, Biden could have done

that at any time. He could have summoned

everybody and said, "Hey, come let's

talk about your issues." But instead,

the industry was vilified. So if you I

don't want to spend too much time on it,

but what's what's your diagnosis of how

that happened? And then how does the

Democratic party win back technology and

leaders and billionaires?

>> I do joke that I think the tech industry

has become the new uh new new

aristocracy. I look at I look at the

white house there they are sund Tim Cook

and Satya and all the group and then

then the king of England King Charles

there they are or something. So it's a

it's a it's a it's a a group that

obviously has a lot of stature and

respect. I guess here was my point to

the Biden administration that uh they

didn't agree with or they ignored. I

said you're you're making a mistake if

you think that getting Silicon Valley

folks uh on your side is about the money

because they would always say, "Oh,

Biden's going to raise all this money.

We don't need need the valley's money."

I said, "Yeah, you're going to raise all

the money." And they did. They raised

tons of money. Klaris raised tons of

money. I said, "That's not what it's

about. It's about culture." I said you

you there are a lot of young people in

America who admire these entrepreneurs

who listen to AllIn, who want to build

wealth, who want to build the next

generation of wealth. By the way, all

crypto is why why are there so many

young black and Latino uh folks who care

about crypto? Because frankly, it's the

closest often they're going to get to a

friends and family round in technology

that we've got to expand economic

opportunity so they have more options.

But there are a lot of people who want

to have a part of the digital economy,

who want to who look up to entrepreneurs

and innovators. And you basically let

Trump, this 1980s real estate guy who

was kind of pay a who was wondering

whether we were going to get more reruns

of The Apprentice and another act on on

politics, and you let him be the cool

guy with hanging out with all these tech

folks saying, "No, I'm the future." And

I said, "That's the the the the worst

mistake our party has made because we've

got to be the party of the future. We've

got to be the party of entrepreneurship

and innovation." And you can be like me,

a guy who says, "We should tax the

>> I I'll just tell you I'll just tell you

one quick story. I think I think it's

not that.

>> I think it's something I think it's

something more basic. When when we were

at that dinner,

>> Yeah.

>> he asked everybody, "What is the biggest

issue that you're dealing with?" and he

goes around the table and he asks what

is a very basic and open-ended question.

And I I can say this because I think it

was pretty clear what happened

afterwards, but one of the things that

was mentioned was just the overwhelming

pressure that the Europeans were putting

on Google. I don't know if you remember

this. And the day after, beyond making

some calls, what he did was he put a

pretty meaningful pressure campaign that

allowed the release valve to get

released. so that Google had less

pressure from the European regulators

and less ownorous terms. I think that

that's what it is because when you sit

with him, he's not selling an agenda. He

mostly just asks you what's going on and

then he says what can I do? And I think

that that is a unique feature that many

politicians I think have lost. And

listening and and and you said an

important thing which I just want to

double click on because I would love

your perspective on this. I do believe

that President Trump views the lens

through economic patriotism. I've been

largely convinced that I think that that

is a very powerful way of behaving in

the world.

You know, Alex Carpet or Allen Summit

referred to it in the spirit of Chinese

Tai Chi. It's internal stability. It's

how do you make sure that you have the

resources so that you have effectively

infinite optionality abroad. That makes

sense to me. So I'm just curious what is

the opposite of the economic patriotism

that Trump offers that you've seen

expressed in other countries right the

Chinese I think is very fair to say had

their own view of economic patriotism

and why is the opposite of that a better

model

>> well economic patriotism been my

platform that's why Ben and says you

know watch out for this kind of guy I've

been talking about and writing about

economic patriotism for years I would

say try how let me talking about why

it's different uh from from where Trump

is. And and it gets to partly your

point. I I I think fine he listens, but

he's not listening uh enough to people

are saying, "Well, the tariff policy is

not going to get get us to economic

development." He's not listening enough,

in my view, to people who are saying

that you can't just take a sledgehammer

to universities and research that that's

not going to help build the economy of

this country. uh he's not listening

enough uh to people who are saying don't

don't just have all this vetting and uh

for international students and and don't

don't insult immigrants coming to the

United States and we do need immigrants.

Now I I agree that he gave some of those

answers and and and allin but overall uh

there hasn't been the same understanding

and case for the role of immigrants in

the community. What I believe is we need

a Marshall plan for America and I wish

that we had a White House economic

council. I did this bill with Marco

Rubio that actually looks at Johnstown

that looks at Warren Ohio that looks at

Milwaukee and that says not only

advanced manufacturing we we should put

tech jobs there AIM is there healthcare

and let's have an economic renaissance

in this country and bring the country

together and that to me uh we should be

arguing in the parties of how we do that

uh and I have a different view on some

of the policies I articulated but that

should be the goal

>> if you look at if you look if you look

at promoting that economic

exceptionalism there are a bunch of

categories where I think the policy has

diverged

pretty meaningfully and paradoxically

the most obvious example is around AI

where we've gone from a much more

regimented stagegated way of seeing the

world and under President Trump and our

bestie David Saxs we've gone into a much

more open mandate that acknowledges

we're in a very tough competition with

an extremely talented a Chinese

competitor. What's your view on some of

these groundbreaking areas of tech? How

do we think about protection versus how

do we think about proliferation?

>> Well, that's a big question and uh first

we start by saying I I believe AI is

going to do more good than bad in the

world. I mean, I know that's a simple

statement, but there are many people who

may not agree with that. uh the the the

advances it can make in uh human disease

and diagnosis of human disease, the

advances it can make in uh education

curriculum for young people, the

advances they can make in production.

You know, one of the places we went to

in in uh Beijing was Shyomi, the the the

factory that makes these phones and I

was stunned. I mean, Xiaomi is Yeah. I

mean, I was stunned. It's a the AI has

these machines that are basically

putting together the the the phone. I

mean, it's a model of the iPhone.

>> To your point, we had Josiah,

who is the chairman of Alibaba, at the

summit. The most incredible thing that

Josai said is that by government edict,

essentially, they've mandated that 95%

of all government institutions need to

be running on AI by 2030. where and you

and I both know in any western country

if such an edict or something happened

you'd kind of just say let's just

discount this essentially to zero maybe

maybe it's like PR fluff

>> but you know I don't know Jason what you

thought but I was sitting there thinking

the only country that can probably pull

this off is the Chinese because if

>> UAE top down you can you can yeah

mandate it. Yeah. So to your point, Ro,

like we're going to have an incredibly

formidable competitor and so in some

ways like the infighting and the ranker

just needs to get dialed down otherwise

we're going to miss the conditions on

the field. And you know just to maybe

pivot to this, you're on the verge of a

shutdown. Can you walk us through the

inside baseball of what's happened over

the last few days, where we are, what

the sticking point is, and what you

think the odds are that that this thing

will get resolved, and what happens if

there's a shutdown? Can you just walk us

through all of that?

>> Sure. Just two two points on on on AI,

though. We do need to think about the

job displacement and what we what we can

do as a country. I I believe the federal

government has to step in uh for young

people in particular to say look you can

work for a few years if you can't find a

private sector job in helping on child

care, elder care, your communities,

healthcare, government services. Maybe

we make AI so that the DMV works better

and and you know people start to think

that the the government services

actually are effective. But I I think

there has to be a lot of thought put in

uh to the displacement and being a ahead

of the ahead of the curve. The only

thing I'd say about China is while

they're formidable, the one statistic

that made me think we've got a lot of

things right here that they haven't 20%

youth unemployment in China. And that's

because there all these college

graduates, they don't want to work at on

a factory line. Uh and I I tease Lutnik

about screws on the iPhone or something.

you know a lot of college graduates they

didn't they didn't want to do that in

China and uh at the same time not

everyone is going to be like making EVs

and so in our country you do a lot of

what that Chinese would say silly things

like you make dating apps and you make

comedy apps and you make sports apps and

you do a lot of other things and they

don't have that and I think the that

gives us a huge advantage uh in terms of

the creativity and the and the culture

if we can get the basics right now the

government shut down the the fight first

is over something that I'm biased but I

fundamentally believe is is a basic

principle which is if Congress passes

something like the president has to

spend what Congress passes it's it's not

discretionary you know Federman said

elections matter well the elections to

Congress matter too and you can't

>> you may you may just want to explain to

the audience because I'm not sure all of

us are up to speed on exactly the thing

that that is happening

>> so Trump said this view that okay

spending is too high these agencies are

wasting money. Uh, I'm going to come in

and I'm going to make certain decisions

about cutting spending that that

Congress may have appropriated. He did

this on foreign aid. He's done it on

some of the things with Department of

Education. We can go through other

programs. Uh, I I got into an argument

with with Elon when he was there. I

originally said, "Look, I'm open to

working uh with Doge if they're

reasonable uh things that we can save,

but you got to do it through a process."

and they have a view. Their view is,

well, Congress is never going to do

this, so we're just going to go there

and we're going to do it. And uh that's

not the way the Constitution works. And

so, you can't expect Democrats to say,

"Okay, we're going to give you our votes

for a budget if it's all discretionary

and Trump can do whatever he wants

anyway with the budget." And that's

that's the basic uh fault line. The

second argument is over over healthcare.

Uh this is just factual. If the tax

credits expire on the exchange, people

who are paying about $7,000 on the

exchange would go up to about $21,000. I

mean, you basically be kicking off a ton

of people on the exchanges.

Uh, and Democrats just can't do that.

Now, you can say, well, uh, you lost the

election. Then I have no problem getting

rid of the filibuster, and the

Republicans have the votes in the Senate

and the House and the pre Trump, and

they can, uh, they can pass pass the

budget. But my my hope is that they will

realize that these tax credits are worth

saving, that they're not going to want

people kicked off health care and

they're not going to want these premiums

going up high and then that will be the

deal.

>> Ro, the argument on the other side

>> says that the the tax credits and the

health care subsidies will largely go to

folks that are here illegally. Can you

confirm or debunk that? First of all,

it's a it's a very small uh portion of

people uh that we're talking about. So

90% uh is not uh anything to do with

those who are undocumented. That's just

the math, right? I mean, so we can argue

about the 10%. But we have in this

country something called uh emergency

Medicaid. What does that mean? If you're

undocumented and you show up to the

hospital, we will take care of you. I

believe that is correct. I don't think

if you're undocumented and you show up

to a hospital that you should be denied

care. Well, who pays for that? We have

an emergency Medicaid program. And I

guess if you mean that when you fund

Medicaid, when you fund the Affordable

uh Care Act that uh you're saying you're

funding some of it for undocumented

people who are showing up in uh in

emergency situations, then yeah, you're

you're you're funding that. Uh but the

my view of it is that let's be honest

that that's not where the big money and

the budgets are. You're talking about a

small group of folks. You can argue the

cultural point about it. Uh but don't uh

don't make that the the numbers.

>> So So for the average person watching

listening, what technically happens if

there's a shutdown? Like what happens to

their everyday lives? Well, first of

all, it's a it's bad for some of the

public servants, right? Will the capital

police will police officers get paid?

Will uh will military get paid? Will

people if they have a family member who

is in government service, will they get

paid? And they just may as Americans or

family members care about that or you're

going to have people without pay.

Second, there will be some services

that'll start getting cut, right? Like

if you're flying a plane, you may not

notice it for a few days, but then after

a few weeks, you're saying, "Oh, they

have less government uh less flights

because we don't have enough people

showing up or staffing at the airports

and uh some of the parks may shut down."

Uh things that involve the government

that aren't national security uh urgent

are going to get affected.

>> Let's um talk a little bit about the

censorship issue. This has come up

multiple times. It's a culture issue for

sure, but why are both sides so obsessed

with this? And how do we get this uh

resolved between both sides? And then

there's another both sides issue, which

is political speech that's violent.

Fight like hell, Trump is Hitler. The

stuff that I don't hear you saying, but

that we do.

>> Steven Miller is a fascist.

>> Steven Miller saying

it the other day. Yeah. Tweeted it out.

>> He's he's gone full Trump in terms of

the dueling. I I wouldn't I wouldn't

call it full Trump. I would just say it

was really trolling issues each other.

Yeah.

>> Yeah. I mean, look, there's a way to to

to to argue. I' I've gone back and forth

with Steven Miller and and he we we have

exchanges. I've gone back and forth with

Vice President Vance. I mean, sometimes

I think some of it is iner, but the

point is it's within a bounds. You're

not he he's not uh saying, you know, uh

deport row. uh and I'm not uh uh using

the words of uh Hitler or or other

things in in in talking about him. I

mean you can have spirited debate uh in

a way that uh isn't polyianish uh is

tough but respects certain norms that

the other person uh is a person of

intelligence uh whose views you disagree

with. Is there no leadership though Ro

like where when you're in DC people come

together and say you know what the

people who have the most to lose here

are us. So it's in our best interest in

terms of self-preservation for all of us

to just speak in a more kind civil way

to each other because there are a large

number of mentally ill people out there.

I believe that's like at the core of

this is mentally ill people hear

different things when you say fight like

hell or this person's Hitler etc. and

they may act on it. And

>> I can I can I say something? I I think

this is an important point, but I want

to just push back on that. It's too

simple to sweep it under the rug as a

mental illness issue. Like when you have

somebody get assassinated where the

bullet says, "Hey, catch this fascist."

And then less than 10 or 12 days later,

you have one of the if not the most

visible leaders of the Democratic party

in all caps screaming on X, Steven

Miller is a fascist. I think that that's

just irresponsible. I think we can all

admit that that is irresponsible and

that I think what happens is as Rose

said the extremes have been amplified in

an attention economy but I think it's

too simple to say that they have

something that can just be swept under

the rug. I think that this chronic issue

and uh you can both sides it. you know,

when when Trump said go fight like hell

and they went and beat police officers,

you know, at the capital, I don't know

if you were there, Row, and what that

was like, but I was

>> you were there and like it's pretty

scary and that thing could have gotten

out of hand. And the Oathkeepers and

Antifa, these are both radical

organizations that will murder people,

that will beat police. They're they're

very disturbed individuals in both of

these groups. So I think you can both

sides of this and every time we see one

of these crazy people, these extreme

people, it's it's really the same

profile. It's it's white men who are

disconnected from reality. So I don't

know how a sane person drives into a

church, kills people, and lights it on

fire like we saw the other.

>> No, Jason, I understand. But I'm saying

there there's a broad group of people

that are committing these actions that

are not just deranged. They're being

incited. They're being programmed.

They're being pulled into behaving in

ways that if they had other things,

other attachments, they may not

necessarily have done this.

>> I would agree with that. If there was

religion and family and they weren't

shut in and playing video games, I

agree.

>> Let me

hear you, bro.

>> No, no, it's good. I feel like I'm in

like a uh the therapy session with old

Mary

>> poker table. This is the whole point of

the podcast at the poker table. Here you

are at the table. Go ahead. Tell us your

>> Here's my view. Obviously, it's it's

that that kind of extreme rhetoric is

leading uh in cases of political

violence, but it's more than that,

right? It's not just the Charlie Kirk

assassination or January 6th or the

attack on Pelosy's home. It's also

making us hate each other as Americans.

It's making us incapable of coming

together to say, you know what, I agree

with Donald Trump

selling pharmaceutical drugs at a cheap

price because that's the direction that

Bernie Sanders would go. we can't we're

not able to do that. Why? Because we've

created such uh anger and extremism and

uh tribalism in in in our politics. And

the reality is right now you're rewarded

for it. If you grab the attention and

you show that you've kind of got

vengeance on the other side, your poll

numbers go up in within your own uh

base. Uh you're uh you get more

contributions. I mean, we just need to

speak plainly about some of the

incentives. And if the election was in

November of 2025,

uh, the next presidential election, I

think both sides would end up nominating

the the side that's going to take it to

to to the other one, the the own the

libs from the Republicans and, you know,

fight fire with fire with everything and

own the MAGA folks from from the

Democrats. I am hoping I don't know if

that's true. I'm hoping that people will

see that this is a a spiral downwards,

that fire, that fighting fire with fire

leaves ashes for everyone. That's what

Emanuel Clever says. And that we've got

to find a different way of of moving

forward. By the way, even people who

agree with Trump on policies, there have

been a lot of presidents in our

country's history, FDR, Ronald Reagan,

Bill Clinton, Obama, not all of them

were divisive. There's one guy who did

that. And my view is first of all,

American politics disdains a copycat.

You're probably not going to be

successful just mimicking him. And

secondly, why wouldn't you return? Why

wouldn't you want this country to return

to a aspirational inspirational politics

whether your choice is right? I think

people are going to get burned out on

it. So the the other two issues I wanted

to to hear from you on is the the

censorship one and then the lawfare one.

It was pretty clear that of the six or

seven cases that were uh done against

Trump during his time off and and the

Biden administration was in, you know,

were were reaching, right? And maybe

were lawfare would be fair to say were

lawfareesque. And now you're having the

exact same thing Trump doing with Comey

where he's firing the attorney general

in that district, putting a new one in.

So, I'm wondering how you think about

the censorship wars going back and forth

and then now the lawfare ones because we

as moderates and I think moderates are

the ones who are swinging these

elections right now.

>> You guys are

>> we're getting very tired of it. I am

exhausted with the fact that neither

side will stand down on censorship or on

the lawfare. What are your thoughts?

>> Well, on censorship I have a

particularly strong record. I when

people say what makes you a different

kind of Democrat, I say free speech. And

all these people who got uh outraged

when Jimmy Kimmel was was pulled down

were silent uh often when Twitter was

censoring uh the New York Post with

Hunter Biden's laptop stories. And as

you may remember

my email leaked uh where I said that no,

you shouldn't be pulling down that story

and you shouldn't be uh having the New

York Post uh take that down. And then I

got criticized from my own side, even

though I'm one of the strongest

defenders of trans rights. And you we

may have disagreements over where my

stance is because I said that comedian

who was arrested at Heathrow airport for

a transphobic post should not be

arrested that that you should not be

arrested for that. I got criticized from

from the left. So my point is then when

I speak out and say, "Okay, Jimmy Kimmel

shouldn't be pulled down and we

shouldn't be cancelling speech or going

after left-wing groups," there's at

least some credibility because I'm

willing uh to say, "Look, our side is

engaged in that kind of censorship as

well." And it's wrong when either side

has it. And I think our side would have

a lot more credibility in going after

Trump, even if they didn't do it back

then if we just acknowledged that we've

got this speech problem on our side.

It's easy to be for free speech when

it's speech you like. Like Kim, it's

hard to be for free free speech. The

test is not will you stand up for it

when you like it. It's will you stand up

for it when you don't like it. And

that's

>> okay. Now do

>> cuz this is you know I didn't like it

when they did it to Trump. There did

seem to be like some situations where he

was provocative or did some things that

you know on the margins

could have gotten you a ticket let's

say. But then you have, you know, these

big judgments against him that I don't

think would have been brought if he

wasn't running for president again or

they didn't want him to run for

president again. And now we have the

same thing happen with Comey and they're

literally picking the attorney generals

and firing them and putting people in

who've never actually even been in front

of a grand jury just to get this, you

know, revenge. And so it's it's a pretty

dark time, I think, on the law front.

What do you think?

>> Yeah, look, I I don't want to relitigate

uh Trump's actions. I do think he did

certain things like January 6 others

that were blatantly uh illegal and and

and unconstitutional. But I will say

this that we whoever going forward for

the parties should be make a firm

commitment that uh they're going to

follow the law and not engage in

vengeance and not engage in retribution.

Uh and it's sad to me that that that

we've gotten to the state. I I

understand Trump feels like, okay, he

won a second term. He he was spared from

assassination. He had everyone against

him and and and he's going to get the

people who he he feels he was wronged

by. But it's a it's a horrible thing uh

for the country and we've got to we've

got to make make it clear that that

we're going to move past this chapter.

Not that okay now we're going to uh

Democrats are going to come in and we're

going to go after uh everyone on their

side. I mean then we're no different

than any other country.

>> Jumping off tangentially from Lawfair,

let's talk about crime for a second. You

know, you described your self-described

progressive Democrat. One of the themes

around that is social justice reform and

you're seeing some of the implications

of that, the the abuse of no bail, the

abuses by DAs who are letting teen

repeat offenders out on the street.

You're now seeing how that manifests in

crime, right? everything from this this

young woman from Ukraine who was

brutally murdered to this young woman,

the 22-year-old who who's killed as part

of a home invasion. Her her father gave

this gripping testimony a few days ago.

Where are the Democrats on this idea of

keeping the streets safe

and law and order through the lens of

the social justice reforms you believe

in as a progressive? So, one of the

things I say is that uh my district, and

I don't say this to brag, I just say

this to make a point, my district is

actually one of the safest in America.

Right? When you look at Fremont, uh

Certino, Sunnyville, Santa Clara, and

San Jose, they're all in the top 25 safe

cities. And I say that's correlated with

the fact that we have five trillion

dollar companies, Apple, Google, Nvidia,

Tesla, and Broadcom. You wouldn't have

the economic prosperity of Silicon

Valley if you didn't have the safety of

Silicon Valley because you wouldn't have

executives living there. You wouldn't

have families living there. You wouldn't

have people uh wanting to participate in

the economy. So safety is essential if

you believe in creating economic

opportunity and economic mobility. And I

think that there is a group of pragmatic

mayors now. Dan Luri I would say in San

Francisco, Matt Maym in San Jose, Raj

Salwan in Fremont who recognized that

the pendulum had swung too far that you

know I supported that ballot initiative

that was on the ballot last last

election that said you know if you if

you are committing multiple crimes of uh

smashing into Walgreens, then you're

going to be charged that you can't just

say, "Okay, yeah, you can keep smashing

into Walgreens committing taking under

$1,000 and It's okay. Uh I don't view

that as being

not progressive. I mean progressives I

thought the whole point is you believe

in the rule of law. Now if you say yeah

you shouldn't lock someone up for the

rest of their life or a mandatory

minimums fine. But that doesn't mean you

excuse behavior that is

>> how does a how does a 14 time feline,

you know, never end up being held

accountable and then is on the streets

and then just savagely murder somebody

in it's totally unacceptable. I mean

>> it's totally unacceptable.

>> Totally unacceptable. It happened with

that Ukraine I I don't remember all the

details, but I think it happened with

that Ukrainian girl. It happened with

this Indian-American who was beheaded in

uh Texas where the the person had all

these arrests. uh and and you know what

the the interesting thing is I spoke out

about about those and I didn't get that

much push back from a liberal base. So I

don't what I don't understand is where

the the pressure is coming from from

just saying look we got to be common

sense in this country. Now, I don't

think the answer to that is, you know,

put federal troops like Trump is. But

what the Democrats should realize or my

view is like is that why is the country

letting him do that which we which I

don't think is constitutional or the

right right solution because they're so

frustrated with what's going on and just

citing statistics, you know, going out

there and saying, "Well, the statistics

are down."

>> Yeah. This doesn't match people's

reality. They people are smart. And you

know, I think this is really a stupid

strategy by the Democrats. If Trump

says, "I'm going to send in the National

Guard because you guys haven't done the

job." The the obvious kung fu move to

redirect that energy and say, "Yes, here

are the five places, these are hot spots

where we need those troops. If you can

put these troops on these five corners,

on Turk Street, on Sixth Street, that's

where we need them. And uh how long can

we get them for uh before you move them

to the next hot spots? That would

totally just take away what is an

obvious play by the Republican party to

make the Democrats fall for the trap of

we're pro crime, we don't care about

people's safety, which by the way is the

It's just so dumb.

>> It's so dumb. Like why are Democrats in

this respect from these specific cities,

Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, San

Francisco, why are they so dumb?

>> Well, these are hard cities to govern. I

mean, it's it's not

>> dumb. They're not they're hard but and I

I dis, you know, because I'm always

honest, I disagree with you on on the

National Guard coming there, but I do

agree.

>> I disagree I I agree with you, by the

way, that it's not constitutional. But

in a situation where people are

suffering day in and day out, what

happened in Washington DC when they put

those people when they brought in the

National Guard, we should have Jason. I

think everybody said, "I love

>> Jason. Jason Jason with I think this

comes down to leadership. When you look

at these big cities, there are examples

of when they have been governed well and

it takes a point of view and the balls

to just say this is how it's going to

be." The last best example of this is

Mike Bloomberg in New York. Yes.

>> I remember the first thing the first

thing Mike did was he said, "Soda out."

Second thing he did, smoking, done.

>> It completely changed the way the world

works. If you guys remember, you used to

go to bars everywhere.

>> Yeah.

>> And you would smoke incessantly and even

if you didn't smoke, you were subject to

all this disgusting secondhand smoke.

>> But when Mike did that one thing, it

cascaded throughout the world.

>> It takes leadership before Bratton did

crime stat under Giuliani. But anyway,

Ro, explain to us why what the right

solution here is.

>> Well, I think Bloomberg Bloomberg had a

good record. I think Matt look at what

Matt Mayan and and Dan Lurri are doing

closer to home. I mean, they're saying,

"Look, we need more police. We need to

uh understand that uh I if people have

mental health issues and that they're

not getting off the street again and

again and again that you can go uh to a

court and say that they they need

treatment that that we need uh to be

funding uh more uh temporary housing not

just permanent housing because yeah we

want permanent housing long term but

that doesn't mean in the meantime we do

uh we do nothing and you know so I I I

think that they're they are pragmatic.

Uh they would they've acknowledged it's

a problem and uh and they're working at

it. What I what I don't think works is

just denying people's feelings because

partly it's like when I was growing up

in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, we used

to leave our house doors uh unlocked

unlocked

>> and that's the lived memory of a lot of

people. And you know the problem of

doing denying it is if you embrace

Trump's whole thing is look life used to

be simpler in the 1960s and you could

leave your doors unlocked. You had a

good job. You worked in a manufacturing

place. You you you supported your

family. And you know what? If you don't

want to move backwards because there's a

lot of social progress we made. There's

a lot of great parts to our our

diversity and people from around the

planet here that we've got to make sure

that everyone buys into the future and

safety is first in that.

>> Stay on this local theme for a second.

Tell us about Mum Donnie. What is he?

You know, it's

>> it's10 billion for, you know, bodeas.

It's billions of dollars for this. It's

billions of dollars for that. I think I

heard recently he wants to charge a 2%

tax on people above a certain salary. He

wants to charge any company that does

business in New York City an extra tax.

What? What is

>> Yeah. And how does he come out of

nowhere and just run the table on the

establishment?

>> Well, I'll tell you. I'll tell you tell

you why. And I, you know, I've

campaigned in cander for three

candidates November elections or haven't

campaigned. I campaigned for Abigail

Spanberger who's gonna win in Virginia,

Mikey Cheryl, and I've supported uh

Mumani because of of the moment he's

had. I think Mamani's success was based

on two things. one uh the the

recognition that New York City was

unaffordable and just speaking about

that unaffordability. So there's certain

things which are pretty practical like

most people don't pay for the buses

anyway. They're on the buses without uh

paying the the ticket and if he wants to

make the buses free uh that that's a a a

reasonable policy. But he was basically

saying look you can't afford to live in

New York. And none of the other

candidates really spoke about that. They

were speaking about crime and public

safety and they weren't talking about uh

the economy. And the other thing is uh

and you know I have a differences on him

on on on on the Middle East. I'm for a

two-state solution. I've condemned

globalizing in but he was saying look

there are too many people that are being

killed in in Gaza and Netanyahu's

policies are wrong. And and that

resonated with people in in New York

City. And so the challenge for our party

is how do we uh recognize the

>> is he is he the is he the candidate of

giveaways or is he the candidate of

where we realistically need to be in

order to have stability.

>> I think he's a candidate that is

sounding the five alarm fire on

affordability and the loss of the

American dream. How he governs is I

think going to be a challenge and I hope

that he

he's a very talented guy. I hope he

says, "Okay, look, I'm going to sit down

as I am with business leaders and uh

other leaders and say, help me achieve

my goals." Like, okay, I want to have a

rent freeze on the the apartments that

are controlled by New York, but I also

want to make sure we're doubling housing

construction and building new housing.

And how do we do that? I want to make

sure that if I am increasing taxes that

that there's not capital flight from New

York City. uh what happens if he which

is pretty clear if after winning he's a

complete utter disaster in how he runs

that city. What what does that do to the

Democratic party?

>> I don't think he will be but that would

hurt us, right? I mean I I I don't think

he can have a a record uh that is a

that's a failure. I think he has in fact

a lot of the progressives are are

invested in him succeeding and and

making sure that he has a has a

pragmatic success record. But look, I I

think you would people who just want to

say, well, we should just reject

Mandani, etc. They they're not

understanding the the amount of people

that he speaks for in the Democratic

party who feel like we need to tackle

the economic inequality. He speaks to

young people.

>> He's clearly hit a note on those issues.

And then the question is, can he

execute? I I remember when Dinkets came

into office, that was when we bottomed

out in New York. I was a teenager. And

then that's when we got Giuliani

Bloomberg back to back and we cleaned up

the city. I get Dinkens vibes if he

doesn't, you know, actually take on the

the safety of the issue in addition to

these other issues. Um, man, wrote, as

we wrap, just one last question, which

is there's a movement of foot to ban

stock trading by people in Congress and

you've been supportive of that. And then

I think that we saw something recently

that said, I don't even know if you know

this, but somebody that manages your

money has traded like 30,000 times uh or

something in some number. Do you want to

just address what that is and where you

stand on banning stock trading and

whether it's just simpler to move

everybody to ETFs and just call this a

day?

>> I am totally for uh a stock trading ban.

I've led on that. I don't trade stocks.

My wife's money was inherited uh in

trusts that I'm no say over, no control

over and it's in a trust and the trust

act would require actually every person

to be uh in a trust and uh that

eliminates conflict. So I've been very

consistent about it and I've been one of

the leaders on actually a ban on stocks.

>> So what do you got? What tip? Any tips

for us? What do you

>> No, but did you know did you know that

somebody somebody related to you is

trading 30,000 times a year?

>> I have no idea.

It's like a citadel inside of Rokan. I

don't know if you know this, but it's

>> it has nothing to do with me, right?

It's not my money. It's not I mean I

have no and frankly I have no uh no no

uh involvement in it. And so that's

>> it's tiny amounts too. That's really

interesting. Like it's um small trades.

Lots of small trades. Anyway, whoever's

working for you seems to be doing a good

job for you.

>> No, not for me.

>> Working for the family. Uh listen Ro

Kana uh voice of reason moderate honest

and uh just really excited for you to

run for president.

>> Bro, last last question actually last

question. There's still a pretty open

field for California governor. Have you

>> thought about it and um if not why not?

>> No. Uh because a lot of you know I think

you've got to really have spent some

time in in in Sacramento to to deal with

those issues. And a lot of my issues

have been how do we build economic

prosperity in parts of the country that

have been left out? How do we uh deal

with our competitiveness with China and

other nations? I'm on the China Select

Committee. I'm on the House Armed

Services Committee. I've been focused on

economic patriotism. Uh and I don't

think you just run for a title. And so

the type of person who should run is one

who's going to focus on getting our

utility costs down in California, who's

going to focus on making our streets

safer, who's going to focus uh on

building more housing and being a Yimi

and saying uh that that we need to to do

these things. And so I think there will

be good candidates emerging with those

skills in California.

>> Ro, thank you.

>> Thank you. Thanks, Ro. To have you

Thank you. Thank you, Jason.

>> Thank you, sir.

[Music]

I'm going all in.