A Bit Fruity with Matt Bernstein - I Asked Mallory McMorrow About Her Support For Israel

Episode Date: May 18, 2026

Mallory McMorrow is one of three Democrats running in one of the most hotly contested primary races heading into the 2026 midterms: the Michigan senate race. After I interviewed her progressive opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, Mallory’s team reached out for an interview as well. After a publicized back-and-forth between my camp and hers, we are gathered here today to discuss Mallory’s support for funding Israel’s Iron Dome, her decision to not run on Medicare for All, and more. Thank you to the great Emma Vigeland of the Majority Report for joining me. This one’s for Lady Bunny. Listen to bonus episodes on Patreon! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why do you support funding to Israel's defense infrastructure? Because I don't think anybody should live in fear of being bombed or killed. I would look at how do we support defensive systems for Palestinians? How would we support defensive systems for Lebanese? Should they get an Iron Dome, too, the Palestinians? Let's talk about that as a conversation. Well, I mean, for anyone who hasn't been following recent left-wing political Twitter drama, Or who doesn't keep up with the iconic drag queen lady bunny, who posted about said drama on Instagram,

this has been a long time coming. Allow me to explain. After I interviewed Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive candidate running for U.S. Senate in the state of Michigan, his Democratic primary opponent, Mallory McMorro, reached out to me saying that she would like to be interviewed. I was honestly a little surprised by this, given that Mallory and I have some key policy disagreements. In her race, Mallory is running on the standard Democratic liberal Zionist position of, you know, two-state solution, fund the Iron Dome, but Netanyahu bad, but also no sanctions about it, etc. She's also not running on Medicare

for all. But I wanted to do the interview so I could ask her about those positions. Her team and I set a date and a time for the interview, and after I submitted a topic list, which included health care and foreign policy, they canceled and offered no time to reschedule. I will say, and I don't want to assume intention, and I'm willing to be wrong. But I do kind of wonder sometimes if because of how I present and the fact that I'm so open about who I am, that people just think I'm like the gay guy, you know, who will talk about gay things and not much else. And not to be too like sex in the city about it, but I can't help but wonder if they reached out to me thinking I'd just ask Mallory about like her LGBT record, you know? But in any case, I tweeted that I was disappointed that her team had canceled.

And the tweet quickly got traction. And within a couple hours, her team reached out and her. schedule had opened back up and we were back on. So I don't know. Maybe an honest scheduling error. Maybe not make of it what you will. I had my good friend and host of the majority report, Emma Vigeland, join me for this interview. Love her so much. And without further ado, State Senator Mallory McMorro, welcome to A BitFruity. Thank you so much. I'm so excited. I've been following you for years, by the way. So this is very exciting for me. Oh, that means. Wow, that means so much to me.

Seriously, though, I know we had, like, all of this, like, scheduling drama, and, you know, I know in the wake of all of that, you could have very easily just been like, I'm not going to do this one, and it would have made sense to me. So it really does mean a lot to me that you're here today. And I also know that, like, a lot of Michigan voters listen to this podcast, might see this. And I think they're probably really grateful that you're here. Absolutely. And thank you for rolling with us.

I mean, balancing, you know, running a statewide campaign. I'm the state Senate majority whip. So I've got that whole job. And I have a five-year-old. So our schedule, my scheduler is everything. She manages to piece it all together. But I'm really grateful that you rolled with us to make it work. Yeah, absolutely. So let's get into it. State Senator Mallory McMorrow, you are in this three-person primary race for the U.S. Senate representing Michigan. That's really captured. the attention of the country. And I want you to help us characterize it a little bit for people who might be hearing about this race for the first time. You have these two opponents, right? On one hand,

you have Haley Stevens, who is the APAC endorsed super pro-Israel, sort of an extension of like Chuck Schumer's brand of the Democratic Party, I'd say, pretty old guard. Haley Stevens was notably booed at her own Michigan Democratic Party. party convention recently. I'll throw a video in there if I can find it, which was pretty amazing. And then on the other side, you have Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, who we interviewed on the show a few weeks ago. Dr. El-Sayed is a very progressive candidate, wrote a book on Medicare for all, very pro-Palestine. And I think, and please feel free to dispute this characterization, that most people view you as like someone in the middle. So I was wondering,

if you could first just like define yourself in the context of this race? For sure. So to put the race into perspective, Michigan has an open U.S. Senate seat. Gary Peters is not seeking reelection. We have Mike Rogers in all likelihood the nominee on the Republican side who ran against Alyssa Slotkin in 2024, lost by only 19,000 votes. The Republicans and Trump view this as their best chance to blow. block Democrats from having a path at taking the U.S. Senate. They're spending the Senate leadership

PAC announced $45 million that they're going to be spending in Michigan, which is more than they will spend in Georgia, Maine, Iowa, Alaska, New Hampshire. So this is it. So it makes sense that this is sort of captured the attention of the country. And we have a fiercely competitive Democratic primary. You do. I should add so people know, sorry I don't mean to cut you up. But it's like, depending on what poll you look at, which are coming out, like, relentlessly, it's like neck and neck with the three of you. Yeah. And I think that's a good thing.

But your characterization is right. You know, what I firmly believe is that the Democratic Party needs a reckoning, that the old guard establishment of the party has really let us down. The first question I was asked when I got in a year ago was, would you support Chuck Schumer for leader? And I said, no. apparently it was the first candidate in the country to say so. And what I know is that in Michigan, we have built a very different blueprint. So for me, I know that people want to put us into

neat little lane boxes. And I just don't think that's how Michiganers think. We have people in our state who voted for both Rick Snyder, Republican governor, and Gretchen Whitmer. We have people who voted for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. This is a state where you don't have to register by party and people tend to vote for the person that they like. But of the field, I am the establishment outsider, but with a track record of actually getting real shit done. I'm the only candidate to have beaten a Republican incumbent to get into office. I took on an entrenched family legacy in my first campaign for state senate. And I swung a district 20 points in a single cycle and broke the Republican supermajority. I then helped

leverage a viral speech that I gave back in 2022 after I was smeared as a groomer and a pedophile by a colleague of mine. I opened a pack. We raised millions of dollars. I supported a dozen other candidates and flipped the entire state senate for the first time in 40 years. Been there with the groomer and pedophile. Oh, same here, actually. Yeah. And can I tell you, like, all of your your Instagram stories were truly so helpful for us? Like, you may not know this, but a lot of us in state senate we've been following you for a while kind of hitting back on a lot of the culture war bullshit thank you so much i really appreciate that and uh yeah really appreciate everyone who like stood their ground amidst what i think was hopefully like the height of the culture war

bullshit i'm of the belief that like so much has happened since especially to like wreck americans lives economically that even the most sort of ardent like anti-drag brunch people are now kind of like, I don't have got time for that, you know? I will never forget there was a press conference, Tudor Dixon tried to hold in the middle of the 22 cycle and she had all these people. And, you know, it was under the guise of protecting girls in sports. And she made this radical claims about what was happening in the state. And there was this incredible local news broadcast that it talked about her, her press conference. And then the reporter pressed her, can you provide a single example of somebody

being hurt in sports in Michigan. She said no. And then they cut away to a protester who was like, I just need affordable housing. Like we, I can't afford anywhere to live. And I think that's why, you know, the speech that I gave then blew up the way that it did. Because I made a point of saying people who are different or not the reason your health care costs are too high. And we can't let people who are hateful people distract from the fact that they're not actually doing anything to help you. Yeah. And I want to talk about some of those economic. issues, namely healthcare. I know going into this, we want to talk about foreign policy and healthcare, because especially, you know, if you're representing Michigan on the national stage,

then, you know, these are things that people really care about. So Senator McMorrow, with regard to health care, you support a single-payer option, which is different from something like Medicare for All or universal healthcare. I wanted to play a clip for you that's gotten some traction of you speaking about what you see as the risks of universal health care and just ask you more about that. Sure. Also, you're new to the pod and learning that I don't have a producer. So when I say, like, I'm going to throw something up on the screen. What I mean is I'm going to play the video from my phone into the microphone.

Oh, that's incredible. Okay, perfect. You know, sorry, you're welcome. Some people conflate Medicare for All with universal health care. But Medicare for all, when it's actually defined, is one singular government-run healthcare system that we are all on. Now, I want you to imagine what that would look like with Donald Trump and RFK Jr. in the head of it. Emma, do you want to take this? Yeah, sure.

So State Senator McMorrow, it feels like the implication of your framing there is that government health care programs shouldn't be trusted because Trump. Trump and RFK Jr. are leading them. Are there other programs, specifically health care programs or social programs you think should be cut because Trump and RFK Jr. are currently in charge of them? No, that's not at all what I intended. And, you know, why fundamentally and firmly believe that we need access to universal health care, we need to get there as quickly as possible. In the state Senate, I have led on efforts to codify the Affordable Care Act on the state level so you can't lose your health care with a pre-existing condition. We've repealed our 1931 abortion ban. We helped expand a program called RXKids statewide, which is a cash grant program for new moms and babies. We've expanded

access to doulas and to midwives. We've done so much because this is such a big issue. And what I know is that people can't afford to wait. The idea that we should hold out just for one solution to me is just not what I've experienced in governing. You know, the next U.S. Senator would be one of a hundred members, and the votes for a true single-payer system simply aren't there. Now, there have been multiple states who have implemented state-level public options, and in those states, not only have they vastly reduced the rate of uninsured to next zero, they've also reduced the cost of private health insurance. That is something. that as we look to, how do we get to universal health care as quickly as possible? So people

aren't going bankrupt. They are not denying themselves care. You know, I am somebody who graduated from college right into the recession in 2008 wanting to be a car designer. So I did not have health care. I couldn't stay on my parents' plan until 26. Having that real public option, anybody who wants to opt into Medicare, regardless of age, can, while also ensuring if you want to keep your plan through your union or through your employer that you can, I believe, is the best way that we can get to universal health care as quickly as possible. We can talk about, I think, the merits of the public option versus Medicare for all, but the public option would still be run by Donald Trump and RFK Jr. or whoever ends up being a Republican if they take over.

Additionally, the entire Republican parties against Medicare for all and single pair. So it's almost an assertion that Democrats shouldn't pursue Medicare for all or even single pair because potentially Republicans could get back into power and control it? I mean, that is the implication of what you said. I don't think that it is. I think that's a mischaracterization. How would you characterize it then? You talk a lot on the trail and you want to make some jokes and you want to help people understand where you're coming from. This is an administration that has slashed access to Miffa Pristone. This is an administration who intentionally withheld SNAP benefits, even though we had the funding to pay for it in Michigan,

that's a million kids who are on SNAP right now. I don't think we should shy away from the incredible damage that this administration is inflicting on government programs. Here in the state, I'm on the Appropriations Committee in the State Senate. We are having to backfill state Medicaid because they vastly slashed access to funding for us. The one big awful bill means that Michigan stands to lose third. 13 rural hospitals. We've already seen a birthing center close in the upper peninsula. Now women have to drive more than 50 miles to give birth. I don't believe that it's out of line to highlight, hopefully with some humor, we're allowed to laugh sometimes, some of the incredibly damaging things that this administration has done while we are also advocating for what we would do if we get back into power, what we're going to propose, and how we're going to get there. How do you build a coalition to actually implement a policy that restores health care for people as quickly as possible.

I think the rub there is just that the framing kind of undercuts the idea of universal programs because the bad party can take over at a certain point. And, you know, I want Democrats to be talking about how government can provide social services for people. I think that needs to be a core part of the brand proposition. And, you know, another part of your assertion was that Medicare for all is I wrote the quote down one singular government-run health care system that we're all on. Can you elaborate on that? Because Medicare for All is a replacement for private insurance with a single government payer like Medicare is currently.

It's not government-run health care. Sure, you're right. And I have taken that feedback to heart. We campaign a lot. And I do talk about this differently now so that it doesn't come across as callous. And you're right, a single-payer system, Medicare for All in the legislation as it has been introduced and sits in the Congress right now, is a single insurance plan that would, by law, eliminate private health insurance. The public option, can you expand on how you would solve some of the same, say, enrollment issues that you see with Obamacare? A Medicare for All plan would promise no premiums or deductibles. it would create a single payer, the largest amount of leverage to keep costs down. That is why people want to go big with Medicare for all. A public option is an improvement, of course, on the private marketplace and the Affordable Care Act,

but that would still involve premiums and deductibles. Why not go all the way to Medicare for all? Yeah, I hear you on the vision. I 100% do. And what I know after almost a decade as experience in a legislator is that you need to push, as far as you possibly can while building the coalition of votes to actually get it across the line. And the support for a true single-payer system isn't there yet. It just isn't. So for me, what I know, I have constituents today who have canceled their ACA plans because they see their premiums have

gone through the roof and they're just praying that they don't get sick and don't go to the hospital, allowing for anybody who wants to to opt into Medicare, regardless of age, helps us get on the path to universal health care. And I'm also somebody who fundamentally believe states are the laboratories of democracy. This is where we try things out. This is how our country was established. There has only been one state who's ever attempted a true single payer system, and it was Vermont.

And they abandoned that 15 years ago when they couldn't figure out how to pay for it, and they couldn't figure out the implementation, where we now have three states who are running public option systems within their states that have gotten us much closer to the goal of universal health care. So that's how I approach policy is what's our goal and how can we actually ensure that we get there as quickly as possible. Moving on, Mallory, an issue that's extremely close to my heart as a Jewish person, as a taxpaying American, as a human being, is that of Palestine. I was actually just the other night at a UN commemoration of the anniversary of the Nakhba in 1948 when Israel displaced more than 750,000 Palestinians who still don't have the right to return

home. So when considering people who are running for federal office, people who could determine the future of the U.S. relationship to Israel and the effect that that will have on Palestinians, now the Lebanese people and Iranians. I know this issue is one, people who listen to the show, for one, care a lot about. And of course, you are also running in Michigan, which has a large Arab population, which, you know, that was very consequential in the 2024 election, when many of them withheld their votes from Kamala Harris as part of the uncommitted movement. So I want to make sure people have a really clear understanding of your position. Also for context, your opponent on one side, Abdul al-Sayed, he opposes all funding to Israel.

And your opponent on the other side, Haley Stevens, is endorsed by APAC. Enough said there. So I wanted to highlight your approach and ask you about it. On your website, you write, quote, The path to lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians lies in a two-state solution. with a democratic Jewish state of Israel existing safely along a democratic Palestinian state. You write that the flow of aid to Gaza, quote, needs to be restored, that Israel's expansion into the West Bank, quote, must stop, and that Hamas must, quote, disarm and demonstrate a

commitment to a peaceful and democratic Palestinian state. You also support funding for Israel's defensive weapons infrastructure, you know, things like the Iron Dome. Is that all correct? Increasing that's changed. And you even see Netanyahu now vocally saying that he himself wants to cut off relying on aid from other countries. So I would support Israel continuing to be able to purchase systems like the Iron Dome defensive systems. But I think it's in the best interest of of the United States in reducing that aid and allowing Israel to do that on their own. But I mean, as of now though,

your policy that you're running on, just so voters are like clear, is that you support sort of the defensive infrastructure. So we wanted to ask you a couple questions about your stance here. First, regarding what a two-state solution means to you and how that could affect your policy making. The two-state solution debate is something where I really do think that there are a lot of Democrats

are kind of behind the reality on this issue. So I just want to talk in terms of practicalities. Where would you, in terms of like your ideal two-state solution, draw the borders? Because as you know, Israel's been illegally occupying East Jerusalem and the West Bank since 1967 in violation of UN law. And since then, 700,000 Israeli settlers have moved into the Palestinian territories in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and have stolen Palestinian land. So my question about the practicality of a two-state solution is, how would that happen? Would this, would your scenario require removing the 700,000 illegal settlers living on Palestinian land? So, Emma, what you're asking is, I don't believe the role of a U.S. senator.

I believe that a senator should have a role in allowing the United States to facilitate the negotiation between the Palestinians and the Israelis that gets to a place where there's long-term peace, security, and self-determination for Palestinians and long-term peace and security and self-determination for Israelis who all live in the region and have to figure out a way to coexist where they're not killing each other. I don't believe that it's the role of a legislator to determine where those borders are or how it coexist. But it should be our role to de-escalate the conflict. I do not support the Netanyahu government. I think that they have continued to push well beyond what is proportionate, what is rational in response to the October 7th attacks in a way that is horrifying to watch. I mean, bombing Gaza to be completely uninhabitable, the settler violence that you see that while it is technically illegal, they are certainly doing nothing to stop it and continue to encourage it. And Matt, you brought this up particularly related to our state. We have a very large Lebanese population. A million people in Lebanon have been displaced. And I know a friend of mine who's running for state Senate mentioned to me that his grandmother's home in Lebanon has been bombed.

three times and that somehow she's still in good spirits about the fact that she is alive when many of her neighbors are not. So for me, I'm somebody, you know, I bring a background in industrial design into how I pursue policy, which is starting with the outcome and then backing into how do you help facilitate making that happen. What I believe is that there is broad, shared beliefs across our constituents in both the Jewish community, the Arab community, and frankly for people who are not directly impacted by this, who are horrified beyond belief at the ongoing violence, suffering, chaos who simply want the violence to stop and see the United States has played a role in continuing the violence when we need to play a role in ending it.

And I hear what you're saying about you don't want to draw specific boundaries. I understand that. But I think it's important to dissect what a two-state solution would actually entail. Do you believe that that should involve some sort of reparations for Palestinian land that has been stolen? Because increasingly, if you look at the map of the West Bank, it's being taken over by Israel. So there would have to be either a forcible removal or Palestinians would have to be crammed into even smaller and smaller territory. Yeah. And again, I go back to the United States role, a legislator's role. should be in helping to facilitate between the negotiators and something that allows for that peace and security for Palestinians alongside Israelis. I don't believe that that is my role to dictate,

to put on to the people who do live there, what they should be fighting for for their own lives. I want to push back, though, a little bit on, you know, your role as a senator, sort of, you're presenting it as like a little bit detached from the peace process there. Whereas like we know that Israel's sort of violent and ongoing expansion now into Lebanon, as you mentioned, it's only possible because of ongoing bipartisan U.S. support. And so I wonder if you continue to support defensive weapons infrastructure to Israel, how you see yourself as utilizing any of the leverage. you could have as a U.S. Senator in this situation.

And I guess how you think, because, because like this two-state solution line, right, it's the party line for a long, long, long, long time. Since the 90s. And it just hasn't borne out. I think probably everyone on all sides of this issue could agree with that. And so I wonder how you are breaking from the establishment in a way that would materially benefit the people who, frankly, like, my tax dollars are killing. Yeah, and I'm glad that you framed it that way because I think there's a difference,

Matt, in how you asked your question versus Emma. One is the specific framework of the borders of the nations. The other is what leverage does the Congress have to help facilitate this negotiation? I would have voted alongside the 40 out of 47 senators who voted in the past Sanders resolution blocking arm sales. And let's acknowledge how stunning it is that a year ago, that number was significantly smaller than it is today. My views on this have evolved because the reality on the ground has evolved.

It has been horrifying to watch how Benjamin Netanyahu and the far-right government have prosecuted this ongoing, war against Palestinians, against Lebanese, against Yemenis, in a way that the United States cannot support. Simply put, the Congress holds the power of the purse, holds the power of funding and resolutions. And that is where I would view my role in coming in is keeping an open door to everybody within our community. Michigan is a very diverse state where we have the largest Arab American population living side by side with a very significant Jewish population. And Matt, your question is the universal truth. I was in an Uber a couple of weeks ago.

And the driver said almost exactly what you said, which is how can our country afford to continue bombing other countries when we can't pay for our own kids? That is where we need to step in and say enough is enough. And we need to bring this to an end. Yeah. You mentioned that how in Michigan, you have people of different faiths, Muslim, Jewish people, Arab people living side by side. I think it's very American to believe in multiculturalism as an ethic, in that it engenders understanding. And when you can live alongside people who maybe have different views than you, it reduces the capacity for hatred. It's why we don't believe in things like segregation and apartheid, but Israel is an apartheid state. And, you know, when we're talking about,

who has the right to have land and to live in peace. I mean, we're recording this right now on the anniversary of the Nakhba, and the Palestinians have been ethnically cleansed since, you know, you could say 1948, but prior to that from the land that is now Israel. Do you not believe in multiculturalism as an ethic for Israel and Palestine? Because a shared land would be, in my view, American and also the solution that we saw in South Africa that could provide fairness for everybody involved. Yeah, and it may very well be.

You know, there are people who have worked on this issue for far longer than I have. And I always try to check my own bias at the door. I can't possibly understand what it is like to live in the middle of the Middle East. I can't imagine what is like to have my home stolen from me, to have my family killed. and I want to leave the door open. I think it's important for anybody who holds the role of a senator as a legislator to check their own bias at the door, be open and objective. And if there is, and I've heard from both the Jewish community and their Arab community, that you're right, Emma, a two-state solution has been something that has been attempted for a very long time. We have failed to accomplish that so far.

perhaps a multicultural solution where people are living side by side is a better solution. But I want that to come from the people who live there. It shouldn't be the role of me to assert my views on residents of another country. Yeah, I'll move on a little bit. But I think it's just, you know, to me, it's like Israel, who is the occupying power in this dynamic, I mean, as recognized by international law, does not want a multicultural state. Obviously, that is, you know, when they say, like, oh, you guys want to destroy Israel. What they're talking about is a destruction of the apartheid system.

What they're talking about is bringing in equality. And so I guess I want to stay on for a second, like how you could use your leverage as a U.S. Senator to stop this violence, which we all agree has to stop, right? Like we mentioned, you draw a distinction between Israel's defensive and offensive weapons infrastructure and currently support funding for the defensive part of that, like the Iron Dome. I think a lot of people, though, might disagree with that distinction and say that Israel's defensive capabilities enable their offensive capabilities. Like, you know, the Iron Dome allows Israel, one might say,

to operate with impunity because they don't face the same threat of retaliation. So what would you say to that? I hear you. As you can imagine, this is a conversation we have every single day in a state like ours, where we have vastly different viewpoints on the right course of action in the Middle East. And it is the job to go in with an open mind and to listen and to make the right most objective decision that I possibly can. And as I said at the outset, it is increasingly the view of even Netanyahu himself that he wants to be able to do it on his own and doesn't want to rely on foreign aid.

There seems to be a recognition that they are going at everything they possibly can and are losing the support of the world. They're losing the support of Americans. and I will always, my pledge, is to always be objective. You know, I am not so tied to an individual viewpoint that I'm not willing to change my mind when the facts on the ground change. I guess then to that end, why do you support funding to Israel's defense infrastructure? What is, I guess, sort of your positive vision in supporting that policy? You know what I mean? Because I don't think anybody should live in fear of,

of being bombed or killed. I would look at how do we support defensive systems for Palestinians? How would we support defensive systems for Lebanese? Should they get an Iron Dome too, the Palestinians? Well, let's talk about that as a conversation. Well, I mean, the horror of living in fear of being bombed constantly,

let's work with the outcome of how do we end the violence period. But I mean, I, but then backing away from that, how do we protect people? I think then though that sort of probes that like maybe we're coming from different world views here a little bit because my worldview, and I think one that Emma has been talking about as well, is like multiculturalism, where we live amongst each other and where multiculturalism and a respect for one another keeps us safe. And so like, you know, I don't, I don't want to talk about like everyone getting their Iron

dome and everyone arming up and everyone getting more and more defensive and everyone getting more violent and everyone. I mean, you know, I just did an episode that actually comes out today, which I'm very excited about, with Naomi Klein, about Tucker Carlson's worldview that he has been espousing as of late. And he does view the world that way where, you know, in America, we should bunker down and have our white Christian nation and everyone else is bunker down in their own very racialized nations as well with like tons of weapons and we're all segregated. And And like I just find that to be such a grim reality, you know. And so I think like I'm wondering if your politics could come from a different place philosophically

where it's not like what about funding also the Palestinian Iron Dome, where it's about taking away the Iron Dome from Israel, this thing that in my opinion allows them to continue operating as a genocidal apartheid state unchecked. Well, and I think where you and I find agreement here is exactly that. Ideally, we should be at a place where we're not armed to the teeth against each other. We are a multicultural society in our country, and yet we have more guns than we have people in the United States. I sat on the state Senate floor below four men with AR-15s and full tactical vests, who I promise you, wanted me dead. That is not the world that I want to live in.

The goal, yes, is let's have multicultural societies where we're not attacking each other. I do start at that place. And I want to make sure that I go in recognizing that I would have a responsibility. I have a responsibility today as a state senator to check my personal beliefs at the door sometimes and make decisions that are in the best interest of protecting as many people as possible. And do you think the Iron Dome is in service of that? I would love to get to a place where it's not needed, period, for anybody. Okay. Do you believe Israel has committed and is committing a genocide?

Yeah, we went through this on our campaign. Based on the legal definition, I've said this, I do believe that it meets the definition. What I also heard in response from many of my constituents, who had family that they lost in the Holocaust, is there is such a personal, visceral reaction to that word that moves us apart from each other. And when I believe that most people, in both the Jewish community and the Arab community, and people who are not impacted, want the same outcome,

why would we spend our time debating whether or not you agree with the definition of a word and recognizing we have the coalition who wants the same thing. How do we keep them together? I think that the definition is important because of international law, and we're seeing right now the Trump administration and frankly, the Biden administration was also a part of the degradation of international law and the rules-based international order. And, you know, there was a Kinnipiac poll from August 2025. This has probably increased since then. That's 77 percent of Democrats, over half of independence, believe that Israel is committing genocide. Don't you think that

it's important to articulate that, just to support international law at a time when the foreign policy of the United States and by extension Israel is might makes right? I think it is important to listen to everybody that I would be asking for faith and trust to represent and to build the coalition that we need to hit the same goals. There is no doubt that war crimes have been committed. There is no doubt that the pain and suffering at the vast expense of our taxpayer dollars, Matt, to your point, that we continue to pay for this, needs to end. And I want to keep my people together at a moment when so much of the emphasis is

not how to tear them apart. Yeah, I don't mean to be pedantic. I really, really don't with like the genocide label. But I think to me, identifying it as a genocide is important to, like Emma said, give an internationally understood and legal label to what is currently happening to a group of people. And to me, like anyone's feelings about that word, I think are not as important as, like, recognizing what is still happening to people right now, which is a genocide under international law, you know? How does your family feel about it? are those conversations going? Well, you know, it depends on the family member. It depends on the family member and it's tense, but ultimately, I assume, you know, you're asking that because I'm Jewish and you'd be

right for that because it's, especially intergenerationally, it's a tense conversation because people have, you know, different levels of, you know, Zionist indoctrination and also differing sort of proximities to the Holocaust and the timeline. But I think, though, the difficult conversations that are happening within my family are less important than the reality of what is happening to the Palestinian people. So we've had those same conversations. My husband is Jewish, and though I'm a step removed, there are certainly really, really hard conversations, to your point, among generations within families. I respectfully disagree. And I believe, the responsibility of a legislator, somebody who represents, I'm asking for the trust to represent

10 million people in a very diverse state that is a purple state that could very easily go to the Republicans. My greatest joy in this job as a legislator is when I get to help people one-on-one and when I get to be a part of their story. And keeping coalitions together is hard work. And And I believe we can respect international law and the ICC and have a legislator who respects their stances and understands that in order to move forward to the goal that I think all of us on this call share is to keep a state like mine together and to not let this issue tear people apart. Because if we let it tear us apart, we get Mike Rogers.

Trump gets a win. And there is no love lost on the other side of the aisle here with an administration that allowed Benjamin Netanyahu to convince us to go to war with Iran. I think, you know, because we're still in the primary especially, like I'm pressing, you know, Democrats a little bit more on this because we're not yet really talking about the general. And, you know, you say that it's more important to keep the coalition together than to sort of, fracture over this one issue. But I don't know. I think for me, and I'm not trying to be antagonistic at all, I promise. But sort of when I look at what a candidate like Dr. Abdul al-Sayed is doing around this issue, it doesn't feel like we actually have to abandon dignity and actual justice for Palestinians to keep that coalition together. I mean, like we said at the beginning,

You guys are all, you know, neck and neck. Yeah, and I agree with you. I don't think we need to either, and that's not my goal at all. I guess, you know, on this topic, we've exhausted it a little bit. But you also have groups like Amnesty International Human Rights Watch and the Israeli organization itself, Batsalom, calling it a genocide. So I read that out just because I think that when we're talking about how to keep a coalition together, the 77% of Democrats that think Israel's committing genocide, the 90% of Democrats that do not, that

have a negative view of Israel or don't want to send them more money, that would I would imagine be the position that would be as unifying as possible because it appears like this is kind of a consensus opinion now within the democratic base. I mean, I hear that it's reflective in polls and reading polls and asserting how campaign should be run based off of polls is not a way that you win in a state like ours. And Matt, I hear that you don't want to talk about the general. Well, it's both polls and morality, both polls and international law and morality. And talking about morality, Trump put out an AI generated video of Trump, Gaza, and has told us, we cannot afford daycare, we cannot afford Medicare, we cannot afford Medicaid. And not only that,

but that states should tax themselves even more to pay for those selfish things so that we can pay for a war that he took us into because Netanyahu convinced him to do so. And every single Republican in the House and the Senate refused to vote on the war powers resolution. So I agree. You'll find agreement. And I live. and serve in a deeply purple state that has to focus on November and Mike Rogers and the tens of millions of dollars that will be funneled into this state because it is a coalition of as many people in the state as possible. You don't win in Michigan without independence. You don't win in Michigan without Republicans. So it is keeping the Democrats together, keeping the Democrats engaged,

keeping our diverse communities together to recognize we have the shared goals. We do. And it's hard work and it's work that I'm in every single day. So hopefully, you see, there's not disagreement here. But it is the work every single day in keeping our people together so that we don't lose a seat to somebody who would rubber stamp everything Trump wants to do, who will certainly not end this war or secure. security for Palestinians anytime soon if it were up to him. Yeah, and I'll wrap up. I know you probably have to run busy day running a campaign. I think neither of us would argue that like every Republican is doing all of this and worse,

you know, much worse. And none of us would argue, you know, in favor of anything Trump is doing. I just think especially, you know, during primary season when we are, you know, being given the chance to put our, you know, what we think is our best Democrat. forward that we're, you know, pushing you on some of these issues because I think something that I'm sure you've heard is that a lot of Democratic voters feel like we have an establishment that isn't fighting sufficiently. And I 100% agree with you. Yeah. This is a party that's not meeting this moment, not only on this issue, but on voting rights, on civil rights, on childcare and health care and housing. There are so much at stake here, which is why I'm doing

what I can. I believe, truly, that we built a blueprint in Michigan, in the legislature, when we flipped control of the legislature for the first time in my entire lifetime that we can take with us to Washington and build a party that knows how to fight and knows how to win and knows how to actually get things done for people. Totally. And I just want to mention, like, you know, as a New Yorker, I got to rep my city and, you know, push back on the idea that we have to make these sort of like middle of the road concessions on some of these issues, especially like a humanitarian issue. You know, we had mayor Zoran Mamdani who just won in my city. And, you know, one in 10 mom doni voters also voted for Trump. There was a small but mighty Magafer Mamdani coalition. And you

know it? It's confounding. But that's, I guess, yeah, it's amazing. It's how the world works. And, you know, he's someone who really didn't concede on his on his beliefs on any of these issues. So of course, I would be remiss if I did not encourage you to do the same. Mallory, thank you so much for joining today. I really mean it. It's a pleasure to be able to talk to you. Thanks so much. Yeah, likewise. Thank you to you both. Cool. And that is our interview. I've been really enjoying talking to candidates, honestly, more than I thought I would. And making these sort of like auxiliary episodes has just been a sort of nice creative outlet for me, in addition to like the conceptual episodes we make over here.

I want to thank Mallory again for coming on and giving us her time, especially given that she probably knew we'd disagree on some things. She was gracious for that, truly. And I owe it to you, the listener, to say that I struggle to make sense of some of what Mallory McMorrow put forth here, particularly as it pertains to the funding of Israel's defense infrastructure. She initially defended that policy by saying it's what keeps people safe, but I don't know. Does it?

I think it keeps one group of people safe while enabling the ongoing violent oppression of another group of people. But toward the end of the conversation, she backed away from defending that policy on its merits, instead saying, sometimes we as politicians must put our personal beliefs aside for the sake of building a larger coalition. And okay, but as Emma said, there's tons of emerging data that shows continued aid to Israel is no longer a popular position in the Democratic Party, to which Mallory said that she isn't running a campaign on polling data. Fair enough. But if you're not running on polling data and you're also not running, not running off of your belief system, then I struggle to make sense of where exactly these policy positions are coming from. And to me, it's this opaqueness in decision-making that

is the frustrating thing about the Democratic establishment, which Mallory claims to be breaking from. Anyway, that's my show. Hope you liked it. Hope you enjoyed being here on an off week. I did. let me know if you want more of these auxiliary episodes or if you never want to hear from politicians again on this podcast. I don't know. I think it's fun to probe. It's sort of like testing a new skill for me and I'm enjoying it. And I enjoy the fact that you chose to tune in. I love you so much.

I really appreciate you being here listening to this show means a ton. Until next time, stay fruity.