On with Kara Swisher - Rep. Ro Khanna on Epstein, ICE & a Billionaire Wealth Tax

Episode Date: January 15, 2026

Democratic California Representative Ro Khanna joins Kara for a wide-ranging conversation about the culture of impunity that’s taken hold in America during President Trump’s second term.  They discuss Khanna's visit to an immigration detention facility, the Trump administration’s reaction to the killing of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis, the Department of Justice investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, and Khanna’s new role as ranking member of the House China Select Committee.  Khanna also explains why he’s pushing for the full release of the Epstein files and the fight over a proposed 5% wealth tax on billionaires in California. Kara also asks him how Democrats can win back voters in 2026 and whether he's making plans for a 2028 presidential run. Questions? Comments? Email us at [e-mail] or find us on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Threads, and Bluesky @onwithkaraswisher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's all. Hi, everyone, from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. This is on with Kara Swisher, and I'm Kara Swisher. My guest today is Representative Roe Kana. A lawyer by training, he represented tech firms for joining the Obama administration and working at the Department of Commerce. In 2016, he won a seat in Congress representing a district in Silicon Valley. And since then, he's distinguished himself by his ability to balance being both a progressive

capitalist and a cheerleader for the tech industry. On one hand, Kana was the co-eastern. chair of Bernie Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign. On the other, he's raised money from people like Peter Thiel, David Sachs, and Mark Enderieson. But after managing to thread that needle for years, Kana's support for a one-time wealth tax on California billionaires has turned many of his tech friends against him. No surprise, the billionaires have responded with righteous anger, and whether he meant it or not, it seems like Kana has chosen sides. But there's more to row than the wealth tax. He's also teamed up with Representative Thomas Massey of Kentucky to force the

Department of Justice to release the Epstein Files. And as the new ranking member on the House Select Committee on China, he's in a position to influence America's relationship with its foremost strategic and, of course, technological adversary. I wanted to bring in Kana back on the pod because I really like talking to him. We have known each other for years. I obviously covered the people that he represents, and so we got to know each other. I always thought he was too soft on them, and now he sees what I mean. I always warn them about their incredible greed. I'd warn them about how they would turn on them and the problems that they would bring to him. And I'm kind of fascinated by how quickly they've turned on him and how surprised he is by it. And so I wanted to talk about that.

And of course, his involvement in the Epstein vile thing has been a huge success for him and Tom Massey. But I want to know where it goes from here because the Trump administration has done everything possible to make it difficult to find out what exactly happened in that situation. Our expert question comes from Steve Ratner. He's a longtime Wall Street financier and chairman of Willett Advisors, the investment arm for Michael Bloomberg's personal and philanthropic assets. Ratner led the restructuring of the auto industry during the Obama administration. He's also an economic analyst on MSNBC's Morning Joe and a contributing writer to the New York Times op-ed page. All right, this is going to be a good one, so stick around.

Support for this show comes from MongoDB. You're a developer who wants to innovate. Instead, you're stuck fixing bottlenecks and fighting legacy code. MongoDB can help. It's a flexible, unified platform that's built for developers by developers. MongoDB is ACID compliant, enterprise-ready, with the capabilities you need to ship AI apps fast. That's why so many of the Fortune 500 trust MongoDB with their most critical workloads.

Ready to think outside, rows and columns? Start building at MongoDB.com slash build. Support for this show comes from Odu. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odu. It's the only business software you'll ever need.

It's an all-in-one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier, CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, and more. And the best part, O-DU replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you? Try O-D-for-free at O-D-O-O-O-D-O-com.

That's O-D-O-O-O-O-com. Representative Kana, thanks for coming on on. Great to be back on. Happy New Year. I'm going to call you Rose, since I've known you for so long, if you don't mind. Of course. Of course.

So we've got a lot to talk about. Let's start with the news round-up and dive right in. Last week, you visited the newest ICE detention center in California. and so the detainees were treated like animals. Tell us what you saw. It was honestly horrifying. Put aside what you think about the immigration issue. This is not how we should treat people in this country. I met with 47 detainees. Many of them I met within a room without a warden or a security guard. These are not hardened criminals. Many of them have been in this country for years. They've been paying their taxes. And what they talked about was disgusting. They said that there was rocks in their food. One man, which stands out to me, had blood in his urine and since seven days he had not been able to see a doctor. By the way, when we went by the nurse doctor area, it was packed about 50 people in a room the size of a modest kitchen waiting for an appointment to see someone to get health care.

They said that there was the flu and other things spreading around in where they were being contained because they had no. access to health care. They talked about shivering at night because some of them didn't have long sleeve shirts. They only went out one hour a day and sometimes that was canceled. And they could not talk to their families. We saw the glass walls, windows that separated them. They said they were being treated. Some said like animals. Some said like murderers. I mean, I was embarrassed as an American. So most of them were, as you said, they've been paying taxes. So what were they doing? one of them was a business owner who had a construction business here for 20 years. One of them was a student actually studying and had gone involuntarily for a ICE visit to show his paperwork and was arrested.

It was interesting how many of them had actually cooperated with ICE or the detention centers thinking that they were providing their paperwork. Now, look, some of them admit that they were undocumented. They still weren't documented and had been. been here for years, but almost all of them were employed, were doing something. Some of them spoke perfectly fluent English. I mean, it was obvious that they had been here for many, many years. And even the people at the ICE facility knew that they weren't a threat. They wouldn't have had me sit in a room for an hour with no security guard, with no warden with these individuals. I was more concerned about them being in tears breaking down than I was about my safety or the

female staffer with me is safety. Right. Part of the problem here is Stephen Miller has given a dictate, go arrest two, three thousand of these folks every day who are undocumented. So they're cramping into these facilities. They don't have enough personnel. Right. And it's a terrible system. And we should mention this is a for-profit facility and the more costs they save, the more money they make. That's exactly right. It's Civic Corps. It's a for-profit. They have no incentive to hire more medical personnel to get. get more clothes, to get more laundry. I don't think with the warden and the people around him, I don't think it was sort of intentional cruelty. It is just systematic neglect of a system where,

okay, we don't have enough personnel. We're going to make the best of it. We don't have enough judges. And these are the procedures that we need to follow. But it's dehumanizing conditions. What about the guards? Where are they? I mean, obviously, we'll get into the ICE personnel in their qualifications, but the guards themselves. These guards were hired by Civic Corps, the company, and their security personnel. I didn't get the sense from any of the detainees that the guards themselves were abusive in terms of excess force. What they did say is, though, that they would have two hours a day four times lockdown,

where they all have to go back to their cells. They're all inspected. So eight hours of your day is just being used. inspected. And what I got a sense of is just there was too little personnel for them to have any sense of human dignity. But in my interactions, no one said, hey, this security personnel beat me or harass me. Right. So you've called for Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent that shot and killed Renee Good in Minneapolis to be arrested and prosecuted. This seems more unlikely every day. but the FBI says it's investigating goods relationship with local activist groups instead

and what could be a precursor to criminalizing protest. What's your advice to Americans who want to protest ICE or the Trump administration but are afraid of being targeted by law enforcement officers who face what appears to be no accountability? My advice is be very careful. I mean, I'm saddened to say this. But if you're protesting ICE, if you're protesting this administration, you're taking a risk. And I deeply admire the courage of people who are willing to do that. You know, the hypocrisy, obviously, what's happening in Iran is out of different magnitude and horrific,

where you have the Iranian regime basically shooting unarmed protesters with machine guns. But on the same breadth, while we're condemning that, we're not standing up for protesters in our own country. I mean, the hypocrisy of that is stunning. But in this case, I looked at the video like many Americans many times. Obviously that mother was protesting and we can argue whether or not she should have listened right away to law enforcement. But does anyone think she should have been killed, that she should have paid with that with her life? When you look at what she's doing with the car, just arrest her. Just arrest her.

The wheels are turned. Give her a find or whatever. Yeah, the standard of force in this country is that force has to be a last resort and only what's absolutely necessary. and that's why I've said that he should be prosecuted and arrested and prosecuted. By the way, he can argue in that. I'm not saying that just put him in jail. He should have due process. But when I look at that video, I think there are a lot of things he could have done short

of killing her. He could have stepped the side. He could have arrested her. He could have shot the tires. He could have shot other parts of the car. And, you know, the fundamental problem here with ICE is that it doesn't report to the Justice Department. It reports to Christy Nome and the Homeland Security.

So in other law enforcement, FBI law enforcement, you have civil rights standards of conducts by the Justice Department, oversight standards of the use of force. And you don't have that with ICE. You have no de-escalation training. There are advertisements out there basically for people saying, okay, come become an ICE agent. We've given them $150 billion. And they're acting like thugs in some of these places. So if it doesn't have accountability as a private police force, essentially, is that for the president, correct? I mean, how do you characterize it? It's the president's police force. It's the Christine Nome's police force. And they basically are being defended. I mean, for for Vice President Vance to make this the issue that he wanted to pop up and opine about. Explain what he said. Explain what he said for people who might not have listened to. They basically said he does a press conference, which is highly unusual, right? Why are you like suddenly going to speak to the entire American press corps? Obviously he's the vice president. People are going to show up. And his whole press conference is to say, I saw the video and I think the officer was perfectly fine shooting this woman and mom. And if you're going to protest or stand in the way of an ICE officer, then you're going to get shot. And it's a defense of that.

I mean, there are two vivid images I have of J.D. Vance in this past year. One is lecturing Zelensky in Ukraine. And the other is basically a defense of this ICE officer in shooting this mom. He called her a deranged leftist, of course. he has very little information. But obviously they did that from the get-go. Christy Noam started talking about before she had information. Same thing with Trump. But go ahead. Yeah, they have no information. And they're basically doubling down on this. They're basically saying we get to make the call in what we say is illegal. So we're the Congress, where we make the

law. We get to make the call in how we execute it. We're the executive branch. And we get to make the call about whether it was legal. We're the judicial branch. It's all of the power. in one. And who decides? It's basically Christine Nome, J.D. Vance, and Donald Trump decide if you protest whether you get to live or die in America. I mean, that's the America they've created. So what happens next in this case? In the case of this particular police officer? Well, I think it depends on how much we all as Americans continue to demand accountability. First of all, the statute of limitations is long. A future administration can prosecute. And on the That's something I think everyone in the Trump administration should be very aware of.

I'm of the view, let's have reconciliation after Trump, but not reconciliation without accountability. The people who have violated the law are shooting boats in the Caribbean who gutted USAID, who aren't releasing the Epstein files, who are shooting protesters will and should be prosecuted. But can we get it before the next three years? It's an uphill battle, but the public organizing, protesting, speaking out about it, is our best chance. Look, Donald Trump is movable. How do we know that? He opposed my Epstein foul with Massey and then he signed it. Now he's suddenly out there proposing populist Bernie Sanders like proposals. I mean, he called up Elizabeth Warren saying, support my credit card interest cap at 10%,

stop private equity from buying up single family homes. So he's gotten the message that he's losing on the economy. And I think he has not gotten the message that people are disgusted. with what ICE is doing, but the more that people are speaking out, maybe it'll get through. Yeah, Vance, just for people that don't know, says the ICE agent who shot good has absolute immunity, so no accountability at this moment. So let's keep going and move from immigration to the economy, as you just noted, on Monday morning, you posted video on X after the Department of Justice announced it was opening a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. In it, you said, quote, all Americans must stand with Jerome Powell and the independence of the Fed.

The Trump administration has crossed a rubicon. It seems like, that's all they do all day is across Rubicon's. But why is this the point of no return? Because, like, I don't know, it seems like in the second, when you call for Americans to stand with Jerome Powell, what does that look like to you in practice? Well, this is the point of no return because this is threatening America's money. I mean, this is going after America's wealth.

I mean, I care about America's human rights and dignity, but everyone cares about America's economy. And you basically are saying that we don't want independent monetary policy. America. Look, I studied economics at University of Chicago. The key to getting a good grade on any exam is to recite saying inflation is always a monetary phenomenon, basically meaning that when you have people in a government who get to do whatever they want with the money supply for political ends, you destroy economies. And what Donald Trump is saying is let America go and be governed without any rule of law, without any independence, that whoever's in power, that whoever's in

can get, just threaten monetary policy. It's the most dangerous thing for economic success. By the way, you don't have to take my word, Dorone, Smoble at MIT won the Nobel Prize for basically saying countries that are prosperous have rules of law and predictable, predictable system. So that's why this was such a Rubicon in terms of America's entire economic system. And then, of course, you add the Trump flourish, which is basically threatens with criminal investigation, anyone he disagrees with. So why did he do this one? I mean, obviously, Janine Piro is saying she did it by herself because they wouldn't write her back or something, some nonsensical excuse. I know exactly. Why do you think he did this one? I mean, it's like an

octopus. Every day there's another ridiculous. I think there are two things. One, Trump is just very petty. If you're kind of not on his side, he will lash out against you. So I'm also, I'm not even sure it's a grand economic theory that he has, that he wants lower interest rates. I mean, I think that's part of it because he wants economic growth. But it's also just, that who is this guy who doesn't recognize that I'm the two-term president, Donald Trump, who gets to capture Madero and like, why is he standing in my way? So I'm going to show him. So I think part of this bothersome priest. That's, you know, that kind of thing. Yeah. So you were just appointed a ranking, the ranking member of the House Select Committee on China.

You're less hawkish than Representative Raja Christa Morty, the Democrat you're replacing. And you support a President Trump's decision to sell advanced AI chips to China. Talk us through your thinking on the chips. A lot of Democrats see this as a betrayal of our national security. Some Republicans do that is prioritizing the commercial interests of tech and manufacturers like Nvidia and AMD over American security. So talk a little bit about your thoughts on this job that you just got. Yeah. So first I support industrial policy in the United States, including on rare earths. I said, let's have a Manhattan project. So we're not dependent on China for the 17 rare earths. Let's make sure that we rebalance. the extraordinary trade deficit where we allowed steel and aluminum and critical industries to be hollowed out. We should have them here. What I said on chips, and I, as you may remember, helped co-write the Chipsack with Senator Schumer and Todd Young, is that we want to have manufacturing capability of these chips here in the United States. Because of the chipsack,

Gino Romando just said 20 percent here will take place in terms of production. Now the question becomes, well, what about the sale of chips into China? And here it's a judgment call. I think even if you ask Gina Ramundo, she would say, well, look, we don't want to sell them the latest stuff because the compute power here is an advantage, but we want to sell them as much as we can up to that latest stuff because that gives our company's revenue,

which they can then invest in the United States. And that makes China slower to have Huawei develop all their chips. Eventually, China is going to get Huawei to develop their chips. So we're just buying some time. And the entire debate is where is that line? I mean, you know, Gina Romando may draw the line differently than Jensen, who may draw the line differently than me. But the question is, where do you draw the line? My view was that the president in okaying this latest round of chips doesn't cross the line of

the most advanced chips. I still wouldn't sell the most advanced ships. By the way, it's unclear that... What do you think that China and Huawei will stop developing its own chips if they can get advanced chips? Is that a logic that holds water? Meaning, well, I think China is going to develop their own advanced chips anyway. I think we're just slowing it, we're trying to slow it down. And that makes sense to me in the most advanced chips. Like I would make sure we have at least a one-year advantage over China in terms of the most advanced AI logic chips. But I don't think ultimately we win the AI race by a bet that China isn't going to get the compute power with Huawei.

to match us on chip production. I think we win the bet by making sure we have the AI talent here and the development of AI here. I also don't think we should replicate China's model of AI accelerationism. You know, what I say is I'm not an AI accelerationist. I'm not an AI dumer. I'm an AI democratist.

We need democratization. So you're not a Zumer. You're not a dumer. Dumer. Democratization. AI democratization. What does that mean? It means I'm not accelerationist.

China is accelerationist, right? China is basically like, who cares that we have 19% youth unemployment? Who cares that the truck drivers are out of jobs? Tough. Like we're just all in. AI, develop, develop, develop. And the tech folks in my district say, look, Roe, look at China. They're developing, developing.

You're telling about what are we going to do on jobs. You're talking about how we're going to make sure that we have safety. That's not what China is doing. I was like, you're right. That's not what China is doing, though they have more safety standards because of censorship. that's they're basically AI accelerations. Do you want to live in China? I don't.

I don't want 19% youth unemployment. I don't want a society where if you lose a job tough. I don't want the kind of censorship that they have. What do they say when you say that to them? Well, I'm saying you're naive. You're, you know, the only thing that matters is, is America going to dominate in this new technology? Great Britain, the only reason they emerged as a great power is that they policy-wise chose to double down on the Industrial Revolution, and that's why they became this great power. I say, well, look,

in the first 60 years of the Industrial Revolution of the working class didn't do well, they acknowledge that. They say, yeah, that that's right. But Britain became the richest country in the world. America's competition is China. Do you want America to dominate or China? And if people like you are in charge, we're talking about AI democracy, you're going to give the edge to China and we'll all be living in a China-dominated world. I mean, that would be the argument that they make. I'm also not an AI domer. I'm also not like, let's, this technology has no value. I mean, the technology has value. It can help cure disease. It can help new small businesses. It can help renewable energy. Although I'm not sure that's the top on their list. They just want to capture attention in a different

way. I know they say that, but I don't believe them. But they're the most interesting on the capturing attention, and I don't know how much you've followed this, but I got educated about it recently. Have you followed this whole open social web movement, basically what blue sky is or surf is. I mean, to me, that's, here is now what I think is the top thing we need to require of these big tech platforms. They need to be compatible with the open social web. They should be required by law. If you're X, if you're Facebook, if you're TikTok to be compatible with the open social web.

What does that mean? Now I can take all my followers, all my contacts from those other platforms and construct my own, social media graph where I don't have to have the algorithmic chunk. To me, that would be the most transformative thing, and we don't have to pass pages of laws. You just need to require compatibility with the open social web. We'll be back in a minute. Support for today's show comes from Hungry Root. It's the start of the New Year, and most of you have probably quit your New Year's resolution

already, but here's the thing. You can start again. Like right now. If your goal is to improve the way you're eating, then you can start by checking out hungry Root. Hungry Root basically works like a personal nutrition coach and shopper in one planning, recommending, and shopping everything for you. They take care of the weekly grocery shopping and they recommend healthy groceries tailored to your taste, nutrition preferences, and healthy goals. And they have a huge selection for each

family member, everything from smoothies and quick lunches to snacks for your little ones. Hungry Root makes everything simple to eat healthier without overthinking it. Take advantage of this exclusive offer for a limited time, get 40% off your first box, plus get a free item in every box or life. Go to Hungryroot.com slash On With Cara and use the code On With Cara. That's HungryRoot.com slash On With Cara code On With Cara. To get 40% off your first box and a free item of your choice for life. Support for On With Kara Swisher comes from Grunes. If you're looking for a health goal that you can actually stick to, you might want to check out Grooons. Grunes is a simple daily habit that deliver real benefits with minimal effort. They're convenient.

comprehensive formula packed into a snack pack of gummies a day. This isn't a multivitamin, a greens gummy or a prebiotic. It's all of those things and then some at a fraction of the price. And bonus, it tastes great. Grunes ingredients are backed by over 35,000 research publications. While generic multivitamins contain only seven to nine vitamins, Grooons have more than 20 vitamins and minerals and 60 ingredients, which include nutrient dense and whole foods. That includes six grams of prebiotic fiber, which is three times the amount of dietary fiber compared to the leading greens powders and more than two cups of broccoli. It's a daily snack pack because you can't fit the amount of nutrients Grooens does into just

one gummy. Plus, that makes it a fun tree to look forward to every day. Kick off the new year right and save up to 52% off with the code Kara at Grooens.co. That's code Kara, K-A-R-U-N-S-C-O. support for this show comes from Delete Me. It can be difficult to know where to start when trying to protect your personal information from data brokers. Delete Me makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Delete Me takes care of the hard part scrubbing your personal information and your family's personal information from data broker sites. It's simple. You sign up, tell them what you want gone and their team gets to work. And it's not just a one and done service.

Delete Me keeps monitoring and deleting your unwanted personal data throughout the year. I have been using Delete Me for a while, and there's a reason why I think it's the best one. I spent a lot of time looking at what's on these dashboards and changing what it can do, because data thieves essentially change their tactics all the time, and it's really important to keep on top of it, especially as the new year begins. CY Wirecutter named Delete Me their top pick for data removal services. You can take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners.

Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to join DeleteMe.com slash Kara and use promo code Kara at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to join DeleteMe.com slash Kara and enter code Kara at checkout. That's Join DeleteMe.com slash Kara, K-A-C-A-C-R-A-C-C-R-A. So I'm going to pivot to the Epstein files because this is where, you know, it's so funny because we started off, I was starting wanting to talk to you about the Epstein file, but so much other stuff has happened, which both the two major things obviously are the billionaire tax and the Epstein files. But let's start with the Epstein files because they have not delivered. They've had less than 1% or something like that. You and Representative Thomas Massey, a Republican, have been instrumental enforcing the release of the files. You've said in January it's going to be a bombshell month when we're find out some of the co-conspirators were. Talk about where we are right now with the release these files. Obviously, Pam Bondi has been slow to do so, and how it's going to be a bombshell month if she drags her feet. Well, the release has been woefully inadequate. You're actually right that there's still millions of documents. They're admitting to the federal judge in the Southern District of New York that they've got millions of documents. Thomas Massey and I

just this week intervened with the Southern District of New York with an Amicus Curie brief as a friend of the court saying, please appoint a special master so we can actually get these. get these documents. Explain why that's necessary first and how it would work, just so people to understand. What the judge would say is, I'm going to appoint an independent person to determine what should be redacted, what shouldn't be redacted, and I'm going to make sure that the release actually complies with the law, which the judge keeps citing. I mean, they've got two-thirds of the Southern District of New York working on this. First of all, I don't understand with AI and all this technology why you need so many lawyers doing this. I mean, obviously, you need a lawyer at the final review, but

but it seems the technology of the Justice Department could use upgrading. But if they really are going to say that it's such a national security or important issue to comply with Massey and my law, which I'm glad they're saying they're putting in the effort, then have a special master make sure that it's done right and done in accordance with the law. That's all we're asking the judge. The judge has been very fair as I've seen his decisions. I don't know. I've never talked to him.

But my trust, I think the country would trust him a lot more, frankly, than they trust DOJ or Congress. I'm not asking Massey and I to be making these decisions, have an independent judge. There are two revelations that came out that are really important, even off the 1%. One, and this is really critical, there are references to many, many more co-conspirators. Why is this important? Because the president says it's a hoax and it's all Jeffrey Epstein. Even some people in the Democratic orbit, oh, this is just Epstein and Maxwell. No, now we know there are a lot of other co-conspirators from the documents.

And by the way, we know that those co-conspirators weren't charged. And there are prosecution memos out there that they haven't released explaining why they dropped charges on the co-conspirators. So that was one really important revelation. And when you talk to the survivors, they'll tell you that they were told, if you complain to the FBI or the police department, nothing is going to happen, so don't even do it. So why should they now? What I've said is they have already named these names in their interview memorandum to the FBI.

They're called Section 302 statements. Basically, FBI agents sat with these survivors and their lawyers. We know from the survivors and from the lawyers they named specific men who either trafficked them or abused them and that those names are in the 302 files. They have not released a single 302 statement. So I'm less concerned about all the millions of documents, right? They're kind of doing this document dump, which is just let's just put out all this stuff and confuse everyone. There are three things we need to see. We need to see those Section 302 statements that are the survivors naming names, right?

That's what the American people need one. So they don't have to. Right. Which they don't have to. They're in those statements. So they don't need, they can't be asked to do it again publicly. They'd be subject to defamation, lawsuits, and threats. It's already in those statements.

They need to release those names, those statements, which they have not done. The DOJ hasn't released any of them. And then they need to release the prosecution memorandum from 2007 and 2019. which talked about 60 counts against Epstein that were reduced to two counts, talked about all the co-conspirators who weren't charged, and we need to understand why there were decisions made to drop all of the investigation. So where are we on that now, right now, with all these other noise, which, you know, you could almost say everything is a distraction from these Epstein files in many ways. It feels like it

with Trump. I feel like he'd be like Carolyn Pluribus and drop an atom bomb if it would get him out of the Epstein files. What is in the way right now and what happens since they were ordered to do so, and that took you forever to get that to happen. What happens next? Well, it really comes down to the next step to this judge, and whether he will rule for a special master or not. We will see some of these millions of documents because the Justice Department has said to the judge that are releasing them. The question is the quality of that, and will they have excessive redactions? And then Thomas Massey and I are planning to introduce inherent contempt. inherent contempt, if it passes the house, it just requires the house, would fine Pam Bondi personally

$10,000 a day for every document that she didn't release. Whether that passes and is enforced, the point is it's showing the crack in the MAGA base of all of the issues. And I don't fully understand why. You know, I said that very early to Scott. I was like, no, no, this is, this is the bearing wall for all of them in many ways. This is the issue that the MAGA base is livid over Trump on. You know, some of them agree with Trump on Venezuela. Some of them agree with Trump in on on ice, even. Some of them agree with Trump on his tax break bill. Some of them agree with Trump on on on what he's done in appointing Robert Kennedy. This is the one issue where the Maga basis said you, you, you promised us you would get these corrupt folks who raped and

trafficked these girls. You aren't doing that. You become part of the system. And they are living at Pam Bondi. And so this is why this is that. Trump is panicked about this because he knows every day that this goes on, he's losing someone in his MAGA base. And this is why Massey and my inherent contempt against Bondi matters. If we just did impeachment against Trump or Robert Kennedy or something, it would be met with a yawn in the bag of base. Bondi, you know, Massey put out a poll, a Twitter poll, and the vast majority, I think 70% wanted Bondi impeached and the others wanted Trump to fire her. So what has to happen to get arrest of these files released?

I believe we need a strong decision from the judge because the judge matters in this case. I believe we need influential commentators like you're not dropping it. I mean, their whole – No, we're not dropping it. Well, that's been their whole strategy that eventually people will forget. We need the courage of the survivors. They've come to the Capitol twice when things were stalling. We need their courage to be willing to continue to engage because ultimately people may be,

intrigued that Massey and I are kind of an odd-ball couple. But I want to ask you about that. Talk about that relationship. You're an odd couple, to say the least, but you've managed to work across the aisle at a time when almost impossible getting it done in Congress. He has really put his neck out there. I mean, in your case, it's still very brave of what you're doing. But for him, it's particularly... Yeah, no, he's shown on this issue, there's far more consequence to him than there is to me, politically. I mean, there's consequence. Anytime you take on big powerful people, you ruffle feathers and it's easier to keep your head down. But for him, it's literally his seat in May.

I mean, the president has put his entire apparatus. Think about this, what it takes to become President of the United States. That entire team is out there with their number one goal to defeat Thomas Massey in May. And Massey in private moment says, hey, if I don't come back, I don't come back. I mean, it's a real race. It's not, it's not, okay, he's definitely going to win. And he's got a clear path to win and is up by 10, 15 points. But it's going to be a fight. Talk about that relationship with the two of you. Well, it's, you know, he's a, he's got a dry sense of humor.

He's one of the smartest people in Congress. He's an MIT grad. He's got a wicked sense of humor. We text a lot. You know, he's the type of guy who reads footnotes. So he'll get energized by the most random things. He's newly married. I've gotten to know.

His wife died, who was deeply close to. One of the most disgusting things Trump's done, I mean, he obviously does a lot, where he insulted Massey for getting married to his new wife. We've talked about, you know, his grief, the difficulty of that. We joke around about, you know, when he went on his honeymoon. I mean, we've become friends. I mean, I see him on the house floor. We text.

But we're also friends committed to work, you know, right now. we were texting back and forth about Iran and when is the right time to reintroduce our Iran war powers resolution. Is it right yet or not right? Because right now the United States has had done anything, but Trump is threatening to do things. So a lot of our interaction is around substantive work. And that's what's built the friendship as opposed to the other way around. Right. And Epstein, how did that come together very briefly, that idea of the two of you want? We were doing the Iran stuff together, actually, six months ago. We had done the war powers resolution. Massey and I have been doing.

that for years. And we partnered with that again on Iran. Of course, the strikes that Trump did only lasted a day. Fortunately, they, he didn't get escalated into a full-scale war. And so that issue was around the time that Pam Bondi says, well, there's nothing more to see. And I just introduced an amendment in the Rules Committee saying, well, why don't we get a release, require the release of these files? Massey saw that there was one Republican, Ralph Norman, who voted for my bill. And Massey's a math guy. I said, he went to MIT. And he says, okay, in a rules committee about 12 people, if you lose one Republican, statistically in a Congress of 435, you know, will probably be able to get 20, 30 Republicans. And so he said, he called me up and he said, well, why don't we work on this together? When we started to work on it together,

I thought this would be yet another valiant failed effort than Massey and I have led for 10 years. I didn't expect that we would actually get the kind of momentum where it would pass the House, past the Senate, and the president would sign it. Right, which you did. Yeah, you have all these people who were not necessarily strange bedfell, as we would say. So one of the things in the Epstein things, you call it, you talk about the so-called Epstein class, which is what you call elites that operate with impunity. And your quest to get the bottom what happened to Epstein is motivated, at least in part by a desire to restore trusting government by showing that Epstein class isn't above the law. Why is this case taken on such a symbolic resonance in this country? And what will it take to persuade? voters that the government can hold elites accountable when they commit crimes. And I should mention Bill and Hillary Clinton are refusing to testify before the House Oversight Committee's Epstein investigation, and Representative James Comer is threatening to hold them in contempt of Congress, even as he's politicizing the situation in a really unprofessional way. Still, should they be forced to testify? Well, there's one thing we still believe in, regardless of the party in this country, that is that you don't rape young girls and you don't abuse young girls. And I think the reason

this has taken on such power is that sexual assault is far more common in this country that we realize. The amount of people since I've been doing this who stopped me in an airport or said to me, you know, I was abused, I was raped is more than I can count. And that it is so jarring that we allowed powerful financiers, powerful politicians, powerful world leaders to go to this island, abused girls, watch 14-year-olds paraded naked, have this happen for years, and the country really didn't blink, and that there's something deeply rotten about the moral values that allowed us to do it. So, yeah, elites may evade taxes or elites may offshore jobs, but the American people didn't think that the elites were, for their own gratification,

of praying on young girls or turning a blind eye as young girls were being raped, and that that fine for our society. So that's why this idea of an Epstein class, if they could get away with this, what else are they getting away with? And if we can't hold them accountable for this, how are we going to hold the elites accountable for anything? And that's why it's resonating. And that's why it's resonated with a lot of MAGA folks who believe the system is fundamentally corrupt and that they're two tiers of justice and that they are, that some of them who've served the country, been in the military, are committed to one, of values and this elite governing class doesn't share those values. On Bill and Hillary Clinton,

they should testify in front of the House Oversight Committee. They shouldn't avoid that. I will say that the politicization of it, though, is not right. I mean, they purposely just released Bill Clinton pictures to make that the story as opposed to the victim's 302 statement. So release everything. And I think Clinton himself has said release everything and release the Clinton pictures and the Clinton stuff, but release everything so you're not cherry picking. And fine, have the Clintons come and testify and have them testify under oath, but then also have Maxwell testify and others testify like the people in the Epstein Estates and people who were at Mara Lago who were implicated or named and have it a much more broad-based inquiry.

So the criticism of Comer has been the selective calling of the Clintons. There's no Democrat who believes that the Clintons should get a pass. Right. Then last question on this topic, what is Trump so afraid of from your perspective? And should he testify? I mean, obviously he's not going to because he has absolute immunity. Maybe not on this. But what is motivating him here? I don't know. I genuinely don't know what it is because I don't think it's just him. I mean, I think people know that he was on these planes. And it's— There's pictures after picture after speaking of pictures and videos. They were friends. They were friends. Yeah.

And so it's unclear to me that there's some smoking gun with Donald Trump himself of things that we don't already know about. There is just some powerful forces that he wants to protect. I mean, obviously people who may be powerful donors, powerful interests. There's been speculation or foreign governments involved. And I want to be very careful on that because there's nothing that I have seen that clearly corroborates it. on the other hand, there has been a fair amount of speculation from survivors or others that are there other things involved. And I would just cite Julia Brown, who's the best reporter on this. Julie Brown. I just texted with her today. That's funny. And she says there may be,

there may be other governments involved, but there may not be. We don't know, but we need a full release so that we aren't engaged in conspiracy theories. But, you know, people look at this and say, this guy's meeting world leaders. He's friends with all these powerful people around the globe. How is this happening? Who is he protecting? The transparency is what's needed. Including himself.

So I'm going to switch to another thing that I think you and I have talked about for years. And you kindly texted me and said, I've come around to your way of thinking on this. I have. It took me 10 years. It did. I was always like, Ro, when you do something, I'm like, stop hanging. out with these people. So we'll talk about this group of elites that also operates, which what I think with impunity tech billionaires. Your support for the one-time five percent tax on

billionaires in California is causing a lot of agita in Silicon Valley elite circles. So talk about how the tax work and why you're in favor, even though Democratic Governor Gavin News and says it would push innovators out of California, he has some argument to be made and lead a fewer middle class jobs and ultimately lower tax revenue. There is some proof of this in other countries. But talk about why you're for it in this way. What shifted you? Well, I've always been for a wealth tax. What shifted me, though, is I didn't realize the vehemence in which I would get disowned and attacked. And this is the slightest thing of suggesting a 1% tax on, 5% on wealth. It's a one-time 5% tax. But, you know, initially I'd suggest it 1% a year, but it's 5%

over five years. But the vehemence of the anger made me text to you saying, wow, you know, I mean, folks are allergic to any sense of increasing that kind of well tax. Now, why did I say that we needed a well tax? Well, there have been huge cuts in Medicaid to California. This is going to mean rural hospitals and services are going to close. This is going to mean millions of people are going to be without health insurance. This is going to be hundreds of thousands of people in health care jobs, nurses and in other positions are going to be eliminated. People say, well, the SEI union cares about their health care jobs. I said, yes, as if that's something bad. Isn't a union supposed to make sure care that hundreds of thousands of nurses and health care

workers aren't laid off yet? They're not hiding the ball. They're saying this is why we're doing it. of we have health care in this country. And what I said is at the same time, this bill gave tax breaks to very wealthy people, including billionaires. And so I said, okay, if we could have a 1% a year, 5% over 5 years tax, to make sure that people at health care, those are my values and that's something I support. Now, I hear the concerns on some of the drafting. There are two provisions of it that I'm working to get changed, which is you should not be taxing founders on the, voting shares that they have because that's not real wealth. And there's back and forth of whether that would count as wealth or not. But, you know, that is something I don't support if it's

five percent of your own stock and then you have 50 percent voting rights. And that needs to be redrafted. And there's the second provision, which is what do you do if you're ill-liquid? And there needs to be provisions for that. But that's been my position that you can keep the innovation engine if you fix those two provisions and you can still have a 1% tax. By the way, 72% of the billionaire wealth in California is in public stock. So you can get to a lot of it with fixing those two. Yeah, they, I think it's, to me, it's interesting because I have a little, I was like, maybe not this way. Scott and I sort of support an overall tax overall, but it'll take longer, right? An AMT tax that just handles it. Like just, and I think what it is, it specifically

targets, I got a hundred people, I think it is, who are threatening to leave California, except for Jensen Huang, who's apparently staying. I have two minds of this. One is, you made your, and I said it to one this weekend. I said, you made all your money in California, you ingratful piece of shit, you could figure out a way to get, pay more taxes, and we deserve the taxes from you, given you made your wealth here. The second thing is, yes, there are different ways to do this, but the length of time it would take at the kind of immense you would fight whatever happens means nothing would happen. So why don't we just do shock and awe at this point? Because you don't seem to be, you know, availing yourself to thinking that you

owe your state something more, which they don't, which they don't think that at all. They don't. They think that there's waste and that there's abuse and there is some waste. I'm not going to say everything we've been spending is perfect. But the point is you have a real crisis here where people not having health care. And a lot of the, even they will acknowledge this. This is not, okay, now we're taxing them a second time. A lot of what happens is someone makes a billion dollars. They end up saving that money. They don't pass it down until they die. And they're not paying tax on any of that appreciation for years because they're not realizing the gains and they're not getting a standard income. And this is an actual issue. Now, some of them say let's tax the loans

on the assets. That's a reasonable suggestion. So when Elon borrows against his estate to go by Twitter, that would be a realization event. That's a clean way of doing it. There are people who have constructive suggestions and the people are pointing out the illiquid issue or the founders' voting rights issues are reasonable. But the sense of like, oh, I don't want to pay. Yeah. How dare you, sir, question my genius. I hung the moon. So every episode, we get an expert question. And I found a plutocrat for

yours. Steve Ratner, the chairman and CEO of Will & Advisors LLC, the Economic Analyst and Morning Joe and contributing writer New York Times op-ed page. Let's hear it. Hi, Ro. Just in terms of this wealth tax idea that you've been pushing, I think we all agree that wealthy people don't pay enough taxes, but regarding the wealth tax itself, I would ask you, one, does it make sense to do this at the state level, given the ability of people to leave the state as seems to already be happening to some degree in California. And secondly, as I'm sure you know, a number of European countries, I think 12, have tried wealth taxes. Only three still have them. Is that really the best way of getting people at the top to pay their fair share? Or is some other form of taxation a better

idea? It's a thoughtful question. First of all, I think that we should have it at a federal level. There's a constitutional challenge at the federal level. you have in the Constitution that you can't have a disproportionate burden on a particular state in terms of revenue. The 16th Amendment got around that for income tax. It's unclear what the constitutionality will be on the well tax. I think it's constitutional, but I support it at a federal level, and it would be easier to administer at a federal level. At a state level, I like the idea, like I said, the cleanest idea is to have loans taxed on a, on a, a state. And if we're going to do it at a state level, doing it maybe 1% a year on public stock,

not having the founders' shares is a reasonable way to do it that I don't think is going to lead to significant exodus. But the directional point is that billionaires, in my view, can pay more so that people have health care, child care in this country. I call it an anti-revolution tax. They call it a sense of share prosperity. I, acknowledge that they're design challenges. Anytime you do something, there are design challenges. So why don't we work to fix those design challenges? I've offered to convene some of the tech leaders with some of these labor leaders and do something that gets everyone on board.

And that's what I'm working towards. So in that regard, you know, one of the knocks on you has been, which I knock you for is you've been everything to everybody. Like you're super friendly. And I'm like, don't be. Both a Bernie Sanders populist and a former techler who courts Silicon Valley initially supported Doge. And what did I tell you about that? but nonetheless. But you seem to have planted your flag firmly on the side of populace now with this. And in response, except for Jensen Wong, tech elites are now reportedly bankrolling a primary

challenge against you. Obviously, that's not the half of it. They trip over themselves to flatter Trump. As I wrote in Burn book, it was capitalism after all. That was the first line in the book. What do you make of these challenges to you, this sort of indignancy? I've gotten several indignance at you, and I just tell them to shut the fuck up and pay your taxes. But, but, but, Were you surprised and what are you going to do about it? It is your district. It is your district. I was surprised.

I mean, I was surprised. But I've always been a progressive capitalist and people on both sides are suspicious. Yeah, I'm friendly. I grew up in Bucks County. That's my demeanor temperament. But it's not just friendliness. What I'm trying to articulate is a slightly different vision. I'm all for entrepreneurship and innovation and wealth generation.

I just think that that prosperity needs to be. shared that everyone needs to have a stake and benefit in it. So sometimes the people who are progressive get suspicious because I celebrate entrepreneurship. And now the entrepreneurs get, and founders have been suspicious because I'm saying, no, we need to be able to tax this extraordinary wealth because workers aren't making out. But ultimately, if you ask me what is the fundamental challenge in this country, it is income inequality and the wealth divide and people who don't have a basic amount of money to buy a house or health care. And so when those two clash, even though I'm trying to articulate something that's pro-growth, progressivism, when they clash, I'm going to be

on the side of working class folks and middle-class folks. And, you know, yeah, it comes with political costs, as people have seen. Do you think you were naive to think they cared about income inequality? Well, I thought there'd be more people like Jensen. Honestly, I thought there'd be more people like Jensen would just be like, okay, we paid, we paid. And then I thought, what I thought they would do is engage in the argument and debate and say, hey, Roe, you know, one criticism that was fair on me, where I said, you know, I said one percent over a year. They said, no, it's five percent over five years. And I corrected the record. And that's fair. If I'm going to articulate a position, you should know all the facts. I should have, I didn't read the clear full, you know, provision on the founder's stock,

even though they say it can be converted. I think that part has been poorly drafted. I should have, you know, I thought they'd be a debate like that. And then we'd have a debate on ideas. What I was surprised by with the vehemence with which they just said, no, this is, this guy's progressivism is something that we think is going to hurt and kill Silicon Valley. And I don't believe that. I'm very proud of the innovation of Silicon Valley, the entrepreneurship of Silicon Valley, proud to represent it.

But ultimately, I believe in share prosperity and for my district, for the state, for the country. Are you worried? about them getting you? Well, look, there's so many people who have tougher problems than I do in terms of, you know, my career, my platform, my politics will be fine. But look, there are two types of politicians and both are reasonable models. One type of politician just kind of keeps their head down, keeps climbing up the ladder, doesn't make much waves, takes positions that their party takes.

And I'm just not built that way. I take risks. I put ideas out there. I think that the fundamental issue is the income divide. And I don't mind offending powerful people, whether it's defense contractors, whether it's pharma, whether it's billionaires. You know, people used to say don't pick a fight with those who write for a living. And now the motto is don't pick a fight with the billionaires. I pick the fight with the Epstein class.

I pick the fight with the billionaires. That's who I am. I think people will get to decide. We'll be back in a minute. Support for this show comes from Odu. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odu.

It's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier, CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, and more. And the best part, O-DU replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses, have made the switch. So why not you? Try Odu for free at Odu.com. That's ODOO.com. This week, I'm chatting with Jerry Lee, the career wizard and co-founder of Juan Salting, who left Google to help millions land their dream jobs. Jerry gets brutally honest about the career myths that are

keeping you broke, why six figures may not be the flex it used to be, and the exact three steps you need to take right now if you're dreading your job search in the spooky market. Plus, he's spilling the tea on the worst resumes he's ever seen, his biggest money lesson, and why he's giving away free career resources to his 3.5 million followers when he could be charging for everything. Whether you're hoping to lock in that promotion, pivot to something new, or finally crack six figures, Jerry's breaking down the real strategies that actually work. Get ready for an unfiltered conversation about building the career and the bank account

you actually want in 2026. Listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on YouTube.com slash your rich. BFF. Is the American dream still possible? And it shouldn't be a wake up that if you work hard, play by the rules, we're going to make the American dream accessible and affordable to you. You're not going to struggle. You're going to strive to achieve something. For those who think that the system is rigged, breaking news. You're not paranoid. I'm Preet Bharara. In this week, former Chicago mayor and U.S. ambassador to Japan, Rahm Emanuel, joins me to break down the affordability crisis, education, why should be a lot? Trump supporters feel betrayed and what a Rahm-emmanuel presidential campaign might look like. The episode is out now. Search and follow. Stay tuned with Preet, wherever you get your podcasts. Let's talk about the future of the Democrat Party. Let's finish up talking about this. Elizabeth Warren gave a speech a week where she outlined her vision for the Democratic Party in a nutshell. She said Democrats have to sell out to billionaires. And she called out tech billionaires like Mark Andreessen, even Democratic

billionaires like Dustin Moskips and Reid Hoffman. Talk a little bit about how you. you're looking at where Democrats position themselves and you yourself. How do you position yourself in relation to other Democrats? The central challenge for time is wealth inequality and the fact that 70% Americans don't believe in the American dream. I represent a district that has one third of the national wealth, $18 trillion. Every time I say that, they say, Ro, you didn't build the wealth. I don't claim to be building the wealth. I'm just saying there's an ecosystem of Stanford or Berkeley of entrepreneurship of wealth generation that has $18 trillion. And yet the places where I grew up in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, folks are wondering whether

they're going to get a good paying job. They're wondering how they're going to afford a house, how they're going to get childcare. The Democratic Party should have a simple mission, which is the economic independence and success of every family who feels left out of this economy. And an understanding of this AI revolution that's coming. So it works for all of us, for the entire country, not just for a few billionaires. That's where the Democratic Party's core mission should be. And that, to me, is the central theme.

Is the winning message for the midterms particularly? Because that needs to be won, presumably, by the Democrats. It's kind of an all-or-nothing situation. Yeah, I think, look, I think that's the substantively right vision for the country. For the midterms, I think it can be simpler, which is Donald Trump cares more about Venezuela than he cares about Pennsylvania, Michigan. spent all this time getting us into these overseas wars and giving money to Argentina. What has he done to lower prices? What is he done to actually make your life better? And by the way, he's got an ICE agency that's rogue. You know, one thing here that people don't understand

fully on, and I think has been a lot of misinformation. Kamala Harris got the same number of white votes as Barack Obama. But she lost in white men, she made up with in white women. So how did How did she lose? Well, the Latino community moved away from us compared to Obama. The Asian American community moved away from us compared to Obama. The African American men particularly moved away from us compared to Obama. A lot of those groups are coming back home. Partly Trump is like insulted every country in the world, all that have diaspora's here. So some of those folks are, are moving back to us. The ice stuff has been horrible. His not being able to deal with prices has been horrible. we can build back that Obama-Burning coalition in 20-26.

And I do think we have a chance of 20 to 30 seats, and Hakeem will be speaker. So let's do a quick lightning round of short, quick answers, if you don't mind. Should Progressives primary more centrist Democrat incumbents like Representative Marie-Louzenkamp Perez in Washington, and Representative Dan Goldman in New York? I'm for progressives running, and I have no problem with primaries. I'm not going to speculate about particular people, but like I have been always of the view, I ran a primary to beat my conda. I think it's a democracy. There are some people trying to primary me. I've had primaries many cycles. I mean, what's wrong with that? Isn't that democracy? Exactly. So you've called for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to step down. So have I. Explain why and who should replace him. He just is not effective as a bold voice in standing up against the law. of Trump. For me, the final straw was when we had these big wins in November. And then a week later, he says we're no longer going to fight to get the affordable care tax credits extended.

And basically, green-lit a bipartisan group that cut a deal without getting the health care extended. If you're not going to fight for that, what are you going to fight for? But the second thing is just, Chuck Schumer and I have worked together in the chipsack. He's had a lot of achievements in his career, including the IRA, chips, other things. But when you look at him, Do you, does that inspire you to think that's the future of America? Like, come on. I mean, anyone being objective, looks at Chuck Schumer and you think, really? Well, you've been there for 50 years.

Come on. Give someone else a turn. Yeah. And I think it's a selfishness that has people cling to power that long. And that is why they have contributed to a breakdown of trust in America, to a breakdown of trust in the governing class. Who would you like to see in that job? Well, I mean, it probably hurt them given that, you know, I called for Schumer. But look, I like what Van Halen is out there saying.

I like Chris Murphy. I like Lisa Blunt Rochester. I like a new generation of folks who are out there who are visible in leadership roles. I don't know if that's what they want. I don't know if they want what they want to run for, but I want those type of folks to ascend in our party. So what about House Minority Leader Jeffries? How do you rate the job he's done so far? He's very affiliated with Chuck Schumer.

It has to be, obviously. Well, I have a different opinion. I think he's been effective in a number of ways. I can point to concrete ways where he has been effective. He just got the Affordable Care Act tax credits extended in the House. We got four Republicans who came to our side to vote for that bill. He is much more energetic, in my view, on television around the country. He has no fear of empowering other people in the caucus to be out there, right?

I mean, I'm on TV arguably as much as he is, as is AOC and Jasmine Crockett and Robert Garcia and many others. So when people look at the House of Representatives, they see all of the talent, and that's a choice. I mean, that you could be a leader who clamps down on that. And Hakeem's not like that. So I think that the people are unfairly tough on him. In my view, he's done a good job. He's also hasn't been there for 50 years. Like, give the guy a chance.

He's going to be speaker. Let's see what he can do. So would you ever run for House leadership? You know, I'm flattered that people say that, but I wouldn't be effective there. I'll tell you why. I'm too independent. Like I don't do things by committee. Like, you know, could Hakeem just come out and say, yeah, I think we did a well-text?

No, he's got to think about 218 districts and poll people and see what the consensus is. I'm in this because I have ideas. I have a direction where I want to move the country. And so it would constrain me. I wouldn't be the, what people like about me wouldn't be the case if I was in that position. Let me give you a line. Say you're a bad employee. That's what I say. I'm a bad employee. That's why I don't work for people. I work for myself. Just say I'm a bad, a bad employee. Bad at listening. But what about the presidency? Obviously, people talk about you, you know, either they love it or they're like, he's due thirsty for it or whatever. I don't think anyone running for president is thirsty. So I'm, I discount that if you don't.

Yeah. Well, look, I don't know. I mean, obviously, I want to be. be part of the national conversation. I don't apologize for ambition. I think, frankly, we need more ambition. Like Lincoln's ambition, they said, had an engine that knew new arrest. It has to be ambition for the public good. What I do have is a belief that we need a much more ambitious Democratic Party, a party that believes in transformation for an agenda that has failed working in middle class folks. And I have a vision. It's called New Economic Patriotism, 21st Century Marshall Plan for America, how we're going to get the economy going in every part of this country, how we're going to make sure the economy isn't just working for a few tech billionaires for everyone.

And I certainly want to be part of the national conversation. So that's a yes. That's a yes. Well, no, it takes a lot to run for one of those things. And you have to talk to family and others. I mean, I'm not, there are probably 20 names out there. My guess is half of them will end up doing it and half won't. And my guess is probably no one really deeply knows even until that moment.

But do I want to be part of it? Why shouldn't someone just announce, why wouldn't you announce right now and say, And by the way, I'm going to have a Nuremberg trial for the Trump officials when I get in or something, very bold. Yeah. Well, I do believe we need a trial for the officials who committed war crimes. One, because it would distract from the focus of the House. Like, I genuinely think, you know, it's like tennis. If you start worrying about winning the set, you'll lose the point.

And we definitely need to be focused on winning the House. And secondly, like, who knows what the moment is going to call for, right? I mean, if we have some incredible war off, awful war or something, you know, maybe my skill set isn't the right skill set. If what the issue is, is that we've got a digital AI revolution and a lot of people are being left out and we need to make sure that someone's going to stand up to billioners to make sure everyone is participating in. You're the guy. And I'm the guy. But how do we know that until that the moment comes? Right now Gavin Newsom's in the lead because of his sort of pernacious personality, which is really he's really vaunted himself.

to the front in just recently, especially being anti-Trump. He's the California governor. If you didn't run, is that someone you'd support? Or are you just going to, you're still in a wake and see? I'd see someone. I'd support someone who's more progressive. I mean, I, I, even I know he's out there, I think sort of in a Bill Clinton-like philosophy. I like Gavin. I endorsed him twice. But I just don't think that's the direction the party needs to go. I think the party needs to go in a more Bernie Sanders' populist vision, FDR for the modern age. As the party looks towards 2028 and tries to win back some of the men and rural voters that have abandoned it, on what social and cultural issues should party show flexibility, abortion, trans women

in sports, gun control, something else, or is it better not to compromise? I did have a really interesting interview with Sarah McBride, who I think is a fascinating public figure. Oh, she's brilliant. She was talking about having uncomfortable allies. and that's okay. She's managed to de-center the issue of trans, despite being a trans woman, and doesn't think, what she thinks matters

is affordability, right? Let's not double down on everything. I don't think it's not to make them mad. I think she thinks it's other things are also important. What is your take on it? Well, Sarah I think is a classical liberal. She believes that she doesn't have a monopoly on the truth that you

engage in persuasion and conversation and that people may have different priorities. My view is you don't compromise or abandon your values. So I don't think that you compromise on abortion rights or trans rights or LGBT rights, but I think we lead with issues about the economy, issues about working class having a fair shot, the economic issues that can bring us together. And we make it clear those are the highest priorities while we're not going to abandon our values for the trans community or other communities. I also believe that you can have these conversations with respect and not just call someone a racist if they think that the H-1B visa program was abused, but to sit there and say, okay, what do you believe and why do you believe this? And here's what I believe. And to have a patience of engaging in good faith. And to the extent that you were kind enough to call me friendly, I think it's my upbringing in a 99% White Bucks County watching Phillies games, Eagles game. Yeah, where I grew up with folks. And people aren't perfect, and I'm not perfect, but they're a friendliness, a sense of non-judgment.

I admire it. But I was telling you, these are bad people, and then they were bad people. I was wondering about bad people, not people that you should have discussions with. I agree with you on that one. It's just some people, it's not going to work because they don't care about poor people. They don't care about anyone but themselves. That was my point. And they're heinous people.

That was what I was trying to get through to you. But by all means, talk to people you have, you should, ideally you should have flexibility on divisive social issues. At the same time, there's a point where you're like, no, we're not going to do that. So last question. The running thread through this conversation has been the lack of accountability. If a Democratic wins presidency in 2028, what's the most important step that a person should take to change this culture of impunity, which Trump so absolutely represents a, and said from the beginning, I could shoot someone in Fifth Avenue and get away with it. He wasn't kidding. Start with a pledge for accountability. Day one, release all the Epstein files that Trump wouldn't have released and make sure that you're prosecuting anyone who was engaged in the cover-up and you can. Prosecute people who were engaged in orders to shoot boats where there was not a consideration

of civilians there or where you were being shooting, even though people were. were helpless. Prosecute people who engaged in cutting USAID, killing people in Africa, a violation of the Constitution. Prosecute people who may have stolen data at Doge or done things that were in violation of congressional law. Make sure you know that, yes, you want to reconcile and bring this country together, but it's not going to be kumbaya where if you got away with things, we're just going to turn away and say, no big deal, that we are going to hold people accountable. for the crimes they committed in our democracy and the crimes they committed to the American people because for too long people just say, okay, the rich and powerful, they just get away with everything.

And so I think having an accountability culture and making that clear from day one that that's our intent. So very last question, do you think Donald Trump will face justice? I mean, so far he's managed to escape and gotten two terms and whatever billions of dollars, his family is worth. That'll be the decision of a justice. Department. I have a lot of respect for Merrick Garland as a jurist. I don't think he was the right pick for that role at that time. I think we, in some sense, you know, Willie Brown was in San Francisco said, you know, they should have had Kamala Harris in that role in attorney general. This is not

to diminish the vice president Harris. But in terms of that prosecutorial intensity with fairness, that's who we need in our attorney general. And someone who's going to take that. She can make a great Attorney General still. She still would. She would. We see if she'd do it. Yeah. I don't know. She may have other plans. She might. Anyway, I really appreciate it, Roe. I always, I enjoy our relationship and over the long term and the, and I really appreciate you taking time here. I appreciate you. All right. And you were more right about these guys than I was. So I'll tell you what I think next. All right. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you, Karen. Today's show was produced by Christian Castro Roussel, Michelle Alloy, Megan Bernie, and Kaylyn Lynch. Kirtkaura is Vox Media's executive producer of podcasts. Special thanks to Bradley Sylvester.

Our engineers are Fernando Aruta and Rick Kwan, and our theme music is by Trackademics. If you're already following this show, you get a tax break. If not, that's a 50% tax for you, but just the Google guys, because those strange twins owe everything to the state of California.

Go where you listen to podcasts, search for On with Caro Swisher, and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Caro Swisher from Podium Media, New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us. We'll be back on Monday with more. Support for this show comes from Odu.

Running a business is hard enough. So why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odu. It's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier, CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, and more.

And the best part? O-DU replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you? Try O-D-U for free at O-D-O-D-Com. That's O-D-O-O-O-O-O-com.