On with Kara Swisher - Sen. Tillis Unfiltered: Trump, Iran & What’s Next For the GOP

Episode Date: March 30, 2026

Since announcing his decision to retire last year, North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis has become a kind of thorn in MAGA’s side, holding up appointments and voicing criticisms about legislation favored by President Trump. But his resistance raises a perennial question about Republicans in the Trump era: Why do lawmakers only push back when they’re on the way out? Kara and Sen. Tillis talk about his concerns over the Trump administration’s handling of the war in Iran; why he thinks newly confirmed Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin will be an improvement over his predecessor, Kristi Noem; and why Tillis aims his criticisms at Trump’s advisers rather than Trump himself. They also talk about his worries about the upcoming midterms and where he thinks the party is headed after Trump leaves office.  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

You're a very good public servant, I have to say. Thank you. Although I wouldn't vote for you either. I would vote for you, to be fair. I'm not running. I'm just running my mouth. 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 North Carolina Republican Senator Tom Tillis. He's one of the very few Republicans willing to criticize the Trump administration right now. That's mainly because he's not running for re-election this year, in part because of criticisms from President Trump. Tillis has voiced skepticism about the administration's goals in Iran. He's refused to confirm President Trump's pick to head the Federal Reserve until the Justice Department drops an investigation into its current chair, Jerome Powell. And earlier this month, he also got a lot of attention for eviscerating, now former Secretary of Homeland Security, Christy Noem, during a Senate hearing.

We're an exceptional nation. And one of the reasons we're exceptional is we expect exceptional leadership. And you've demonstrated anything but that. and the time that I've seen you responding to the emergency in North Carolina and across the southeast and acknowledging when mistakes are made. But Tillis is careful not to criticize Trump himself. He says the problem is the people around the president giving him bad advice, whom President Trump hired, by the way, but that's another issue we'll talk about.

And Tillis voted to confirm some of those very people like Nome, defense secretary Pete Hegseth, and FBI director Cash Patel. I think Tom Till's is super smart. He was an ex-business person. At the same time, you know, he's got the reputation of too late Tom because he wasn't saying these things, which I think he actually thought earlier. I think he's in a great position, though, to stop some of the nonsense, and he's using it until he leaves office next January of 2027 when his term is up. It's a shame that people like him can't say what they want because he's actually very smart. I agree with him on very little. At the same time, I really do respect his intelligence. And so I was very excited to talk.

Talk to him. All right. Let's get into my conversation with Tom Tillis. We've got two expert questions today. One from longtime Washington defense attorney Abby Lowell, who we've interviewed on this program and who's representing some of Trump's perceived enemies. He's also represented people in the Trump family, too, an interesting lawyer. The other is from a listener who's also one of Tillis's constituents. It's not every day we get a Republican on the show. So stick around. avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to. Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin, or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one.

You can hire top-rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews all on the app. Download today. Support for this show comes from Backmarket. You don't always need the newest tech, no matter what your social media algorithm says. Sometimes newer doesn't exactly mean better. Backmarket is the world's leading premium refurbished tech marketplace. Backmarket offers a range of high-quality tech inspected and refurbished by professionals.

It's all they do. They have phones, computers, gaming consoles, vacuum cleaners, and even iPods. Backmarket is also on a mission to reduce the environmental toll that Fast Tech has on our planet, as refurbished tech is proven to use less raw materials leave behind less waste and create fewer carbon emissions than new, making their refurbished tech not only more affordable but more sustainable as well. Shop now at backmarket.com. You can tell a lot about a person by their accent. I really do say I pod my cat and have a yard.

Everyone around here says like a coffee and doog. We're so attached to the way that we sat. because it tells a part of the story of who we are. Your accent, decoded. That's this week on Explain It to Me. Find new episode Sundays wherever you get your podcasts. Senator Tom Tillis, thanks for coming on on. Thank you.

I like your swanky setup here in the Senate. Yeah, I like it. They've done a really good job during the Republican conference. Yeah, it's really nice. It's a good one. I worked here for Senator S.I. Hayakawa, also a Republican. when I was a child. And we did not have this.

Anyway, a note to listeners, we're taping this conversation late Thursday afternoon, so things may have changed by the time you're hearing it. But let's dive in. Let's start with the war in Iran. It's something you talked about a little bit.

President Trump is sending conflicting messages about whether the war is ramping up or winding down or we've wanted or they better talk to us. And Republicans are getting anxious. Obviously, Congressman Mike Rogers, who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, blasts of the Pentagon for not giving lawmakers

There's enough information in these briefings. Almost a month into this conflict, talk about what's happening now in the realistic end. I don't think one's been articulated. And quite honestly, my response to the press over the last week when they've asked me if I'm getting briefed, I said it's less important for me to be briefed right now than the committees of jurisdiction. But when you hear a chair of a committee of jurisdiction saying it's insufficient information, that is unacceptable. I am looking at this initiative in Iran through the lens of the War Powers Act. And I'm willing to give my president a fair amount of latitude within 60 days.

But we're almost at the 30-day mark now. And so there has to be very clear strategic objectives. You know, some of the tactical objectives obviously would have to be, to the extent that we need to know them, would probably be done in a classified setting. But we need to state precisely what we're doing there. We know why we're there to begin with. But now we need to know why we're going to continue to be there or including considering having boots on the ground.

I've got Marines from North Carolina and the 82nd Airborne. And so now I'm going to join the chorus of saying it's time to get us in the skiff. It's time to determine what's next. And you're only going to get that before we go to an AUMF. Because one of the things was a lot of Republicans off the record, we're saying, you know, 15 days into this, it's too much. 60 days is your breaking point? Or would you vote for a war powers resolution? Well, 60 days is really prescribed by the war powers resolution. I think if we don't have

clarity at the 60 day mark, then you either are determining that you're ramping down over 30 days within the numbers of the War Powers resolution. Are you there for beyond that? And if you're there for beyond that, it is absolutely reasonable to expect that you have to have an authorization for the use of military force to legitimize this. And I think you will get it if you're clear on the objectives and you're clear on what we're trying to do there strategically. And you need support for the tactics that you believe are necessary to accomplish that strategic goal. And what would that mean for you? What would that mean for you to vote for a war powers resolution? Well, I think that we need to, like we've had to deal with, another Middle East engagements,

we just need to look at what the meets and bounds of an authorization would look like. And that's going to be fluid, but it's going to be necessary, or it'd be very, very difficult for me to support future action after the 60-day mark in the absence of that information. We just can't have these endless engagements. I mean, my goodness, Republicans ran on the concept of ending endless wars. And the last thing we want to do. do is appear to be hypocrites when we're confronted with the same sorts of challenges that we criticize Democrats for.

Do you appear to be hypocrites at this moment? I don't think so yet. Okay. Because, again, look, I do believe that Iran, first of, I was a, when I ran for the Senate, I was highly critical of Obama's JCPOA. I don't think it was sustainable. It was a part of that governing with the pen and the phone thing that I think administrations have had, including the current administration, you want to have legitimacy with international engagements.

You should get the article one branch involved. And so the message now is just that. And we're going to give them some deference. I'm going to give them some deference for the next 30 or so days. But if we don't have an abundance of clarity by then, then it becomes a real problem. I also think it becomes a political problem. It is a political problem. It's already a political problem. Right. So when you think about that, where is the fault line? Is it President Trump, changing, saying we won, we're leaving, we're going, or is it Defense Secretary, my war secretary, Pete Heggseth. Where is the problem? I don't know. I have to view Hexeth, the Secretary of Defense, as, you know, the person who's at the tip of the spear,

providing best military advice from professionals, but at the end of the day, he owns the work product. And I'll be judging, you know, how well he's doing based on the best advice he's given the president and how well the president articulated. our goals going forward. And what grade would you give them now? Well, I think we're too early to give them. I'll give it an incomplete because we simply, I do believe that like the bombings from last year, it was good to degrade capabilities of the Iranians.

They're no friend. They were supposed to be obliterated, but no. Yeah. Well, it was semi-abliterated, I guess. But, you know, I don't like using absolute words to describe complex things, but the president did. And I think that that's a part of what confuses people because, you know, I think people want to know, well, my goodness, we thought we obliterated things. Now we're back and we've obliterated them again. Well, if we obliterated them again, why do we need ground troops? What strategic goal is necessary post-abliteration that puts U.S. service members at risk. I had a very fascinating discussion with your colleague, Senator Mark Warner, about that. And he was like, you know, only way to get rid of the things they're talking about is to have our troops there, you know, and it's obvious. But talk about a realistic conclusion.

because regime change seems unlikely at this point. And this is something actually when I talked to Senator Warner, he said, absolutely not. These people are going to stay. This was before it was clear they weren't going to, they were going to stay in power. But he said in unstable regimes, it's still in place is potentially even more dangerous.

What is the realistic end that you see? Well, that's what concerns me about the after. I mean, you could create, if we're not careful, with how we conclude this, we could create a more dangerous situation than we have today. maybe less so on any immediate nuclear threat, but more so on having Iran's Milan influence in Hamas and Husbalah and other organizations that they've supported internationally. They just turn that dial up if they're losing on the nuclear option. So I think there is a scenario where they

become maybe counterintuitive since so much obliterations going on. But it could create a more dangerous situation if we don't handle the after properly. Trump extended his deadline to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. If it doesn't, he's threatened to strike Iran's power plants, which are civilian infrastructure. If he does it, it would be a major escalation, right? And a possible war crime is against civilians. He decided to strike those power plants. Where would it leave us?

And especially when they have other ways of attacking us in the Straits of Hormuz with drones, with small boats. And so we spend a million dollars on a missile that, of literally a 50, speaking of a $50,000 drone. Well, that's, you know, I, we have to look at, we should also view that threat if we follow, if the United States follows through on hitting civilian infrastructure. I don't know what the current sentiment is among the Iranian people, but you could begin to alienate those who would like nothing more than to see regime change when you start killing

mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, children. So they've got to be very, very careful with that. And like you said, they've got to be very cognizant of the fact that we could be moving into violation of the law of war. So we've got to make, you know, the generals in the Pentagon get this. I hope that they're the ones who are trying to look around corners for the president to understand the second, third order effects. I think they suggested not to do this.

I think I believe they suggested. I would be shocked if in a brief before the decision was made for the second incursion if someone said one of the first things that the run-ins are going to do is close the straight of your moves. That should not have been a shock to anybody. I was fully expecting it. Sure. In fact, to a certain extent, I was expecting it in the first incursion last year. So hopefully those with stars on their shoulders are going to win the day in terms of the path forward because if they don't, we're doing it at our own peril. Do you think they will? I'm hopeful that they will. And I think that, I think that

It's concerning to me when you have a House chair of a committee of jurisdiction saying he's not getting enough information. Because most of these generals have no problem with going into the SCIF and outlining their plans. So that makes me, you know, I'm an overly skeptical person anyway, but that makes me a little bit concerned about who's actually calling the shots and advising the president. Or getting to the president. Yeah, right. So President Trump has been pressuring the Senate to pass the voter ID law known as the Save America Act. require proof of citizenship to register a vote. You've said the bill doesn't have the votes to pass and you oppose getting rid of the filibuster for that. And that's exactly what President Trump wants.

Senate Republicans is very clear that filibuster isn't going anywhere. Why haven't you all been able to persuade him? I don't know. The president and I still, I think I mentioned this to the group when you and I were together the first time. The president and I still have a good relationship. I've made very clear to him that there are no circumstances that I would support nuke in the filibuster because we're going to be here after his administration's gone. It will do irreparable harm to the institution of the Senate. And I think by extension, the U.S., and shame on the Democrats for trying to nuke the filibuster after they signed a letter with me telling President Trump won that we would never nuke the filibuster.

Hopefully, they'll go back to their roots and defend it in the future because now that's the argument. We need to do it because they will. It's an irrational argument for me. That's the nuclear. That's right. But I think one thing about the save. that just blows my mind is, do you want to know how many U.S. senators are representing states that have voter ID? I don't know.

Seventy-two. So we don't have 72 red states. That's a mix of red states and blue states. You could argue about whether or not they're up to the standards that we would like for them to be. I'd have no problem with laying down a bill that says these are the federal standards. If you achieve them, then you get funding for completing your elections. If you don't, then that money will be used to audit your elections. That's a way to actually address for the handful of states that may not move forward. But there are not votes to get this done. It won't achieve the 60-vote threshold.

And there's no path for the nuclear option. All the reporting. Yeah. It's solving a problem that doesn't exist. Yeah, but the reality is, I don't know why people, it's become such an irrational, partisan divide, in my opinion. Well, it feels like trying to stop people from voting, right? Well, you know, to me is like what? is the big deal. I was Speaker of the House when we passed voter idea in North Carolina.

And we use the HAVA documents, things that you could use as a replacement for it. I got criticized by the right for doing that. We even agreed to pay, I think at the time, it was estimated $8 to give somebody a government issue idea if they don't. I mean, this is empowering people. If you were going to give people an idea, a lot of it is they don't have an idea or they have to change their name or they don't have a pass. Passports are $160. And we need to be smart. But I, you know, I think that some of the real problems that I have with the underlying language and the bill has to do with absentee balloting that's working great in red states like North Carolina. And if you get rid of all but extreme cases for absentee balloting, you're going to have an enormously negative impact in Alaska, in Montana, in a number of other red states. Right. Senator Wilkowski. And so it's just politically, I would think that if they really seriously believe that this law could get passed, then they would have taken care of. of those defects. So there's a side of me that wonders if this was all just theater to nuke

the filibuster rather than really putting in good, solid, durable voter ID, which I believe we should have in the state. I think he would like to nuke the filibuster. What does he say to you when you say I'm not doing that? The president, I've never had really a pitched discussion at all, even with the discussions or disagreements that we have. But I'm just saying, guys, you're gone in 2028. We, they, who are the people who are going to be here, are going to have to pick up the pieces. And as a business person, I said, do you all have any earthly idea how damaging the U.S. going from making it really difficult to do something bad or do something good with the 60 vote threshold to having massive swings and regulatory tax policy every two, four or six years? From a business perspective. You would get a complete deal.

I would advise clients on setting up operations. And I would take away the premium. People are willing to pay a premium to set up shop in the United States because of the rule of law and the level of certainty that comes with how difficult it is to change the law, major law. Right, it creates chaos. That goes away. And so that diminishes our global competitiveness that I believe a bedrock of that is the exact way the Article I branched structure today. So Trump said this week that he wants to tie his voter ID legislation the deal to open the Department of Homeland Security.

It's been shut down for more than a month. Speaking of chaos, talk a little bit about this. About the situation of TSA and linking it to this other bill. Oh, I don't think it makes any. It takes something that's already impossible in terms of passing the SAVE Act in its current form and making something that we must get done equally impossible. So let's just separate. I know the president's frustrating.

And by the way, I had this with a Democrat governor and a Republican governor. I don't mind the president trying to make his branch the steward. He is the ultimate steward of his branch as powerful as possible. I don't mind that. What I mind is people not being good stewards of the Article I branch on something that they know is critically important to the functioning of this great nation. And so, you know, let's set save aside and let's talk about DHS. Well, look, the operation, and this is where the Democrats have, have to acknowledge that the operations that they are trying to defund are not going to want for funding

for a good two and a half or three years. The big beautiful bill gave them the baseline funding to build the wall and to do the sort of operations that ICE needs to do. So now we're kind of holding TSA, the Coast Guard. I had somebody asked me a reporter coming over here. What do you think about a unanimous consent for TSA? I said, number one, I've got to believe some Democrat pick one that's not up until 2030, we'll object to it. Number two, it just means that now the focus will be on, I would say, the Coast Guard, who's in the Strait of Hormuz. And they're the only people in that region right now. The other armed services are being paid, and they're not. That will become the next story. So the bottom line is we need to get the funding bill done. And we should not leave Washington. This will come out after, probably after this is resolved, but we should not leave Washington until we do get it done.

And whether that's through administrative action, through an act of Congress, this funding needs to get done. I believe so. Now, the question, again, the question is, is it through an act of Congress that maybe embraces some of the reforms? Or is it through administrative action where they have the authority to move some resources around? Do you have a problem with no masks, for example? I don't have a problem. The problem that I have, if you've been on the border, for example, I've done several border tours in the middle of the night. And I've witnessed encounters with people who are subsequently proven to have been members of cartel. Of course they should have their mask up then. If they're riding through the streets of Minneapolis between meetings, absolutely not.

I think there's a happy median. But for the people saying their mask should always be down, really? As somebody who's just dealt with a family doxing event two weeks ago, that's the world I've chosen to live in. I don't think that that's fair for law enforcement. So there's got to be a balance. No other law enforcement wears it. It doesn't have to be black than one. None of us.

None of the rest of us are wearing those masks to hide ourselves. Well, that's right. But you're also not going into a place where the other argument here is everybody is casting, everybody that works in ice is bad people. The vast majority of them are good people. There are mothers and fathers, they're brothers and sisters who go to work every day in a dangerous job. And when they're in dangerous settings with people who contract killers and murder people, then I think that they deserve that extra piece of protection.

But not everywhere. But not everywhere. This world's so binary. I just get sick of that. I get it. I just feel like if military doesn't wear it, police don't wear it. Judges, judges, you? I actually believe that there's something to be said for more judges protection because they've

been politicized. Remember when Chuck Schumer said, well, unleash a world win on the Supreme Court? So that became standard that the Article 3 is in play now. but I bet you wouldn't like to be in a court and have a judge with a mask. 100%. We'll be back at a minute. Support for this show comes from Framer. If you're a business owner, you know that a website should help your business grow.

If updates to your dot com feel harder than they should, Framer is the shortcut you've been looking for. Framer is a website builder that can transform your dot com from a formality into a tool for growth. They've already helped thousands of businesses from early stage startups to Fortune 500's build better websites faster. Framer is an enterprise-grade, no-code website builder used by teams at companies like Perplexity and Mero to move faster. With real-time collaboration, a robust CMS with everything you need for great CEO and advanced analytics that include integrated A-B testing, your designers and markets are empowered to build and maximize your dot-com from day one.

Changes to your Framer site go live to the web in seconds with one-click, without help from engineering. So whether you want to launch a new site, test a few landing pages, or migrate your full.com, Framer has programs for startups, scale-ups, and large enterprises that make going from idea to live site as easy and fast as possible. Learn how you can get more out of your dot com from a Framer specialist. Start building for free today at Framer.com slash Kara for 30% off, a Framer pro annual plan.

That's framer.com slash Kara for 30% off. Framer.com slash Kara rules and restrictions apply. Support for On with Kara Swisher comes from Roons. If you're looking for a health goal that you can actually to you might want to check out Grooons. Grooons is a simple daily habit that deliver real benefits with minimal effort. Their 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. Groon's ingredients are backed by over 35,000 research publications. While generic multivitamins contain only seven to nine vitamins, Grunes 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 grunes 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. That's code Kara, K-A-R-K-A-A- at GrooN-G-R-U-N-S.C-O. Support for this show comes from Quince. A thoughtful wardrobe starts with quality over quantity. That means collecting pieces that are well-made, versatile, and throughout the years.

That's exactly what Quince offers. Elevated fabrics, thoughtful design, and a price tag that actually makes sense. Quince makes the high-quality wardrobe staples that using premium fabrics like 100% European linen, 100% silk and organic cotton poplin. And their lightweight cotton cashmere sweaters are perfect for changing seasons. Quince works directly with factories cutting out the cost of the middleman. So you're not paying for brand market, just quality clothing. I have gotten a new group of clothes from Quince.

I love Quince. I love all their athleisure stuff. I wear it all the time. I'm wearing some right now. But what I really like now is I got myself a cashmere sweater that I love. It's so soft. It's so comfortable. Right now, they have a lot of great seasonal colors.

prints for spring that'll make getting dressed a breeze I'm planning on ordering a lot more. Go to quince.com slash Kara for free shipping and 365 day returns. That's a full year to build your wardrobe and love it and you will, I promise you. Now available in Canada too. Don't keep settling for clothes that don't last. Go to quince.com. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E dot com slash Kara, K-A-R-A for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash Kara. Let me go through a couple of things. You recently went viral for a brutal takedown of former DHS secretary, Christine Nome, during the Senate hearing. I didn't know it went viral, but yeah, I do remember the meeting. Yeah, you had a chart. That was great. I love a chart. And you voiced confidence in her replacement, Oklahoma Senator Mark Wayne Mullen. Talk a little bit about what happened there. And also when it comes to immigration, the administration isn't changing its goal to deport millions of people, a million people in one year. Is it meaningfully different from your perspective under Mullen?

It will be. I believe it will be. Actually, you're asking me about the Bolo. It represents the Lumbie tribe. I'll give you a good example of the kind of character that Mark Wayne Mullen possesses. Mark Wayne Mullen is an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation. But when he was even in the house, he decided to vote for Lumbie recognition because he believes he studied it and he believes it was wrong. So he was willing to go up against his own tribe. And the policy. of it because he believed it was the right thing to do. I believe he's going to carry that same sort of thought process into his new role. And I also believe he will project that thought process on any advisors from the White House that are at odds with what he believes is the right thing to do. Stephen Miller, anybody else. I think, you know, it seems like there was a fair amount of evidence that the prior Secretary Nome had a lot, that Stephen Miller had a lot of influence. I think that Mark Wayne will listen to all comers, but I don't see Mark Wayne losing many arguments or differences of opinion if those two are at odds with each other on what's best to do for Homeland Security. I also think Mark Wayne is going to let FEMA be FEMA, get the right leadership in there, set it and forget it.

It is a part of Homeland Security. One of the reasons I got mad at that hearing was an hour before the hearing after a month of waiting. I was told that they were not going to give me information on the operation in Charlotte. And I'm going, that told me all I needed to know about how poorly the operation was executed in Charlotte. Because if you had 500 encounters and 250 of them were people who had criminal records, dangerous criminal records, I mean, Washington loves embarrassing politicians, right? And particularly some of the people in this administration, if they had that evidence that just made it clearly it was a resounding success, I would have gotten a letter an hour before the hearing, say, you're not going to get it. That's what made me angry, and that's why I went into the hearing a little bit hotter than I prefer to be, actually. Right, and you don't think he'll be pulled around by Stephen Miller.

And do you think Miller has had a deleterious impact on? I think Stephen Miller, I just feel like, I've told the president, I've told other people, I said, look, this guy is a surfer. I mean, he surfed into D.C. with Jeff Sessions and quickly surfs onto some other wave. I mean, does anybody really believe Stephen Miller's going to be the curator at the Trump Museum? or the Trump Library when we're down here, he's going to surf onto something else. I don't appreciate what really made my private conflict become public with Miller is when he went on TV

and said, it is the position of the United States that Greenland will become a part of the U.A. He didn't speak for the Article I branch. He doesn't actually speak for the American people. He speaks for one branch that represents the American people. And that's what made me feel like he was skating. way outside of its lanes? And that made me angry because I also, you know, the Republican leader of the Senate NATO Observer Group, have been since 2018. And I know how those words are perceived in capitals across Europe. And I wanted to make it very clear. He didn't speak for me or the vast majority of the members of Congress on this particular issue. Right. I think you're saying he's over his skis and his board. He's got his way over on lots of issues.

That's right. Yeah. So go back, be an advisor, but, you know, stop enjoying watching yourself on TV. That's not a part of your job. He does like to be on TV. Very quickly, Kevin Warsh, when will he be appointed? The D.A.J.'s investigation of Jerome Powell and the renovation is still ongoing, although they're losing in court. Well, the hearing, I mean, obviously, if you're a prosecutor, you should have been embarrassed by the ruling of the judge. And now we've subsequently heard even prosecutors stipulated that they didn't really have much evidence of criminal. But, you know, I go back, I'm going, guys, this is so weird. I was at. Trump today was talking about it. I was at the alleged scene of the crime, right? And so were seven other members, including the chair. We all said that there was no criminal act occurred. So what more? I mean, you got a prosecutor insisting a crime occurred in spite of the fact that the majority,

everybody who's spoken on the issue said no crime was occurred. So I say all that to say until that case is carried through. Maybe more evidence comes up that they can convince me beyond two minutes of testimony. I like Kevin. I think he'll be a great chair. And we can have the hearing at any time. But I will withhold my vote, which in committee means that it won't get reported out of committee. And there's no path to discharge. Trump seemed to double down today. He said the guy whose interest rates are too. It seems to be related to interest rates and not to get him pressure. This guy's not to be pressured. It relates to Fed independence, which is exactly why on Sunday night I took the definitive position that I did to make sure on Monday morning, when markets opened up, they didn't wake up for the first time since the existence of the Fed that the Fed serves at the pleasure of the president. It doesn't. What I like about what Warsh is saying is you're going to still have independence with respect to the dual mandate. But there are other things that go on in the Fed that I think we do need more transparency when you talk about bank examinations. and supervisory functions. So I like what he wants to bring. And now, because some prosecutor with a dream decided to go forth with subpoena and an investigation, I'm in the position unless it's

completed. I got 283 days left, and I'm simply not going to vote for. He seems to run out of Fox, I think, as they say. Yeah, yeah. He seems to. So just very briefly, you're not voting for Casey Means, the next surgeon general is you needed? Well, I've said I'm only know if she gets reported out of committee. Yeah. Yeah. I'd have to have members that vote. Most of the time, Kara, I've said on noms, I'm going to defer, if you get an unanimous vote at a committee. You voted for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Right. If you get one, and I talked to members who were probably on the fence, I said, look, if you on some of these nominees vote, no, I'll be there to back you up. But I'm not going to be the lone person in these cases where I'm deferring to members on the committee of jurisdiction. And now in this case, the nom hasn't moved forward. So that suggests to me there may be some concerns on the committee.

You said the resume puts you on alert. Yeah, she did not impress in the hearing. I know. And the resume did not, you know, did not look like the kinds of resumes we've seen before in terms of surgeon generals from either side of the aisle. So you think, done, where is it going to go? You know, I think if we're, what are we, three weeks past the nomination hearing? And we're about to go on recess. Generally speaking, any time a major norm like this is in committee for more than a month or six weeks,

it probably means ultimately they get withdrawn. But we'll see. We'll see. So let's move on very quickly, I think, because I know we have limited time. Right now, you're one of the few Republicans willing to challenge the administration. Getting a lot of praise for that. Your critics call you too late, Tom. Do you know that?

I couldn't care less. I know that. I know. For number one, you know what, the problem about either the liberals, Most of the time, that's the liberals that just want to, you know, attack any conservative, even a right-of-center conservative like me. Yeah, because conservatives never do that these days. But there's an equal amount of dumbness at either end of the political spectrum. That is true.

I'll stipulate that. Okay. But the reality is, too late, Tom, my God, six months into my freshman term as a brand-new state legislator, I broke with the Republican Congress. to negotiate the first ever renewable portfolio standard in the southeast. These folks should stop. They're either lazy or they're dumb or they're both. They ought to look at my record. And they're like, why doesn't you've been like this?

Well, but I'm saying, too late. That was in 2007. I think they're saying, why aren't you, John? I think that's a compliment. But you are liberated from the pressures of running for re-election. Do you feel that way? No, it's like I've said. I've been, look, I got in a dust up with the,

Trump one over filing a bill that could only allow him to fire Mueller over for cause. So it's not like this is new. But like I've said, time and time again, I forget who the talking head is on C-SPAN, but I think he consistently wears a plaid jacket. I need to know his name. But he almost always prefaces a comment that I make about, well, of course, he's retiring. Why is that even relevant? Well, you might feel a little more free. Well, no, but the point is I have expressed my concern in the past. I no longer have to worry about what language I use to communicate it because I don't have to go through the cost benefit. You can be clearer than some of your colleagues, because I have to tell you, when I talk to some of your colleagues off the record, the Republicans, they're much more critical of Trump. Of course, but look, I mean, you know what all martyrs have in common? They're dead. And in politics, that's losing elections. I have no problem with people who are running for.

re-election or managing the complexities of their state to pull back. I believe that they would be there if things became existential. But it's silly. That's why I'm saying to this talking head, dude. It's like, of course, I don't have to go through that cost-benefit analysis. I don't have to wonder if I say it this way or in one sentence, am I now going to have to raise 10 million more dollars and by that many more gross rating points to explain what I meant? Right, right. So it's not that I wouldn't say it. What I'm saying has been consistent. since I was a freshman in the State House.

How I'm saying it is different because I don't have that cost-benefit analysis. To be fair, a lot of, speaking of martyrs, Republicans criticizing Trump on their way out the door has become a theme. It has. You had former Senators Ben Sass, Mitt Romney, Jeff Flake, former House Speaker Paul Ryan, Congressman Lee's Janie, Marjorie Taylor Green. You know what they all have in common? And Congressman Don Bacon. Do you know what they all have in common? Yeah.

that they've criticized the president, and I've never criticized the president. Yes, I wanted to ask about that. Because, look, I mean, all these people... Can I just point that? That was really interesting when we met. You aim it mainly at the administration and advisors and not himself. And you've repeatedly said you think he's getting bad advice. Though as a former business person at Blue Chip corporations, you've been around the block.

You know the CEO often is the center of criticism. So what's the difference? I believe there's some great people. By the way, the majority. I think I've done what I talked to a lot of people in the administration, and I feel like I have very good relationships with a number of people in the cabinet and the administration. I say, I'll let Bill know off the record who I'm talking about, but I'm not talking about you. I mean, that's a way of saying, I've got a problem with people. I'm in the unique position of having spent

almost more than 25 years in top-tier management consulting. You have. And 20 years in legislative politics, including leadership roles, particularly as Speaker of the House and turning the state around. So I'm in a unique position to really help or maybe just intuitively look around corners. And I'm expecting people in the White House who are similarly situated to use that experience to warn the president about second and third order effects. And I feel like there's two ways to give the president bad advice. One is coming up with a really lousy idea in selling the president on it. It kind of like Stephen Miller saying any immigration reform is bad.

I think the president would like to do immigration reform. I believe Stephen Miller is one of the people that are preventing that from happening. Another one is the president comes up with a really bad idea, and you don't have the guts to tell them it's a bad idea. And that's what I'm pointing to. I expect more out of these people. But not from him. What's that? Not from him.

The president at the end of the day needs people that have the courage to let him know what he doesn't know. And then if you start seeing, if I start seeing more signals from the White House saying, Tom, we did our, we went to the math, we agree with you. Then maybe I've got to start looking at the president. That happened in the first administration. He seems to be staffing with people who don't do that. You had Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Attorney General Bill Barr, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Well, you had five sec-duffs. Mark Miller. Yes. Did you watch Spinal Tap back in the day? Yes, I said the sec-defs were like the drummer in Spinal Tap. They kind of blew up after every major performance. Yes, that's right. So, yeah, I get that. But maybe that's why some people are holding back, but you can't hold back. And the reason why I would suggest they do it for no other reason, their own personal reputation.

One of the reasons why I like Warsh, you know, as the future Fed chair, is I think his reputation and the work that he has done is more important to him than any sort of alignment with the president. I don't believe he'll be a sycophant. Are there too many sycophants in the White House? I do believe we have some folks that, gosh, boss, that's a great idea. And you know in their heart of hearts it's not, you're being dishonest to the president. When you know in your heart and in your mind, it's not a good idea and you say great idea, boss. You're being dishonest to the president and you're being dishonest. You know, who doesn't like, I mean, I don't really like self-affirming stuff.

No, I like the opposite. But I do too. You'll go into my office sometimes and you'll hear yelling behind my doors. and half the time it's the staff yelling at me. That's the sort of stuff that I reward. I want people to stretch me and grow me and inform me. And the president needs people that are going to stretch him, grow him, and inform them. And if not, walk out, guys.

Life is good on the outside. If you have any kind of experience, you should be able to get a job pretty easily. He seems to have made different selections of staff. Yeah, I know it. I'm just saying they're letting the president down and they're diminishing what could otherwise be a strong legacy if they don't get their act together and there are political consequences. The thing we have to talk about right now, we're not doing too well. And what would typically be a negative election, I think is far more so because we're not executed. I'm going to get into that. Because, you know,

if saying he's getting bad advice makes him a passive bystander, he doesn't seem to be that. But ever so we get a question from an outside experts. Yours comes from longtime Washington defense attorney, Abby Lull, who's represented people in the Trump family and also, obviously, Tisha James and many others, Don Lemon. Let's listen to it. Senator Dillis, so good to talk with you. I have this question. You've been one of the very few Republicans to have pushed back on President Trump or folks in his administration on almost any issue. The founder's entire premise was that there would be three co-equal branches of government to check the power of the other branch. Has Congress abdicated its role when the majority in Congress and the president are of the same party?

And will this check and balance only be able to occur when there is the so-called divided government? And lastly, since you have decided to leave this very important role, who will you hope or who will you ask to play the role you have played over this last year in the future? Great question. Well, let's start with the foundational question. I've been here when Washington was completely controlled by Democrats. I saw the same behavior. Let's not pretend like questioning the president or failing to question the president is this new thing under Trump.

I saw it under Biden. I saw it under Obama. So let's be real. In fact, back, I think it was when we either passed the respect for marriage or, Safer Communities Act. I had a couple of Democrats come up to me and high-fied me. He said, thank you for being bipartisan. I said, I appreciate that. I'm looking forward to you doing that someday. And they go, well, we did. We voted on the bill. I said, my God, you had 50 members, 51 of your members vote on the bill. That's not a tough vote for you. And so I would ask people to

show me an example of somebody who was a Tom Tillis in the Biden administration on the Democrat side. Who are you? This is your party we're talking about. So, yeah, I know. I just want to make it clear. There are so many people that their memories only happen to be as recent as the election. You had Mansion. You had Cinema. And they're gone because the Democratic Party turned their back on them and try to replace them. You're leaving. Kirsten Cinema was absolutely recruited. Clucin Camp, Perez. The Democrats recruited to go against her. So. Veteran. What in the world? I'm just saying that he's a Republican now. He is. Welcome to the party. But I'm just saying, look, it exists in every camp. And the ones who did it,

who actually Kirsten wanted to continue her career was rewarded by having a primary run against her. He's got a whole lot of other problems, but in any case. All I'm saying it is, everybody needs to look in the mirror when they ask this question. It's not a Republican phenomenon. It's a bipartisan phenomenon. But is it better to have a divided government with Congress and a different... If you have the right leadership, I could see where I think that the Article 1 branch is safest when you have divided government. And who would you think is going to take up your sword, I guess? I don't know. There's people out there that are independent. I think a lot of it will come down.

You know, the states matter. You know, you're more likely, you know, in this election cycle, we're at risk of maybe losing some of the more moderate states. So it's going to be less likely. It comes from the usual suspects. I represent the people in North Carolina. People ask me what, I love North Carolina. The reason I've lived in it since 1990. I love it, but I also love the politics of North Carolina where 40% of the people are independent. They're not affiliated with either party. And then the remainder are evenly divided. So when people ask me, you know, I said, look at my state, look at my positions, and plus or minus 10% is in complete alignment with the priorities of the people of North Carolina. And that's what I'm supposed to do. And that's what I'm supposed to do. I consider very independent in the GOP. I think, you know, I think you're looking, I don't want to name names because then you put

targets on them and you know forced people go around and attack them. But there are four or five members that I think given the right situation, we'll be doing the very same kinds of things that I'm doing today. We'll be back in a minute. Support for this show comes from Shopify. Starting a business has never been easy, but these days there are so many moving parts that it can feel absolutely terrifying to take the lead. Thankfully, there's Shopify. Shopify is the platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. from household names like rare beauty and skims to brands just getting started. Shopify can help you build a beautiful online store that matches your brand style with

hundreds of ready-to-use templates. And whether you're uploading new products or trying to improve existing ones, Shopify can help accelerate your efficiency. Their AI tools can help write product descriptions, page headlines, and even enhance your product photography. Best yet, Shopify is your commerce expert with world-class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns and beyond. Shopify can even help you find your customers with easy-to-run email and social media campaigns. It's time to turn those what-ups into with Shopify today. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at Shopify.com slash Kara Swisher. Go to Shopify.com slash Kara Swisher.

That's Shopify.com. slash Kara Swisher. Hi, everyone, it's Kara Swisher. I'm excited to put something new on your radar from the Vox Media Podcast Network. It's called Project Swagger with the one and only Robin Arzon, and it's all about helping you trust yourself, level up your mindset, and actually make the changes you've been thinking about. Robin is Peloton's vice president of fitness programming and head instructor.

She's also a 27-time marathon and ultra-marathon runner, founder of Swagger Society Media company and a two-time New York Times best-selling author. In under 30 minutes, Robin shares the rituals, routines, and mental shifts that fuel her hustle and show you how to apply them in your own life. In the very first episode, she opens up about the moment that forced her to transform her inner voice and the strategies that helped her become what she calls a self-talk ninja. You can find Project Swagger with Robin Arzon on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes drop every Tuesday. Hi, I'm Brené Brown. And I'm Adam Grant. And we're here to invite you to the Curiosity Shop.

A podcast that's a place for listening, wondering, thinking, feeling, and questioning. It's going to be fun. We rarely agree. But we almost never disagree. And we're always learning. That's true. You can subscribe to the Curiosity Shop on YouTube or follow in your favorite podcast app to automatically receive new episodes every Thursday. So let's talk about where the Republican party has had in a few years. You've said you're not trying to undermine their problems with your criticism in the administration. I'm trying to get more Republicans elected in November. A new Fox News poll, and I'm using Fox specifically, shows Trump's approval rating dropping to 41 percent. Others are even lower. Yeah. There's also sort of a growing problem of extremism

with some young voters. If Washington Post had a great story today after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, white supremacists like Nick Fuentes increasingly seem to be filling the vacuum. Now, Democrats have problems too, but let's talk about the radicalization of the young right? And what are the key things in this election coming up? Are you most worried about? To be honest with you, I hear that. But I don't think that the young right described in the way that you did is any greater than the young left. Matter of fact, I had a young lady who had to be a part of the young left, try to get me a gotcha question on the way out the door. Now, you're talking to somebody who a speaker passed the first only restitution for forced sterilization victims that was

invariably imposed against black people. I come up here, I write 137-year wrong with the Lumby Nation. I get them recognized. You're a complex man. All the way through Jim Crow, etc. But I have this young extreme equivalent to what you're talking about, the radical right, asking me some nonsense question trying to paint what she had perceived, I guess, is he's a white Republican. so he must be a racist. This is a gods of question. Nick Fuentes' popularity is not good branding for you. Neither is.

No, no. What I'm saying, though, is I think we need to just be clear that we're probably in equal ratios of the radicalized, if we want to call it young, or whatever. Having said that, the people who are in the left or right of center of politics that are registered are independent voters do not like chaos. they do not like bullies, and they do not like the kind of elevated language that we have today. And, you know, it was in 2009, I was convinced that the bullying and the pen and the phone and, you know, getting Obamacare in spite of any Republican. I was convinced when Time Magazine was saying, this is the end of conservatives, the beginning of liberal progressivism, to quit my job because I believed, that the Obama administration was going to overreach and that I was going to get as a majority and probably become Speaker of the House. That happened. And it happened when everybody thought

that they were riding the wave. We're almost guilty of doing the same thing. We read more into the election results than we should have. We're driving down a mandate that our base loves, and a lot of it I agree with the what. I have problems with the how, but it is alienated, independent voters. It has. All right. And independent voters, the only way you win statewide elections in North Carolina. So you're worried mostly about the independent voters. I'm very worried about the independent voters. And I'm worried about the suburban voters, the right and left of center. You know, in my race, I got about 10 percent of the Democrat vote in both of my two elects.

I think now you'd be lucky to get one or two percent of the Democrat votes. Well, you're seeing all these elections. They're going on. Yeah. Oh, yeah. And, I mean, it fills 2010-ish in reverse. So in that regard, we have two more questions. us. We have a second expert question for you comes from one of our listeners who happens to be one of your constituents. My name is Bob Thomason. I'm a native of North Carolina and a North Carolina voter. I'm retired businessman living in Charlotte. My question to the senator has to do with the fact that our country can no longer get things done. And the major reason for that is that our politicians won't work across party lines to make things happen.

It's really gotten embarrassing, quite frankly. Half our population is left behind by our economy. Our infrastructure is failing, including our once-admired air traffic control system. And AI is coming and we have no plan. I'm old enough to remember a time when politicians did cross the aisle and worked with each other. They even held a rogue president to account once. So my question to the senator is, what has to happen for our country to get working again and for politicians to work with each other

instead of, you know, adopting the My Way or the Highway approach. We're rapidly losing ground not only to our rivals, but our enemies. I look forward to hearing the Senator's response. That was really thoughtful. Well, it was, and he lives in my neck of the woods in North Carolina. First and foremost, we've got to preserve the filibuster. That will destroy bipartisanship forever. if we do it.

Okay. Because the, because the basis of both parties will absolutely vote you out. If you give on, and so I think, I think first and foremost, we need to get the Democratic Party and now the Republican Party as litmus test or asking primary opponents, are they for nuking the filibuster. So, number one, I don't know what his party affiliation is. Go back to your Democrat or GOP meetings and say, this is nonsense. And then I think be a part of an organization that remembers the people that produce bipartisan results and reward them and go after the ones who are actually making it almost impossible to get done.

But Kara, I'll tell you, you're a smart person, you do your research. You go back and find a time. And in the Biden administration, I was one of the leads on respect for marriage, bipartisan, safe for communities. I was the sixth person to join the discussions to the gentleman's point about the bipartisan infrastructure bill. You go find a time where Democrats pass bill that many bills of that substance when the rolls were reversed and they had to walk the so-called plank to add to Republicans to do it. So a part of it, again, I don't know his party affiliation, a part of us going back and say, can you at least do what the Republicans did in the Biden administration, Democrats, when the roles are reversed? Can we start telling everybody that compromise is good? Good can come out of it. It's where enduring legislation happens. Right.

Well, I agree. And so was the language. So was the language. You know, frankly, even I mentioned this with Biden. The reason, you know, these were historic bills, these bipartisan bills. You know, why didn't go to the White House for the signing ceremony, particularly for the two that we've led on? it's because I was always wondering if I did, there would be some partisan statement of the signing ceremony, and in all three cases, there were. A Democrat president, instead of thinking everybody for bipartisanship and moving on, and then maybe saving that comment for a party rally, he says it when he has Republicans present. So what has to happen now? What has to happen now? Because Trump made nine of those today, for example, the campaign. So what had this guy is saying, I don't really care. what's going to bring it back?

Well, I think independence voters rewarding independent members is how you get back. So independent voters could do this country a great service by saying, you know what, I'm going to set aside some of my ideological priorities for a while and reward behavior. Just say, because if you have enough people thinking independently, then if you're an extreme right or extreme left, this isn't for you. Don't waste your time. But for the remainder of the majority of the country, you'll see things that will swim left and right of center that will be done on a more consistent partisan basis. I mean, I know you're worried about these elections. They're going to scheme the other way. I think, you know, look, for this Congress, you know, any sort of major bipartisan bills are all

but probably impossible to get done. Function of time, for one thing. You know, after June, I mean, it's going to be all about the campaign. So what are you most concerned? concerned about with the midterms coming up? I am concerned as a Republican, and I became concerned. It's why I voiced my concern. Now the Senate's in play now. I believe, I think we're going to be okay with the Senate, you know, as long as we continue to support our incumbents.

But I believe, you know, that we could net a loss. I don't think this is a year where any reasonable expectation of gaining numbers exist. But I'm going down and going to work in the trenches with the state legislatures. I think one of the things is beginning to be reported is very important are the number of state legislatures across the country that many of them gained a majority back in the same time frame that I became speaker, starting to look at their suburban districts, ones with either right-of-center Republicans' independence that are at risk. Palm Beach just shifted. That's exactly right. So I'm going down. I'm going down in North Carolina.

the reddest flag right now for you in this, for the Republicans. Basically, the evaporation of independent support. The only independents that are supporting us right now are the ones who are right of the most extreme MAGA movement. They're the only ones that will support us because they've got nowhere to go. But that's a fraction of the independent base. For the most part, 80, 85% of the independent bases, they're either going to stay at home or are they going to vote for what they consider to be? It looks like they're voting. It looks like they're voting like in Marlau. You got voter intensity, too. Democrat voter intensity is through the roof. You had 125,000 more Democrats vote in the primary than Republicans. Roy Cooper got 125,000. He looks like he's quite ahead. He got 125,000 more votes than all Republicans in that Republican primary. We got to get our folks enthusiastic, and we also have to get a fair share of the independence. Cooper's very popular right now. He may be replacing. I know, Roy. I'd have a non-alcoholic beer with them, but I'm not going to vote for them.

Okay. I've a secret. Tell Roy that. Yeah, I think he knows. Last question. When you think about what happens post-Trump, would you come back to politics? Would you? And what are you going to do next?

What is your business person? What do you think your best contribution is? I, you know, one thing that I want to do is really take a look at an organization that, like, the gentleman and the question could come to and say, if you're serious about supporting people and encouraging bipartisan behavior, then there needs to be an organization that provides the air cover for the people that do that. Everybody high-five, signing ceremony, and it's like, oh, it sucks for you. You've got a primary. There needs to be an organization in place that rewards behavior, not specific legislative outcomes. There also needs to be an organization that goes after the far left and the far right for being the antithesis of that behavior.

So that's going to be an unpaid project. I don't want to make any money. I'm not going to be a registered lobbyist. I don't want to make any money in the... You're just going to call Joe Mansion and the two of your... Political operations. But, you know, I had an equal about a time of Pricewaterhouse, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, and IBM, and technology, media and entertainment, telecommunications, banking, and utilities.

So I'm probably going to go... And technology, AI is interesting me. I know that's an area of interest for you. I think that that industry is going to need some help to really maintain our innovation advantage that we have today. And that's an area where, short of lobbying, I think we can get the industry to provide an answer to a lot of the questions about governance and just making sure that we keep the U.S. ahead of all other, the pacing threat. had the worst reputation in the technology industry. You go, let me ask you the last question. You go into the technology industry.

What do you do for them? Well, the first thing. Because they look like villains. I know. Well, the first thing you do for them is say, guys, you got to get your act together on all of your platforms with respect to child safety and to other kinds of bad outcomes that are, they're being well-dike. You know, this is a great week to have this discussion because you've seen.

seeing the judgments. You've got to make this a safe play. I have no problem, incidentally, with having significant Australia-like controls on people under 16 using the Internet. Unless it has... Look, we agree. Yeah, it has to have some sort of a qualification process for a child to get online. Then you've got to go beyond that. My goodness, even if, you know, I heard on Judiciary Committee years ago, well, it's so hard to do the... You can't. You can't. tell me it's hard now. It's a matter of margins and will. And you need to plow some of the margins back into getting this right. Because if you don't, then it's going to slow down our tech sector. I want my tech sector to survive and thrive. I want them to out of China.

No, because they're going to be around. I think that the difference with the cigarette company, the cigarette company moment is recognizing it's going to be the end of an industry, except for the fact that The tobacco plan has a lot of other scientific uses, fortunately. But no, they're going to be around. The question is who the 800-pound guerrillas are going to be. I want them to be U.S.-based tech firms, but operating in a way that is safe for children, that's safe for business, and addresses many of the malign uses of their platforms as possible. Because there's a political, look, we've got to get our act together because state actors

and now any terrorist organization, you know, now, I mean, And it used to be you had to be a nation state to have the kind of scale to be disruptive in any of the society. Hell, now all you need is a smart dude with a computer or woman. And that's a frightening prospect. And so they have to get it under control. They have enjoyed great success. I'm glad they've returned value to the shareholders. Their shareholders should also know that they want to be aligned with companies that are responsible

and addressing some of the negative outcomes that but for the, these platforms would have never existed. So you're going into AI? Of course you are. I'm just, I don't know what I'm going to do. What they am going to do is spend more time with my wife and spend more time of my grandchildren, but I'm 65. I think I'll probably, you know have to ask you, why is it that you want to live forever? You'll have to find out. You'll have to watch it. I don't. It's a joke. It's a joke. I don't want to live forever. There's incredible, speaking of a AI, but there's so much incredible scientific progress happening. Yeah.

And it's being hindered by a lot of narcissism and not focused on everybody, just the very wealthy. And so I want to separate the Charlottanism from what's real because we can self-cancer. We can solve all manner of things. And North Carolina, obviously, in fact, be one of the bigger centers for it, given our medical. I'm watching right now. I probably shouldn't admit this on TV, but I'm watching the... Heated rivalry? No, Fallout.

Have you seen that series? No. Well, it's a really distorted outcome if we don't get this right. Is this a nuclear war thing? Well, you know, it's premised on the game fallout. I know, but I watch happy gay romance. I only watch dark. See, my wife says I go feral when I'm up here.

I watch all the dark stuff here, and I watch the happy stuff at home. All right, okay. But really, you should almost watch it. You will hate it, but you could watch it if, you know, because you talk about life extension and only certain people having privilege in the future. I could easily head and thought about it until. you made the comment, but I could easily see where you go, yep, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Yeah, I think you'll like it a lot. I'm sorry, I did ask you one question. You didn't answer.

What does the party look like after Trump? I think the party will settle back in. Like every time it'll, somebody probably asked that question during the Gilded Age. You know, somebody asked it during other periods of populism. So I, you know, I think that, you know, we go through the ebb and flow. I mean, some people probably ask that after Democrats got hammered in 2010. What does the future of the Democratic Party look like? So we go through these things. This is, I mean, these are, it's going to, it's going to depend on who steps up as a leader. If people double down on another phase of populism, if we get hit, if we double down on something that deals as a loss in November, whoever is suggesting that should by no means be the next nominee for President of the United States for the Republican Party.

You've got to learn, I mean, if we lose in large numbers beyond what the historic average would be for a midterm election after a presidential, then I want a leader that's instructed by that. And if they're not instructed by that, it's not like I'm going to go change my registration and vote for a Democrat, but I'll work on everything I can to get the kind of person that I think will turn the rudder. Yeah. So would you run for? President? No, not under any circumstances. No circumstances. I've never wanted a public job. I actually deferred on having a security detail when I was speaker because I actually thought it was silly. I never want a job that requires a security detail. All right. Because it robs my privacy. And I'm a very private, rather be in the woods than being an office person. All right, then. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Thank you.

Today's show was produced by Christian Castro-Roussel, Michelle Alloy, Catherine Millsop, Megan Bernie and Kaylin Lynch. Nishot Kerou is a Vox Media's executive producer of podcasts. Special thanks to Aymann Whalen. Our engineers are Fernando Aruta and Rick Kwan and our theme music is by trackademics. If you're already following the show, you're just in time, Tillis. If not, you're too late, Tom. Go wherever you listen to podcast, search for On with Carous Swisher, and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On With Caras Swisher from Podium Media, New York Magazine, the Vox Media podcast network and us. We'll be back on Thursday with more.