Pod Save America - What Will Democratic Governance Look Like? + Lina Khan (Crooked Con)

Episode Date: November 23, 2025

Live from Crooked Con, Alex Wagner hosts a discussion with Sen. Brian Schatz, Sen. Ruben Gallego, and Rep. Pramila Jayapal about what America would look like with Democrats in charge of one or both chambers, and how we sell Americans on that vision. Then, former FTC Chair Lina Khan joins Tommy Vietor to talk about the power of good ideas and how progressives can keep up the fight against the tech monopolies threatening to swamp America.For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode is brought to you by Z biotics pre-alcohol. Between bowl games, cold beers by the bonfire, and whiskey with the family after Thanksgiving dinner, this time of years, packed with festivities. Here is how we stay productive for the next day. It is called Zbiotics pre-alcohol probiotic. It's the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works.

When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic bribe product in the gut. It's a buildup of this byproduct and not. dehydration that is to blame for rough days after drinking. Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly and you'll feel your best tomorrow. The Zbiotics was flowing at CricketCon. Oh yeah. Everybody was taking Z-biotics. We're all saved by Z-biotics. I literally will not have a drink without it. I cannot recommend it enough, especially as we get to the holidays. Just buy a pack. Buy one pack. What's the worst that can happen? I promise you it will. It will.

help you make the most of every toast tailgate and touchdown this holiday season just don't forget to bring pre-alcohol along for the ride go to zbiotics.com slash crooked to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use crooked at checkout zbiotics is backed with 100% money-back guarantee so if you're unsatisfied for any reason they'll refund your money no questions asked remember head to zbiotics.com slash crooked use the code crooked at checkout for 15% off Hello, everybody. We are coming to you live from Cook and Khan, as the voice of God said, I am Alex Wagner. It's a great week to be doing this. It's a great week to be talking to you guys. So thank you in advance. Democrats are about to spend the next 12 months

and many squirillions of dollars trying to convince voters to give them the majority. But here's the real question. What would they do with it if they got it? That's actually what we're going to dig into today. What would America look like? I can't even say this sentence. I'm just, but what would America look like

with Democrats back in charge of one or both chambers? Just manifest it. What big ideas should define that vision? and how do you sell that vision to a country that is exhausted and divided and maybe just a little cynical about Washington. So joining me to tackle all of that are Senator Brian Chats of Hawaii down there. Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona next to me. And the inimitable Congresswoman from Milagia Paul of Washington.

So before we get to the... the sort of meat of the issue. I do, as a matter of housekeeping, I have to bring up sort of where we sit right now. And the two senators on the panel, I would ask you, there has been some renewed optimism and enthusiasm in the Democratic Party because of the victories sizable this week. And it has led some people to say,

maybe we shouldn't just set our sights on the House turning blue in 2026. Maybe we should think about the Senate turning blue. And I ask you, as creatures of the upper chamber, is that misplaced optimism should Democrats try and envision a near-term future where the Senate falls back into democratic control? Brian, why don't you start? First of all, thank you for having me very exciting. I can't see any of you, but it sounds very loud. And so, yeah, I think it is reasonable to have optimism.

And here's the way I would look at it. I mean, I can take you through all the races, but that's not the purpose of this panel. We have, statistically speaking, we have roughly the same chance of taking the Senate that we did before John Ossoff and Raphael Warnock gave us the majority in the Senate. So nobody knows what's going to happen, but I think Tuesday just increased the likelihood that we're going to be able to recruit excellent candidates. We already have two seats that I think we are actually favored to win. That obviously doesn't get us all the way to a majority, but we just, just are going to need one or two more after Maine. We've got to win Maine. We've got to win North Carolina. After that, there are multiple pathways. And I wouldn't have said that three

months ago. I would have said, there's still a chance, but I wouldn't have said multiple pathways because we have got some excellent candidates already. And we've also got a couple of candidates that I think are going to announce that can really do this for us. Close the deal. Okay. Senator Gallego, how are you thinking about the I've always thought about we have no choice. Democrats have to win. We have to keep winning because we're about to hit some really hard periods, right? What does that look like?

Well, in about 2033, 2034, Social Security is not going to pay 100% of its benefit, right? If you don't have a Democratic held Senate, White House, and House, you're going to see these Republicans screw Social Security, right? We have Medicare that is also going to start running out. What do you think they're going to do if we don't have control of all three? will find a way to screw Medicare. This is what they've been trying to do forever. They would love nothing more to be able to have it. And if they have the opportunity, they will do it, right? So we have no choice but to put some Senate seats on the board that maybe we're not even close to what we hadn't even thought about. But I do see some inklings of hope, not just

in some places. Like in Iowa, man, if you go out to Iowa and talk to some of these voters who've been voting Republican for a while, they are ticked, or ticked about the economy, they're ticked about the fact that they have no markets to sell their stuff. They're ticked about health care being slash in these rural areas. You have some great candidates running, but we have to figure out how to start winning in places that we aren't normally winning

because that's how you end up governing, and we have to figure out how to govern, which is, I guess, is what we're all here talking about. Oh, yeah. We'll go into that later then. Congressman Maja, Paul, the House seems distinctly within grasp when we know that because Donald Trump is trying to use every lever at his disposal

to ensure that Democrats don't get a Some of them, I would argue, undemocratic. We look at what Speaker Johnson is doing, refusing to seat Adelaide Grahalva, which also seems like something that is unconstitutional. I don't know. And I guess when you think about a Democratic majority in 2026 in the House, are you worried that Republicans may decide to just not hand the gavel over? I mean, I feel like we are now being forced to reckon with ideas.

that previously seemed unthinkable, right? Like, they, if it's a narrow majority, what says that Speaker Johnson just doesn't decide not to seat the people that won? Yeah, I mean, hi, everybody. It's good to be here. Look, I think we shouldn't take anything off the table. We all live through January 6th.

We know what happened there. We've been living through the last, you know, nine months and seeing things that we thought were untenable that we would never see, including incredible violence towards our people in cities across this country in different ways, violence on health care, violence on immigration, violence in so many places. And so I don't think that we should go into something scared, but I think we should be prepared. And the best way to be prepared is to make sure we are doing the work on the ground.

And just like Rubin said, we've got incredible candidates in multiple people. places across the country. We just endorsed an incredible young woman named Afton Ben in Tennessee, and I think it's a special election. And I think we have a chance. Yes, it's a Trump plus 20 district, but you know what, after what happened on Tuesday night. And in a special, I think we have to show power and hope to win, but show power, because that's how you build for the next one. But also, I'm going to Iowa and Nebraska next week. We've got incredible candidates. there, including John Kavanaugh, who we endorsed in Nebraska. So I think that this is the work that we have to do, and it is absolutely illegal, undemocratic,

unconstitutional to gerrymander districts, but it's all Donald Trump knows how to do, is to cheat, to win. And so we've got to make sure that we are preparing, and I think what California did with Prop 50, was incredibly important because it just shows we're not going to take a butter knife to a gunfight, even though I speak from nonviolence. But it really shows that we're going to force them to, we're going to play on the same playing field. And when we get power back, we've got to make it all fair again, right? We have to figure out how to have real voting rights that people can rely on.

no gerrymandered districts, all those things we've got to do. But right now, we've got to fight them on the same battlefield. And we've got to make sure that we are doing the work in every place. And I think the house, we feel like there's a real possibility of doing that. And certainly looking at Tuesday night, thank you everybody for Tuesday night. I think that just gives us, it's like the first time we were saying to somebody, it's like the first time we've kind of felt a little bit of joy in our step when we answer the question, how are you doing?

You know, because usually we say, good, good, how are you doing? Like, can we move on from that question? But now we're like, good, I'm good, because of how people took power into their own hands at the voting box. Okay. I think, you know, to some degree this should answer itself, but there is a, you know, there are plenty of people in this country who think of power and they think of it almost uniformly as being held in the executive branch, which is understandable, seeing as we have

an autocrat in power. But the balance of power in the legislative branch really truly matters. So, Senator Schatz, if you could, like, do you have a 30-second sales pitch to why a Democratic majority in the Senate matters? The courts. The courts. And more broadly to constrain Trump, and more broadly, if we do take power to actually effectuate a bunch of policy, which I know is eventually going to be the topic of this conversation, but to the extent that we've been able to constrain Donald Trump's lawlessness, it has been through the federal court system. Yesterday's ruling in Chicago was someone we confirmed, all of these decisions that have been made, that have been, you know, compelling this administration to release the

snap money, that have constrained the unlawful deployment of troops and National Guards folks to American cities. All of that is because of judges that we churned through. And I get that that is not my most enjoyable part of the job where we're just sort of sitting in post-closure time and just voting I, I, I, I. But now that body of work is really some of the best infrastructure of democracy. So courts, courts, courts.

And by the way, if we do not take the Senate, I am very certain that we will see an Alito and a time. Thomas retirement and some Mike Lee staffer who's 32 ending up on the SCOTUS for a full generation. Yeah. I'm not kidding. Well, I think you could see those retirements maybe at the end of this term even before there's a chance for voters to decide. But then, of course, you could follow the Mitch McConnell playbook and say, we got to wait until there's an election. Just kidding.

I mean, or not. Senator Gallego, I wonder, do you, like, if you're making the pitch to working class voters in Arizona, are you using the courts argument? Use something else. What's the third? what's the 30 what's what's your elevator pitch for why senate majority matters because this administration the republicans are making you sicker and poor it's in everything they're doing they're just making you sicker and poor inflation's up you're poor medicaid's being cut you're sicker a ACA extension's going to cut off you know 24 million people from affordable health insurance

four million Americans are going to lose health insurance if we don't do the ACA extension sicker you keep going on up and down sicker and poor making sicker and sicker poor, right? That's what they're doing. What we're going to do, we're going to make you healthy and wealthier. Very simple. And then just go right into the policy positions what that is. By the way, courts do matter. Don't get me wrong. Different strokes for different folks. But let's win and then do that, right? Hawaii is a different state. Congressman Jaiapal, the same question, but for a house majority, why does it matter? Yeah, it's all, it's similar to Rubens. It's all about affordability.

You know, you've got to be able to live. And people in the, this country, it is rigged for billionaires, for the wealthiest people at the top, and 80% of people can't put food on the table, can't get health insurance, can't afford their housing, can't afford their child care. This is an administration that rigs things for the billionaire buddies, and we have to work for the people. I'm impressed that they really were like 30-second pitches. That was just kind of a framing mechanism. We care about the courts, too. I mean, we really care about the kids. Senator's really tight.

I guess let's just get to the get-in. Okay, let's assume you get the majority, and I'll ask each one of you to weigh on to this. What is the first piece of the business you tackle, and why? Senator Schatz, I'd start with you. Well, I think the first business is the business in front of us, which is the extension of the ACA tax credits, and if they don't do that, that would be my first piece of business.

we're either going to succeed or not succeed in the next, whatever it is, two months on this question of the ACA subsidies. And, you know, I know people personally who are facing a $1,200, $1,200 monthly increase, and they just literally can't do that. So that's the fight in front of us. And whether or not Trump sees that it is in his interest to solve this problem, I don't know. But if we are unable to solve this problem, we have to have a mechanism to have a mechanism to have this health care fight live outside, inside, but also outside of the context of a government shutdown, because that is an animating force because it's become a bit of a proxy for everything. It is the health care fight, but the reason that people are now starting to trust us on the

question of cost is that we're out there fighting on the question of cost. So it goes to food, it goes to electricity, it goes to electronics, it goes to toys, it goes to building materials, it goes to labor, everything is getting more expensive. and that is not some like fiscal or monetary policy thing. That is an intentional strategy of the Trump administration, which is to turn the dial up and the basic premise is that regular people have it too easy and we need to create a little scarcity.

That is their actual view. Can I do ask a follow-up just because we are obviously in the middle of the government shutdown? Thank you, John Thune, for not scheduling a vote right now so that we could have you guys here. It's the only thing I'll thank him for, yeah, right? Okay. But if a deal is not made,

on federal subsidies, which I hope is not the thing that comes to pass. Do you think that will be a reason why the Senate turns blue if it does turn blue in November? I don't want to go that far because we're in the middle of this fight because we're fighting for these 24 million people. And I don't want to contemplate what happens if we fail to do that. I think we have to be in this fight. I think we have to see it through. I think the Tuesday election has given some Republicans pause about the question of the ACA subsidies.

I do think that, A, they thought we were going to cave immediately. B, they kind of thought this was a talking point. They thought that we were cooking up the ACA increases, and now an increasing number of them, House and Senate, I think, is true. On the Republican side are starting to kind of noodle around on, like, we kind of thought you were just like, you know, trying to inflame things,

but now my constituents are getting their letter. So this thing is real, and I think we do have a pathway to solve it. Obviously, it is just a truism in politics, which is you try to win the policy fight, And then if you don't win the policy fight, you turn it into an electoral issue so you can win it in the next round. But I don't want to lose this policy fight. We'll start with the, and Godspeed on that policy fight. Congressman Jayapal, what's the first order of business the House should take up?

Should Hakeem Jeffries get the gavel, assuming it's... Well, he is going to get the gavel, and we are going to make him Speaker of the House. Is this... There's two scenarios here. One is the House gets a majority. Let's just say you have the House and Senate. Okay. All right.

Great. I love that. So if we have the House and the Senate, I think about this in three ways. One, we have to deliver on affordability. And to me, that is childcare, it's housing, and it's health care. Those three things. And we would have done two of them, you know, back when you and I were talking about this on MSN. Back in a lot.

Four times. Yes, in those days. But those three things we've got to deliver on. There's a second bucket, which is around structural reforms. We've got to fix the Voting Rights Act. We have to. We have to. We have to deal in some way with the money in politics.

And to Brian's point, we also have to deal with the Supreme Court. And so I think those three things, and I would put in immigration reform in here could be either in the first or in the second, but we need to stop allowing people to use immigrants against us. And we need to stand up for immigrants across this country. And then the third is one I really have been struggling with, but I think we have to do it. It's something around the accountability of the pain and the lawlessness of this administration. Oh. And I don't have the answer yet around what these things are. but there's a bucket here, and it does involve accountability around January 6th, for sure.

But it also, like, we've been a country that I think a lot of us, me included, thought had a lot more in place to stop a lawless authoritarian. And what I've realized is we have a lot more norms and a lot fewer actual tools. And so we've been doing a lot of thinking in the house with Jamie Raskin and others on the Judiciary Committee about what are the structural change what's the what are the changes we need to make so that we can get that kind of accountability and then what is the process we have to go through for the country to heal and for us to actually be able to come together but for people who have been wronged to really feel like we're addressing that so that's much more complicated the first two I feel like I'm pretty clear but I would have it was a kind of like

an easter egg in there when you said we need to do something about the Supreme Court does that mean add some seats? I mean, in my view, yes. But also, that is not a crazy liberal idea that's unprecedented. It's been done numerous times in the country's history where we've expanded the court to match the expansion of the population. But also, Elizabeth Warren and I have an ethics and accountability act for the Supreme Court. Why is it that the highest court in the land does not have any kind of an enforceable ethics standard? And so you can have a bunch of people just paying for RVs and luxury vacations and all kinds of things and then going and arguing cases before the Supreme Court.

And it is so obviously corrupt. And when that corruption shows through to the people, it is a very dangerous time if people lose faith. in the highest court in the land, and that's happening right now. So under John Roberts' watch. So I think we've got to fix that, and we've got to make sure that we have real accountability and real ethics standards for people that are going to be the ultimate judge

of the law of the land in this country for life. Senator Gallego. Well, you should always dance with the person and brings you to the dance, right? What's going to bring us to victory in the Senate and the House is going to be cost of living and just in general, people's feeling of inability to actually feel comfortable

of what they're making. I think what we do first is going to brand the Democrats going also into 2028. And everything they're saying is very important. Don't get me wrong. I totally agree with that. We should do all that. But I think the first thing we should do is pass a...

They know me. They've known me for a while. Including health care, housing, and child care. Yeah, really important. It's all important. All that shit. Anyway, also. All the shit.

But I think actually we should do something very basic. We should pass a minimum wage increased. To $20 an hour. And we should, and one bill, $20 an hour. And it should be pegged to growth with inflation. So we never find ourselves in a situation right now. We're working class people. are basically doing poverty wages, right?

And that's when we start seeing those voters, those working class voters that we lost. Like, oh, that's the Democrats. That's who I remember. And then watch the Republicans argue against that. Then watch this president veto it or not veto it and then have them get into an internal fight. But then we're known as the people

that took care of working class people and having higher wages. And then it's easier for us than to roll into affordable housing, into health care, everything else like that. But let's hit the right tone, the right way to make sure it really sets us up for success going forward. Just to point out, we did pass a $15 minimum wage back in 2012 in city of Seattle, highest minimum wage in the country. We were the first state in the country in Washington to index minimum wage to inflation.

and it's why Washington State keeps winning, to Rubin's point, it's why Washington State keeps winning and the only state that didn't go red this last election. And why you keep winning. That too. This episode is brought to you by ORA frames. Do you have a hilarious bad gifting story that still haunts you this day? Have you ever re-gifted something and then got caught? Tommy, have you ever done a re-gift?

I don't think I've ever gotten busted on a re-gift. I've definitely done the, like, oh, my God, I just completely forgot to get a thing for Mom. It's Christmas morning. I feel like the worst son in the world kind of thing. Someone got me as a gift, a thank you gift, a collection of Woody Allen DVDs years ago. And I remember being like, oh, this is,

I thoughtful to get me something. you really didn't have to also i just uh um should just google yeah about it yeah google him maybe not the best story for an aura frames ad but that's what happened every frame from aura comes packaged in a premium gift box with no price tag so there's no gift wrapping necessary if you want to personalize your gift you can add a message before it arrives you can upload unlimited photos and video to your frame for free just download the aura app but connect to wifi it only takes about two minutes to set up a frame using the or app the app allows you to share photos and videos effortlessly at any time straight from your phone. You can't wrap

togetherness, but you can frame it. And ORAFram is such a great gift for family members. You can load it up with nice family pictures and memories, then send it to somebody, and then they can put it out, and they can, like, have a really kind of sweet thing all the time, you know? For limited time, visit AuraFrames.com and get $45 off, ORA's best-selling Carver Matt Frames, named number one by wirecutter by using code Crooked at checkout. That's A-U-R-A-Frames.com promo code Crooked. This exclusive Black Friday Cyber Monday deal is the best of the year. So order now before it ends. Support the show by mentioning us at checkout. Terms and conditions apply.

This episode is brought to you by Incogni. We live in a world where personal information is more accessible than ever, sometimes a little too accessible. Data brokers collect and sell your private details, your name, home address, phone number, even your browsing habits without you ever knowing. That's where Incogni comes in. It works behind the scenes to remove your data from these databases. reducing your exposure to marketers, scammers, and anyone else who might use it without your consent. Your privacy should be yours to control. Take back your information with Incogni today. Think of Incogni as your personal digital cleanup crew, sweeping your data off the internet while you sit back and scroll through the memes.

All you need to do is sign up, give them permission to act on your behalf, and they go out and demand that data brokers delete your personal info. Incogni will automatically and continually monitor your data privacy without you ever having to lift a finger. Incogny has also launched a new feature called Custom Data Removals. available in their unlimited plan. It allows you to send in any link from any site that exposes your data, and then Incogni's privacy professionals will go after it. No bots, no forums, just real people making your data disappear. This is especially useful for removing records from places like legal databases or people

search engines that don't play nice with traditional opt-outs. Right now, you can get 60% off their annual plans by heading to incogni.com slash PSA and use the code PSA at checkout. It's also completely risk-free. Incogni offers a 30-day money-back guarantee if you're not satisfied with them removing your personal information off the internet. Live free from dangerous spam by using Incogni. That's I-N-C-O-G-N-I.com slash PSA. Code PSA for 60% off their annual plans. What, and I'll ask all of you guys this, what is the biggest threat to being able to enact that

agenda? And it doesn't have to be Trump. I mean, I just wonder if you think they're structural issues if you want to talk about the filibuster the filibuster i got i got this what's that i mean my my one answer the filibuster the filibuster let's talk about that let's talk about that are we reaching the point now or it's time to get rid of it like are we gone the republicans have already changed the filibuster rules twice this since i've been there it's convenient like and for those who speaks spous when they use the excuse like oh now they want the filibuster now they want to fill They just changed how we do nominations, how we do, you know, now, I think last week we voted for like 30, like, nominees and one vote. So they've done this already, right?

It's just that we end up the ones that screw ourselves, right? Why haven't we gotten immigration reform? Because we used to have two or three dem senators and said, I'm not going to join you. You know, why didn't we get, you know, more effective things done last time? Because Sinamon Mansion would not, you know, overlook some of the, would work with the Republicans to stop things. such as, by the way, anti-gerrymandering legislation when we tried to pass that last cycle. So it's all bullshit to begin with.

And the other thing is, why don't we have a living wage because it's still pegged at $7.25 federally because of the filibuster. Now, when I go and talk to a person and I say, like, why haven't you done anything about the minimum wage? I say, well, you know, there's this filibuster. It's not really in the Constitution.

It's actually a rule of the Senate. Do you think they give a fuck about that? They don't. And we look, and we look so ineffectual all the time on every issue. So, you know, and you're going to hear the other side, well, what happens when they take over? Well, I believe in the battle of ideas, if we can effectively push our programs, our ideas, our policies actually take care of people, we'll always win those battle of ideas. Well, and also, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, but my friend Chris Hayes and I were talking about this on my podcast, runaway country on Crooked Media. and he was making the point that, like, part of the reason it's so easy for these Trump Republicans in the Senate to capitulate to Trump and pledge field to is because they don't actually have to take a vote on any of this stuff, right?

And, like, if you actually made them put their money where their mouths are, because, you know, it's simple majority vote, like, maybe you'd have more resistance. I don't know. Maybe that's optimistic thinking, but... No, I mean, I think that, you know, we know all the stuff about the filibuster and how it's a legacy of Jim Crow. why have they kept it in place theoretically? Because what Ruben said is right. They've taken it away for the budget, right? If they can pass their tax breaks, they can

do their Supreme Court nominations, whatever. They've done it already. But it benefits them. That's the reason they're keeping it. What I don't understand is why we keep it. Because it doesn't benefit us at all. And it literally gives... It doesn't benefit working class of men.

That's what I mean. It doesn't benefit... They're not Democrats. It doesn't benefit the people that we are trying to serve. By the way, it doesn't benefit the people they are trying to serve either because they have states that passed a $15 minimum wage and voted for Donald Trump. So minimum wage, affordable child care, housing, these are not Republican or Democratic issues. They are issues across the country. People are suffering.

That's why income inequality is so high. That's why you can use all kinds of wedges to divide people because they can't put food on their table. So I do think that we have to just wake up and realize that they've already gotten rid of it for the things that they want, and they've kept it so that they can continue to gerrymander, not pass voting rights, not pass minimum wage, not pass the things that benefit their billionaire buddies. And we should be really clear that that should be the first thing we get done, because otherwise we're going to be having the same freaking policy or sort of esoteric discussions about how some unelected parliamentarian refused to agree to allow us to put the minimum wage

into a reconciliation bill. What part of that does anyone in America understand? You know, they want to know. Did you increase the minimum wage or did you not? If we are able to pass those things, that is actually the only thing that saves our democracy because people will start to feel the effects of it on day one. And that will mean they have faith again in government that we don't say we're going to fight for something and then we give them a bunch of process arguments about why we can't do it.

You know, that's what failed process votes are about. It's like, well, really sorry, can't do it. No, we got to deliver on the stuff, and if there are structural barriers that stop us, we need to actually look at them because they're only benefiting the wealthiest in this country, and they're allowing 80% of this country to not be able to afford to live. And that's not the America that we believe in. Senator Schatz, are you going to be the voice of reason advocating for the survival of the Holocaust?

I don't know. No, look, I think I'll just add one thing in addition to, I mean, I agree with you that what we need to do is focus on things that people understand. And then as a kind of side effect of that, we say there was an impediment and we got through it. Whether that impediment was an individual senator who was resistant or a Senate rule or or procedure, like no one's interested in what the impediment was. They're interested in us delivering.

I will say one other thing that we can, where we could stumble is if we get a little too precious in our first couple of months about who's kind of first in line and what goes in the package. And some of the kind of machinations around buildback better was exactly that. Like we got, we tried to accomplish so much that it's like cooking. Like a lot of ingredients are good. Not all of the ingredients are good in the same dish. And so we're going to have to be pretty disciplined, and I love Rubin's sort of approach,

which is like we need to pick the most explainable, most palpable things on the front end. And all of those kind of structural reforms as it relates to the bones of democracy are just as important, but they may not be first out of the gate because they're not as resonant, frankly, as the cost of living. The reason people are pissed, the reason we lost last year and the reason we won on Tuesday is the same reason. everything's too expensive and people are furious about it and that's what we need to focus on what he said but prettier what i said but he said it prettyer i was like oh you're going to say it prettier uh one one reason that everything got put into that is again procedural right we had this like weird thing called reconciliation that nobody understood but it was like the one way that

we could get certain things done with 50 votes which was the only way we could accomplish and now this isn't so i think that it goes back to why all of us all of us said the get rid of the filibuster because we can't deliver on the rest of the agenda if we don't do that but just like i would say the one thing like because i was in the house and i remember with a billback better agenda i'm like why are we doing this so complicated it's this plus this like can we just get people money like that's what that's what trump did it's like oh yeah man here's a thousand dollars here's Trump, like, okay, people are hurting right now. Like, why don't we just extend the child tax credit, you know, for another two years?

And then, because we had a couple of cracks at reconciliation, right, and said we did it all. I'm like one thing. We should have just done quickly, again, my little marine brain is, is, works, you know, from A to B, which is like, first thing to do, do something that's going to be very popular, and then work on all the other nerdy shit. But one thing about that, it has to be popular for everybody. I mean, one thing about our definitions of, like, who qualifies for certain things, it's all by 400% of the poverty limit, right?

And so if we say universal child care, right, where it's for everybody, because there are people who are just over the line. So I do think we've got to think about these universal programs versus ones that just lift up people below a certain poverty line. No, I mean, I agree. I absolutely agree. It's also easier to administer. And also, like, you know, depending where you are. are a family making $100,000 is barely making it nowadays.

That's minimum wage. $80,000, at least in Arizona, a family of three making $8,000 is middle class, but they're barely making it. So, like, I do think that there is a universal programs that actually help people work out the best. Help me understand. I mean, there seems to be some unanimity on the question of affordability being a priority. Obviously, you guys each have separate recommendations.

just in terms of the dynamics inside the Senate and the House, in terms of Democrats actually having their together and listening and speaking with one voice, right now it's easier. You're the minority party, and there's a despot in the White House, and it's just a sort of reactionary stance in a lot of ways. But if it does come back where you're holding the gavel, where you guys are running the show, do you think things have changed enough

that Democrats can operate with sort of more nimbly and more effectively with the power that? they're given compared to the last time around. I mean, what are the dynamics like? You guys, I'll start with the senators, because you're in a big fight right now. And there's been a little reporting this week about, you know, some factions splitting off. Thus far, we've presented mostly a united front to the public. But do you feel like the Democratic caucus is, I guess, more unified, more together,

more cohesive and can stay that way if you got power back again? And please answer honestly. No, I think... Go ahead, Rubin. So, the answer is, yes, we are... I think we're totally in alignment about affordability, and I think there is a creeping realization of the kind of, that part of the problem

of the Biden accomplishments was its complexity and difficulty in implementation. And that created like multiple political problems because people didn't feel anything and some of it wasn't just a matter of it being delayed implementation some of it frankly never ended up happening yeah and so i was kind of because i felt that universal basic income for instance was like being proposed by a bunch of tech titans who wanted an excuse to eviscerate

employment and just say we should just do this thing because that way i can wave away this problem so i was very resistant to ubi but the thing that changed my mind was both the kind of failure of implementation of at least part of ARP and part of IRA and all those things just kind of didn't happen fast enough but also back home during COVID we set up a bunch of programs but everyone I ran into was like it was the checks man it was the cash money and so I'm not saying that's the only solution but that is an example of like specificity palpability speed and so it is true that we care about institutions and norms and laws and all that stuff. We really do care about that. But if we make an argument in this election cycle or any election cycle in the next 10 years, that we are going to

restore the status quo, we are going to get smoked again and again and again. And so when we do progressive policy, we should err on the side of no new programs, no new programs, nothing that has to go through the Administrative Procedures Act, all self-executing, all right away you feel And I guess just like I'm I also think like there's there's there used to be this feeling I think that you're insulated as a senator right because we're off every six years it's very hard to knock us one of us off I think the the Democratic I guess I did I forgot about that but they're humble brag not humble actually Yes, it is a brag. But I think there is a real understanding that Democrats and our supporters, because there's an independent support Democrats, want to see results, and they're just not going to be happy with somebody with the D

and nothing happens, and that you're going to have problems going and winning a primary or even winning in general if you don't seem like you're actually effectively doing something to make people's lives better. And I think that would put a lot of pressure on us as a caucus to make sure that we're actually doing the things my friend Brian is talking about. Can I, I should note that Nancy Pelosi has decided that she is stepping down, retiring after many years leading the House.

And I wonder, as you think about the House as a sort of cohesive organism with regards to the Democrats, like, first of all, just how instrumental it was to have someone like that in leadership. I mean, the ACA wouldn't have been passed without Nancy Pelosi, right? And just someone who's been managing a very ideologically diverse coalition on the left and sort of like the perils that lay ahead for the House, because all respect to the Senate, you guys are the ones most likely to return to power in 2026, right? So, like, what does that mean for the current House dynamics and a new generation of leadership?

Well, she, I mean, she is a remarkable leader. Like, I don't, I just think she's an incredible organizer. She is, you know, she, she understands power in a way that her experience and, you know, she's served a long time too, right? So she knows all the procedures. She's been through this before. And so I think she was, and she is, she gets how to get people on board as somebody who has gone through that when I, when I didn't. fall in line. So I say it with tremendous affection, gratitude, and respect, because I respect an organizer

who knows how to get things done, and that is what she is. And I think that, you know, a lot of times, like, we're very proud, and you served in the house too, right? No. Okay. So Ruben knows it. I lost my house race. You know, we like to, we like to, we are closest to the people.

It's called the People's House. We're very proud of that because we have to run every two years. And so I think we're constantly much more in tune in some ways with what the today problem is. And I really do think that we've been able to do amazing things in the House under Pelosi's leadership. It will be so under the next speaker's leadership as well. The problem has been that everything, forgive me, colleagues, the Senate, the August Senate, where all good things go to die. So that's what we have to change, and I think that's what we're all saying, is things are getting blocked, and people don't care what the reason is, you have to be able to deliver. And it's not enough just to say, hey, I'm fighting hard for you.

No, what are you delivering for us? And the other thing I want to say just about, because I think it's important to learn from the lessons, yes, we need to have simple programs, all of those things. But listen, we took the easy way out. We went for low-hanging infrastructure bill. We should never have divorced it from the housing, child care, the rest of it. And I'm not trying to relive things, but I'm just saying we have to be willing to take some big risks and do some big things. Because, yes, people care about roads and bridges. But you know what?

My union members can't get out to build them because they can't get child care. So we've got to just we need to think about what people need to live in a different way. And I think that's why it's so important. You know, it was called soft infrastructure, hard infrastructure, all this stuff. We just need to think about what's the bills you've got to pay at the end of the day. And how do we make those bills less? And what programs can we put in place right away? Let's not spend a year and a half to deliver the,

stuff that had the prescription drug pricing, the, you know, the housing, all of those things in it. That didn't get done until two years into the term. What would have happened if we delivered? And then the prescription drug price stuff didn't even go into effect until the new administration for the most part, some important things before that. So let's just be strategic about what we do first. Do hard things. We can do hard things. And let's make sure that they are getting done quickly. Yeah. I mean, can I, I guess one of the other things I like to point out is that let's not lie to ourselves because the big lie around infrastructure

is like, this is really going to get people jazz. And I remember talking to the Biden people and talking to other time and it's like, no, it's not. It's not going to fucking, not going to do it. It's like, it's not going to get people excited because it's going to take forever to get built and I'm going to be going to know who did it. But it's like, it's not, I'm sure you think that's a case,

but lying to yourself does not mean that lie it's actually going to come true, right? But we kept saying it, they kept saying, I'm like, it's not going to happen, it's not going to happen. And we all knew it. And we all knew it. And we also like, and what do we all do? We're like, well, I guess we're doing infrastructure.

It's the easiest thing to get done. Believe me. Just trust us. We know better in the Senate. We'll send it over to you and jam you so that you have to send it back to us. It was just really crazy. Like, we just can't lie to us. I got some anger.

Just don't, just don't, just don't, just don't. We, when we're in, cannot lie to ourselves to believe that's actually going to effectively actually changed the politics it was it was crazy to see and it was our entire caucus it wasn't just progressives it was across the war like everybody thought it was a bad idea together i mean we really did we did incredible work

you know and and i always try to remind people wasn't the majority of the democratic caucus 99% of us wanted to get that passed and we let two people block us and that was a huge mistake and now we have reuben geigo in the arizona states Arizona Center. I think I know the answer to this, but is there an issue

that you definitely do not think you should start with? I feel like you've said infrastructure is not where you want to start if you get power back, but Senator Shatsy be quiet. This might be mildly unpopular. I'm not sure.

But I actually think all this democracy reform stuff is not your lead argument. And I think that that doesn't mean that it's not essential. And as I rack and say, you know, there's things in your life that are the most important thing. That doesn't mean it's the thing you're doing this morning.

And I think the sequencing very much matters. And people are listening for cues and clues as to whether this Democratic Party gets it. And if the message in the midterms is like, everything's too fucking expensive, will you please fix this? And then we start talking about gerrymandering and all the rest of it.

Like, it's really essential. I care very deeply about it. And, you know, my buddy, the former governor of Hawaii, who appointed me to the Senate, used to say, people vote for you for their reasons, not yours. And so the reason we are going to win next year and three years from now is because Donald Trump has made everything more expensive on purpose,

and we have to be laser-focused on reversing that. I was going to follow up. I was going to say, yeah, isn't it just like a senator to not give a shit about gerrymandering? I was just, I was just going to. Isn't it just like a senator? I was hoping you would see me putting up my hand not to disagree in the sense that, aren't I diplomatic, in the sense that we have to deliver something immediately that affects everybody's cost of living. Like, I really believe that.

However, the pace at which we work matters. And we cannot talk about the gerrymandering and the Voting Rights Act in ways that are, there are people across this country who are going to have less of a vote than even what the founders put into the Constitution, right? And so I think we've got to be really clear that this is not a year two thing. We actually have to have a very quick, and I don't think Brian was saying that. I just think we have to be very quick at what we get done, and we have to make sure that those structural things are at the top because they are affecting massive amounts of black and brown people

who are literally getting their votes stolen away from them. and we just we are not a democracy if we don't allow people you know with black and brown skin to vote but why why can't we be pushing a minimum wage increase vote and the same time do the

anti-jerrymanding bill like we have multiple you have to pick one why do we have to pick one that's the craziest part this actually did happen like during when I was they're like, oh, we've got to do HR1 first, and then we'll go, we're like, why? Why can we be going at the same time? And then maybe we talk more about minimum wage, and then Jerryman, it's the craziest effing thing. You know, Donald Trump has been able to clap this so much, because they had laws written even before they got into office through Project 2025, right?

We should be ready with Project 2029, which is, as soon as we get in there, these are the things we're going to pass. So they were not, we're not in, like, you know, what happened with the ACA and what happened. We're in there for months and months talking about a compromise bill that we're compromising among ourselves. And then the American public is wondering like, why the hell aren't you guys doing anything? I am hurting right now when all we have to do is pass a couple simple bills they should have already pre-agreed to. So that's what I'm saying. We should do the anti-Germanian bill the same time you're running like a pro worker, pro family bill and just let them all go and just move them as fast as possible.

I do wonder just to actually follow up instead of making a snide remark about you not wanting gerrymandering at the top of your list. Just because this week we saw eight million Californians come out on the issue of gerrymandering. Like I am old enough to remember my career in television when I was like, don't do segments on gerrymandering because nobody knows what the fuck you're talking about. And now it's like you can have an off-year election with nobody on the ballot and eight million Californians will come out to do something that is, you know, counter to everything that Democrats have been told is the right thing. And to me, that, that, you know, is an exhibition of

the sophistication of the American public, how engaged they are in efforts to curb democracy and a representative democracy. And I just, I wonder if you think the landscape has changed at all a little bit on that front when you think about issues of democracy in the sort of post-Trump era? Yeah, I think so, but I don't think it, I don't think it takes away the basic sort of, and this is tactics, right? This is the basic tactical point, which is even as these things become more understandable, more talked about among normal people, all of that is true, and I don't think we should run away from that either on the policy or the politics. I'm just saying that it is not a trivial thing, that no matter my temptation to talk about the courts, which I made

a mistake to do the first time. But no matter all of our collective temptation to talk about the things that are, frankly, that we think are more important in the end, right, in the sweep of history, that again, people vote for you for their reasons, not yours. And I do think it matters very much that we collectively have the discipline to say, yes, I'm going to fight against gerrymandering. Yes, we're going to do democracy reforms. And to your point, Jamie Raskin and others and Dick Blumenthal and Sheldon Whitehouse are going

to think about how to constrain a future. executive from doing a lot of these unlawful things, or at least un-American things, that seem to be between the lines and where the statutes and the Constitution permits. All of that is super essential. I just think that if we want to really respect the voter, and some of this is about that as much as it is about people's material condition, it's like there was just a sense that it was a bunch of privileged people talking about a bunch of stuff that, was not relatable and and I think Ruben has been not to not to do all the senator stuff where we kiss each other's ass but but but Ruben has been I think a real breath of fresh air in terms of his

laser focus on like people he knows people he still hangs out with and we have to basically stay there with people even if our temptation is to get into you know my housing reform bill or my next climate action, all of that is all enabled by our singular focus on, you're just paying too much for everything, and we're going to be laser focus on fixing that. So I don't think this is either or. I think it matters the sequence in which we do it. And then we may be passing a bunch of gerrymandering reforms, and we may find out that that is compelling for people in this room and not for the rest of the public. And that's okay, right? Like winning is the thing. And that's what this is about.

This episode is brought to you by AG1. The holidays are upon us. I know that because everybody at the Starbucks this morning was in a red, they got the red jumper ready for them. Oh, yeah. I'd say, you know, it's holiday time. Do you say your name is Santa, just to own them? I said my name is Hanukkah Harry.

You got to say one scoop ahead during the holidays because you're going to be eating poorly and sleeping poorly. Staying up late, trying to catch an immigrant from the North Pole. Crowded airports is darkness, holiday meals, a lot of stress. That's why you need AG1s, antioxidants, probiotics, functional mushrooms, superfoods, vitamins, micronutrients, enzymes. You got to have those. It's great to start your day with something healthy, like a smoothie with fruit and vegetables and protein and greens. And AG1 is a great way to help you do that.

True all the time, but especially during the holidays. So head to drinkag1.com slash crooked to get a free welcome kit with an AG1 flavor sampler and a bottle of vitamin D3 plus K2 when you first subscribe. That's drinkag1.com slash crooked. This episode is brought to you by Hymns, according to the National Institutes of Health. It's hard out there for a man. We're apparently not that hard for 30 million men in the U.S. experiencing ED. It's more common than a bad night's sleep, the good news.

Hymns makes getting access to treatment simple so you could feel like yourself again. Either try this or join ice. Without the stress or awkwardness. Through Hymns, you can access personalized prescription treatment options for E.T. Like Hard Mints and Sex RX plus Climax Control, if prescribed. Hymns offers access to ED treatment options ranging from trusted generics that cost 95% less than brand names to hard mints, if prescribed. You shouldn't have to go out of your way to feel like yourself. Hymns brings expert care straight to you with one.

100% online access to personalized treatment plans that put your goals first. This isn't one-size-fits-all care that forgets you in the waiting room. It's their health and your goals put first with real medical providers, making sure you get what you need to get results. Think of Hymns as your digital front door that gets your back to your old self with simple 100% online access to trusted treatments for ED and more all in one place. To get simple, online access to personalize affordable care for ED weight loss and more, visit Hymns.com slash crooked. That's Hymns.com slash crooked for your free online vision. Visit Hymns.com slash crooked. Actual price will depend on product and subscription plan.

Featured products include compounded drug products, which the FDA does not approve or verify for safety, effectiveness or quality, prescription required. See website for details, restrictions and important safety information. I have to ask a question that may seem mansion-esque. But is there, you know, if you, yeah,

the this is in the audience. Don't say his name. He'll appear in a cloud of smoke. Much respect to you, Senator, wherever you are. I know. I just meant like in the world. I meant in the world. Yeah. I know he's alive.

I saw him two weeks ago in person. Is there a space where you could envision either in the House or the Senate working with the White House on something? And if so, what would that be? like stunned the faces went blank oh no i mean like look if the white house comes to me right now says ribbon i heard you want to do 20 bucks an hour minimum wage increase i would do it okay wait like okay fine yes of course what would mean okay fine you literally asked me i'm pretty i mean like in the world of earth one where we know the priorities of this white house in particular is there any issue where you see common ground and you can say no i just i do wonder like

Have there been moments, I know. I know I'm asking a lot. But before the last nine months, ten months happened, you know, we thought antitrust might be a place where, you know, we have built bipartisan relationships. We've passed, you know, a whole package of antitrust bills around big tech, Josh Hawley, and I have been on the same page on a whole bunch of things. Unusual.

And so I think, yeah. And I think the other one was. probably around FISA and civil liberties. But that's not how this administration. Like they put a couple of good people in, but what they're doing now is destroying every regulation that existed to take on all of the big companies. And, you know, they're even destroying,

like not only have destroyed the CFPB, but they actually are reversing a whole bunch of settlements that the CFPB and lawsuits that had been settled for companies that were bilking, American consumers, big banks, others, and they are just getting rid of the settlement. Like, they're literally getting rid of all of that. So we've been trying to figure out how to talk about that in a way that people see what's happening because, you know, it's a bit wonky.

These were things that were settled under the Biden administration. So I just don't, I don't know. I'm having a hard time thinking of one. I'm sorry, Alex. Housing. So, you know, I've been a big advocate for using federal land, not National Park land, not beautiful, but land, like, you know, federal vacant land, and keep it under federal control, but build housing on it because it's exempt from zoning loss. And so you can't have

the nimbies coming in and stopping, you know, high density housing. And, you know, one of the ideas that we're working on is, for example, this is not obviously going to have any time soon, but like, you know, anytime that, you know, we have a new post office being built is that the first floor would be the post office above that, it's going to be a bunch of affordable condos that you sell to, you know, young, young families, right? And I, you know, started the, when this mission started about talking about that, but then they went totally overboard. And they basically wanted to sell, like, beautiful land in the middle of, like, you know, forest land. And that's not what we need. And what ends up happening is that land ends up getting sold to, like, really, really

rich developers. And it's not really affordable housing. It ends up being, you know, chateaus for rich people. And they always end up taking the land that is closest to the urban areas, which means if you're poor and you want to go out to, you know, I don't know if you guys, whoever's a Westerner here, you don't understand what I'm saying. Like, if you want to go out to the nearest trail, you're going to have to go out further and further because the most valuable land is the one that's closest to the city. So that's why when they started coming with their ideas, like, well, that's not the way you want to go. But, you know, that could have been an approach. And there is a lot of federal land within these dense urban areas and federal

buildings that we should be knocking down right now and just rebuilding high density housing and giving it to, you know, people on the age of 40, not giving selling, people on the age of 40. And if this administration did something like that, they, I would be 100% what were helping out with that. Kids Off Social Media Act. Yeah, that's a good one. I just, there's, there's really no, in my view, there is no positive use case for a 12-year-old to be on TikTok or Instagram or anything else. And I think, but Pramil's really, I think, got to the fundamental point, which is like, we're still in a place where that is at least theoretically possible on a bipartisan basis, but what

ends up happening, and hopefully it won't happen on this one, is that it's really just a bludgeon for them to, like, hammer their political enemies and make trades that are kind of like off the balance sheet and have nothing to do with the legislation here in the middle. So I'm going to stay in there on that bill with my eyes wide open that if this ends up getting through, it'll be the exception. I just want to ask you one more question before we wrap it up. And that is, you you know, we have a president and a party that have expressed a willingness to do away with basically the Constitution and all norms. There's a real question about whether they seed power in 26 and or 2028. And that sort of begs the question. You have prominent conservative saying,

we need to make Democrats the permanent minority party. They're no longer the opposition party. We need to gerrymander full tilt and deny them the opportunity to ever gain the majority again, right? And that is not fearmongering. That's like maybe the plan. So that raises a question like, if you were to retain the majority once again and you're fighting not just against a Republican Party but the forces of autocracy should Democrats go to whatever lengths possible including not sunsetsetting

those gerrymandered districts in California or in Illinois or in Virginia keeping them in place for maybe decades to come in order to retain a fairer map for Democrats and allow them to retain control of the House or doing, you know, taking other steps to sort of better, cement a Senate majority? Should that be on the table? Is it important enough for democracy,

for Democrats to do whatever they can to retain the majority at all costs? Look, I'm not running to be the executive director of common cause. And God bless them for their view about democracy, but we are in different times. So I just think we need to maintain the position that everything is on the table as long as autocracy is on the table. And if the Republican Party kind of normalizes over time, if the fever breaks when Donald Trump is no longer on the ballot, then we can recalibrate. But until then, we just have to gerrymander back, right? We just have to fight back in the ways that they are fighting us. And I think there are, there's almost no one left in the Democratic Party who's still on their high horse about procedural bullshit.

Like this is the only procedural stuff that we should be, that maintain fidelity to is that. the Constitution and laws of the United States. But if anyone is talking about norms still, I encourage them to wake up. I agree. I mean, I think that we're just in a... He's so surprised. Have I been hard on you?

I'm so sorry. It's my empathetic self coming up. I just think that we're in these really unprecedented times. I mean, I was in Chicago doing a shadow hearing on immigration. We had 19 members of Congress come from all over the country. And I have to tell you, I have never in my life seen what I saw there. Never. And, you know, I came to this country at 16 years old because I, by myself.

because this was the shining place on the hill and because this was the place that it figured out something really, really unique which is this incredible tie to our immigrant identity, as up and down as it's been, as crazy as it's been. And because we were this very unique place

in the world where you could have that happen. And I think that what we're seeing now, I really do think is fascism, is authoritarian takeover. of institutions, we teach something called Resistance Lab. It's an online course. We've trained more than 16,000 people in all 50 states about how democracies fall. And I think we just have to be real about the fact that that's happening.

And it's not that we have to talk about it every single day. Like, I think we have to be a party that is not just an opposition party. We need to be a proposition party. and we have to propose how we're going to make people's lives better because that is the ultimate answer to fascism and to authoritarianism. And so if we can do that and do it quickly, I think we will have a much better shot at making sure that we continue to win elections. Do I think that that means we're not going to need to do anything

to make sure that we continue to be able to do that? especially depending on what's coming at us, right? Are people organizing to take down state elections? What's happening? I don't know. And so I just think everything does have to be on the table, and we just have to remember how deeply dire the situation is and how incredibly hopeful we need people to be, otherwise that hopelessness and powerlessness become tools of the oppressor.

And so that's the work we have to do is to create real hope not like false hope, not like we're promising things, and then we're not going to do it and you're going to vote for us and we're not going to deliver anything. No, but like real plan for what we're going to do our project 2029,

like we're doing that now for the House, right? Because we need to have it for next November so that we go into this January and we have a plan with or without the Senate. And so I just think it's really No, I just mean if we don't have... Oh, come on. There is only one of me up here.

Did you notice that? I mean, last I checked, last I checked, there are 435 House members and only 100 senators, but huh, there's only one House member up here. But I think we've got work to do, and I can't wait to do it with you all. I think for those those there, we're in the military, and we're in the military, you understand this term, there's escalation of force, and I think we have to calibrate, like the smart word that Ryan said, everything we do to the escalation of force. So if you see them continue to move down these

autocratic paths, then we have to match that. And then once we start seeing a, you know, turn down and move down, then we can start coming back down, right? So that means we, you know, we gerrymander, jerrymander to block the they're gerrymandering, okay, has things gotten better? Okay, now let's go to an even playing field that, you know, is more reminiscent of what we think of is the best of the Constitution, right? But if they continue to be assholes, then we have to match them, right? It's just that simple, until we win.

And then once we win, then we can figure out, like, how do we get back to a normal space in this country that we're, where this country has been in? All right, Warriors Against the Assholes. Senator Brian Schatz, Congressman from really die of all. Senator Ruben Gallego. Thank you guys so much. We are live from CrookedCon.

I'm Tommy Vitor, and I'm thrilled to be joined by Lena Khan. Give it up, please. All right, let's just jump into it. So I'm guessing everybody here is pretty pumped about. Tuesday's election results. Guessing there's some Zoran Mamdani fans in the house. On Wednesday, Lena was named to the Mayor Alex's transition team, your co-chair, I believe. First of all, congratulations. That's very exciting and cool.

Can you tell us what you'll be doing on the transition team and how the work you did at the FTC can be applied to New York City? First of all, it's so great to be here. So, yeah, really honored to get to be a co-chair of the incoming mayor's transition team. A lot of what we'll be doing is very traditional transition team stuff, you know, trying to figure out who is the best position to take what role, and also figure out how can we make sure that this administration is set up to deliver on the extraordinarily ambitious agenda that they have set out for themselves. You know, coming from the FTC, I'm going to be especially focused on things like, how do we make sure that we have a full accounting of all

of the laws and authorities that the mayor can unilaterally deploy. I think one thing that was really shocking to me at the FTC was just how much dormant and unused and unused authorities had just been on the books. Like literally, Congress had passed laws, sometimes saying things as uncontroversial as it should be illegal to say your products are made in America when they aren't. And sometimes they had just been ignored by the FTC and not really enforced. So, you know, I want to make sure that to the that the city has a robust set of laws that the mayor can enforce that we're going and understanding what is the full authority. A lot of what he is going to be looking to deliver is going to be requiring, you know, working closely with other institutional actors, be at the

governor, be at the legislature. But he should also have a lot of ability to do things, you know, unilaterally. And so we want to make sure he has a good sense of what that is. One of the things you did extremely well that excited a lot of people was you took on big tech. And obviously, that is not happening now under this administration, as long as you're willing to donate a couple of Millie for the new ballroom or whatever, like you're good to go if you're a tech company. Do you think the New York City mayor's office can be used as a perch to take on tech monopolies? Does they have that kind of power as a city?

So they have a lot of the antitrust work is done by the New York AG's office. they do have an agency called the Division of Consumer and Worker Protection that has a whole bunch of authorities, some of which mirror what the FTC was doing. But be it, you know, in the context of the technology industry or the healthcare industry or food and groceries, they do have a whole set of laws

that are designed to make sure that companies are not abusing their power. And so, you know, I'll look forward to them being able to deploy that. Trump has been threatening to punish New York City, just overtly to punish Zoran. How seriously are you guys taking those threats on the transition team? And to what extent can you mitigate against them?

Yeah, I mean, look, he's pulling together a top-notch set of people to help him fully scenario plan and make sure they are prepared for all potential contingent scenarios that take place. So I think you have to be maximally prepared when these sorts of things are even being floated. Yeah. Okay, so one fan of yours that might surprise people is a former top advisor to Domain. Trump, Steve Bannon. He's been very complimentary of you and of your work. I actually texted Steve this morning. I'm not kidding. And I asked if he had a message for you and he said, Love her. That's in quotes. And then he pushed me to quote you on implementing your, quote,

ecosystem of entrepreneurial growth and on your Neo Brandeisian actions. I have no fucking clue what he's talking about. Maybe you do. But also, Bannon's been complimentary of the way Zoron ran and won his race, not the policies, but the way he did it. I mean, any chance you're going to broker a little like sit down, a little beer summit between the two. And like, it jokes aside, like, why is it that there you have this kind of fan base on the, on the left and the right? Yeah, it's a really fascinating question. And honestly, one of the most surprising parts of my time at the FTC was seeing how extraordinarily popular a lot of what we were doing was, even with Republicans, grassroots Republicans. I mean, I would get handwritten letters from people saying things like,

I'm a lifelong Republican, hardcore free market capitalist, but if you all ban non-compete clauses or block the Kroger Albertson's merger, it'll be the best thing the government has ever done in my life. And I think there's just been a recognition that unchecked corporate power really undermines people in their day-to-day lives, right? It rips them off. It means they're less free practically. It just corrods people's day-to-day living. And I think for a long time, people have felt that the federal government has not always been very forward-leaning. And A, calling that out. If there's a bad actor that is responsible for why your life is bad, being willing to just call that out openly, even if that actor is powerful and wealthy. And then

B, to make sure that we're actually doing something about it. And so I think when the FTC I think when the FTC was, you know, bringing a lot of actions, be it taking on, you know, big corporate landlords that were ripping people off, tech companies that were spying on kids, pharma companies that were making people rationed, life-saving medicines. This was all extraordinarily popular. And I think there is a burgeoning populist movement on both sides, in the Republican side and the Democratic side. and I think that's where you see that genuine overlap.

Any sense of what a neo-brandizian action is? What he's talking about? Yeah, Steve is in really like the deep cuts of anti-monopoly, so he's really talking about some of the kind of philosophical schools of thought of how to be enforcing the law. Steve contains multitudes. I probably should have started here, just in case folks don't know the basics. How does the FTC protect consumers from?

deceptive or unfair practices or anti-competitive business practice? What was like your day-to-day work? What were the things you did and what authorities did you have? Yeah, I mean, the agency has a pretty broad mandate. Congress created the agency in 1914 against the backdrop of the robber barons. And there was a general momentum to make sure that the government was standing up to corporate giants. And so the agency is tasked with everything from taking on fraudsters and spammers to blocking mergers and consolidation that would result in higher prices or, you know, a lot of layoffs, to things like

making sure we're ensuring that companies can't trap you in subscriptions, surveil you, and so really the breadth of the work was extraordinary. We were especially focused on what are the biggest pain points in people's day-to-day lives. So we were very focused on health care markets, making sure that to the extent that high drug prices are being driven by illegal conduct. We were taking that on. We sued companies. We took on illegal patenting practices that were resulting in asthma inhalers, still costing people hundreds of dollars, even though there are $7 in other countries. We were very focused on food and agriculture, get at the level of grocery mergers or even things like John Deere, making it extraordinarily difficult and

expensive for farmers to fix their own tractors, which is something that, which is something that for a lot of rural states, you know, we would have farmers kind of fly in and sit down. And some of them would sometimes be literally in tears describing an instance where they lost a whole harvest because deer didn't, you know, let them fix their tractor in time. And so this is, you know, not some abstraction. This is really about people's day-to-day lives and the myriad ways that, unfortunately, corporate lawbreaking can be a big driver of why people feel like they're not getting a fair chance. As all of us, we've dissected the election results from Tuesday, it seems clear that from New York City to Jersey to Virginia to Georgia, people were pissed about costs and inflation, and they

were pissed at a system that felt broken and rigged against them by political actors, but also corporations, billionaires, et cetera. That's, I think, why people have looked to the work you've done as such an important part of the Democratic Party's messaging and policy agenda going forward. If you were to kind of sketch out what a pro-consumer political platform could look like for the Democratic Party for 2026 and 28, what does that look like in your view? It's like the bumper sticker version and the kind of the longer. Yeah, I mean, unfortunately, this problem is now so prevalent across the country that you could literally be airdropped into any zip code. And there would be a story to tell about how corporate power is making life worse. And so I think a lot of it is

going to depend on where you live. We have members of Congress that are very focused on this issue of private equity, buying up doctors' practices, sometimes buying up, you know, housing, and the real degradation. I mean, there are now studies showing that mortality rates have increased after private equity firms have bought up ER practices or nursing homes. There are places where members are very concerned about consolidation across the agriculture market. So the fact that you have four meat packers, four chicken processors that control the whole market, and you have consumers paying more, even as farmers are making less and the middlemen are squeezing more and more. Right to repair is something that we see members, you know, across the country talking about, be it if you're

concerned about farmers or if you're concerned about local auto shops that you want to make sure that people have the freedom to repair their products easily and cheaply. And so a lot of this is just going to depend on what are the local issues. I mean, one of the videos that Mayor Alec Mumdani first put out as part of his campaign was a set of interviews with a halal cart businessman. And he was just asking them. I've seen that the price of, you know, chicken and rice has gone from $8 to $10. Why is that? What are the input costs? And what is driving this. And I think that sense of curiosity about what is really happening in the economy and talking to people and asking them, that type of learning is just invaluable. And it's

something we really tried to do with the FTC. I think oftentimes in D.C. It can be really easy to just develop a lot of blind spots, become really insular, overindex for the views of a narrow class of experts and pundits and really lose touch with what are the day-to-day struggles that people are facing. And so I think modeling that type of basic curiosity, which can also just teach you a lot, and then the policy can flow from that. I think there's no substitute for that. The other thing I'll say is, you know, it's been really interesting to see a lot of the conversation and reflections from Tuesday land on this issue of affordability is what we have to focus on. And I think one question.

for me is, great, let's do affordability. But if the drivers of high costs sometimes are going to be powerful corporate actors, are we going to be willing to call that out? And how much can you fix affordability without also demanding some type of accountability? Be it for... And so I think that needs to be a really key question to make sure that we're not leaving the accountability portion out of the affordability conversation. Yeah, and I think what is so important and smart about the work you're doing is, like, Democrats, look, we get in our own heads, right? We're, like, reading too many white papers.

We're putting forward policies that are like refundable tax credits for blah, blah, blah. And it's like, no one knows what we're talking about. And when I hear about the work you're doing or did, it is simple, it's intuitive. It seems like obviously the right thing to do morally and politically. but I've noticed that the Trump administration is starting to wind some of that back. Can you talk about Click to Cancel and what the Trump administration is doing when it comes to tax preparation? Because I think those are good examples that tell that story. Yeah, I mean, we've seen stunning levels of just backsliding at the FTC, but really across

parts of the government that are supposed to be standing up for Americans against corporate lawbreaking. One of the rules that we finalized at the FTC was a rule that said companies have to make it as easy to cancel a subscription as it is to sign up for one. Responding to the fact that as we've seen more and more turn to subscriptions and everything as a service, we've seen that companies can make it extraordinarily easy to sign up, but absurdly difficult to cancel, where you have to call somebody, but there's nobody there to pick up the phone, or you have to do something by certified mail, or even go in person. And so we said, you know, this actually violates the lawn or the FTC Act and every business should make it easy. That was a rule that

the FTC recently has basically given up on. They also gave up on the non-competes rule, the rule that would have eliminated the vast majority of non-compete clauses in this country, which are these contractual clauses that basically lock people in and say even once you leave your current job, you can't go work for certain other companies, you can't go start your own business. And this has meant that you have security guards, janitors, fast food workers, people that are now making less money because their employer is locking them in. And this was a rule that we had extraordinary support for. Fast food workers were signing non-competes? Fast food workers are often now required to sign non-competes. I mean, we got a comment from somebody who said, you know, I work

in a burrito shop and I have a non-compete. And if I basically went across the street to work at the other Mexican restaurant, I would get hit with a lawsuit for tens of thousands of dollars. And, you know, the effect of that is that it suppresses your wages, because one of the best sources of leverage that workers often have against their employer is to go get another job and then be able to bargain. And so this is something they've walked away from. They also announced recently that they're going to kill the last administration's direct file program, which had basically made it so that you didn't have to use these tax prep companies to file your taxes, you could actually just do it through a government service, direct file,

which was extraordinarily well run. They had piloted it out last year and got rave reviews, and they just mixed that. And it's no surprise, I guess, that the tax prep companies, like Intuit and H&R Block, have donated a lot of money to the administration. They'd actually been responsible for decades now for basically trying to prevent the government. from offering this public option, and it was great to see the Biden administration be able to overcome that pressure, but, you know, basically now everybody's going to be stuck having to pay turbotax again. It's just a great example of just pure legal corruption in the system where these tax preparers

pay government officials to prevent citizens from having an easier time filing their taxes and not having to pay exorbitant fees. It seems like a story we should be able to tell as the Democratic Party. Yeah, I think so. Okay. So at the heart of the mission of antitrust is the idea that economic power can be coercive and harmful to businesses and consumers. That was true when there was like one railroad. It was true when we were talking about meta consolidating too much power. It's true today. At the moment, I am very worried about the power that seems to be being concentrated in the hands of a few AI companies. That is they are racing to consolidate market share. but also to gobble up a finite number of chips, a finite amount of electricity with the stated goal of creating artificial general intelligence. That feels like a path to some of the most concentrated

power we've ever seen in the hands of a few corporations. Is the government doing anything to regulate this? What did you guys begin to do during the Biden administration? What should the government be doing? One of the most important signals we had started to send in the last administration was that there's no AI exemption from the laws on the books. I think something we've seen historically is that when you have some type of new technology come into the market, oftentimes companies will try to argue, oh, this is so new, this is so innovative, we need a new legal regime. We need a new agency, new regulations, the existing laws don't apply. And we wanted to make clear, at the very least, that price fixing is still illegal even if you're doing it with AI, discrimination is still

illegal even if you're doing it with AI. Fraud is still illegal. You can't have just these huge loopholes because you're doing it through AI. What we've seen from this administration is basically total amnesty more or less for AI. They've said, look, you know, we really care about innovation. Yes, also these CEOs are making weekly pilgrimages to the White House, and so we're not going to be doing much on this front. I think it's extraordinarily dangerous. I mean, we talk a lot about, you know, one of the real virtues and strengths of the American system has been decentralization, both in terms of the checks and balances we have in our political system, but also in our economy, where competitive markets have been such a key driver of innovation in America's

strength on the global stage. And what we see right now is really a form of central planning. I mean, you basically have more or less five to seven executives that are single-handedly charting the future trajectory of this technology. in ways that is going to have huge public ramifications, and as already is. I mean, we're already seeing with, you know, where data centers are being built, even the contracts that some of these companies are pushing for to keep maximally under wraps, what are the terms on which these data centers are being built, a real push for secrecy and really try to keep from the public basic information about

what's happening in their backyards. We're also now hearing increasingly a lot of these examples. executives admit that there's probably a bubble here, that they're, you know, overinvesting. And just this last week, we heard suggestions from one of the companies that, you know, maybe the government's going to need to bail us out one day. And so, you know, I think all of the concerns around privatizing benefits and profits, but socializing risk and pain is something that they very much seem headed towards. And we're going to need a really. assertive government to really stand up to that. And I worry that's the last thing we have in place

right now. Yeah, I worry about that a lot too. I've also seen you talk about how the consolidation of corporate power, historically speaking, can make it easier for authoritarians to rise and then concentrate political power. Can you elaborate on that and explain whether you worry that's what's happening in the U.S. potentially? That's absolutely what we're seeing right now. I mean, I think the incident that occurred a few weeks ago with Jimmy Kimmel was a perfect illustration of how concentrated economic power can make it easier for people with authoritarian instincts to try to basically have people bend the knee. You know, if you have dozens or hundreds of companies in a market, you really need a lot of people to decide that they're going to surrender before

the whole market goes your way. When you just have four or five players, it's really just up to the four and five individuals who are calling the shots to decide, are we going to go along or are we not. I think the other interesting thing here is, you know, there had been some speculation in the past that if push came to shove, the monopolist, the CEOs, the titans of industry, would ultimately stand up for democracy and be on the side of the rule of law. And when given the chance these past few months, they've all just bent the knee time after time and chosen self-enrichment and personal profit over principle and any commitment to the rule of law

or the public or democracy. And I think that needs to be a core lesson and we need to kind of update our priors as we go forward. I think there's also going to be a key question about what does accountability look like in a future Democratic administration? For people who have broken the law,

for people who have decided I'm going to engage in blatant corruption even when it's illegal because this administration is game to play ball. So I think that's something that we're going to have to really talk about and figure out. Yeah, big time. It's always fun when the Trump administration tells us there's a firewall between the presidency and the family. And then he was on stage.

Trump was on stage in Charmel Sheikh at the Peace Summit after signing the Gaza ceasefire. And I think that the president of Indonesia was like, should I call Don or Eric? He's like, call Eric. He's a good boy. This happened on stage. I know that the FTCs face some threats from the Supreme Court. I believe they allowed Trump back in September to fire a former colleague of yours, Rebecca Slaughter, who was the last remaining Democratic member of the FTC.

Can you talk about why that is significant and how concerned you are about the courts potentially gutting the power of the FTC? Yeah, so we've seen an unprecedented assault on the independence of federal agencies. There had been a whole set of agencies where there had been restrictions on the president's ability to unilaterally fire people. The idea being that you wanted some degree of continuity, some degree of expertise, and this administration has basically decided

that they disagree with that century-old legal precedent and are now challenging that before the Supreme Court. They fired FTC commissioners. They fired people at the NLRB. They fired people across these agencies. And so that's clearly being teed up for a fight. initial indications from the Supreme Court is that they will be comfortable

overturning that precedent and basically allowing the president to unilaterally fire commissioners of independent agencies. One tension that they're running into is that they want to do that but they want to create a carve-out for the Federal Reserve

and the initial reasons that they've offered for why the Federal Reserve is different are I think pretty strained and so they're going to have to out, you know, how do you thread that needle? Because on the merits, you know, if, if commissioners are going down at the FTC, the Federal Reserve is really no different in terms of the legal issues. But, you know, this isn't new. The judiciary has become increasingly skeptical of federal agencies over the last few decades. And that really catalyzed during the last administration,

where you saw, you know, the overturning of things like the Chevron doctrine, Chevron Deferon. just much, much more skepticism of federal agencies taking action. And practically what that meant was that dozens of rules that the Biden administration finalized, including rules that said things as uncontroversial as airlines shouldn't be able to lie about how much a plane ticket costs. You know, certain limits on overdraft fees, certain requirements for overtime pay, the FTC's non-compete rule. Swats of these rules just went to go die.

at the door of some Texas federal judge. And there have been efforts to try to prevent this foreign shopping, but the judiciary doesn't seem very interested in really policing that. So I think another big challenge for a next Democratic administration is going to be figuring out how do we really govern in a way that is both making people's lives materially better, but when we have a judiciary that is very skeptical, at least of Democrats at these agencies.

and some of the cases that are before the court, including the tariffs one, are going to give us an opportunity to see, you know, how one-sided is this skepticism? Is it okay to have a very muscular government when you have a Republican president, but not when you have a Democratic one? But this is absolutely going to be up front and center in terms of challenges that a Democratic administration will face. Again, I'm just like, the more I hear you talk, the more I'm struck by, just like everything they're doing will make our lives suck a little bit more.

You know, I was watching something, I was listening to an article or podcast the other day about the way corporations are pushing the bounds on dynamic pricing, right? It's not just you're about to book a hotel room and it's like seven people are looking at this exact, like book now, right, which is a lie. But we all do and we feel that pressure. It's that we could see a future where corporations have all this data on us as individuals and they charge you like a bespoke price based on what they think you personally can afford for a commoditizing. service. How concerned are you about that kind of being the reality for the consumer and can we prevent that? Yeah, hugely concerned. And when I was at the FTC, we started an inquiry into this issue of surveillance pricing, the idea that we could soon be living in a world where all pricing is set based on what the company knows they can get away with charging you. And some of the

initial documents that we found found the companies were clearly talking about basically charging people just below people's pain point. And so they were very explicit that they want to reach the exact level that they know you can, you know, pay without walking away. And that's going to be a radically different economy. And, you know, we've already seen studies showing that some ride share companies seem to jack up prices when they can tell that your battery is lower. Wow, really? Yeah, there's been some research showing that. And, you know, there are all these middle including companies like McKinsey, basically telling retailers, you know, hire us and will help you do this type of surveillance pricing. But I think it's a real risk, the idea that an airline

would, you know, have data from your email inbox announcing, you know, a funeral service and then jack up the price because they know you have to get across the country quickly, you know, charging a family more because they know that there's a nut allergy and so you have to pay more for the nut-free cereal than, you know, than other families. I mean, I think there's just just a real potential for exploitation and extraction to an extent that we really haven't seen before. God, that is monstrous. Last question for you.

I mean, as you know, there will be people within the Democratic Party that say Joe Biden was too hard on corporations. He was too hard on industry. Take crypto, for example, right? Gary Gensler was very tough on crypto. So the crypto world put a giant pack together. funded a bunch of Republicans to send a message that, you know, Democrats will be destroyed, right? So the thing you will hear from some people in the party is, if Democrats bite industry too hard,

it will bite back. We need to learn to play nice. What's your argument to those people for why we should take a different approach? I guess I'm curious what they mean by if we bite too hard, right? Because what we were doing at the FTC, what agencies like the SEC were doing, were enforcing the law. We were doing investigations. And if we found that a company was breaking the law and it was resulting in harm for people, we took action.

We didn't then think, oh, is this company a powerful donor to the Democratic Party, and so should we go light? And candidly, at this moment, when we are seeing unprecedented levels of corruption from the Republican Party and total pay-to-play, the idea that our response to that should be, okay, maybe we should be a little bit more corrupt too is frankly mind-boggling to me.

Well said. Lena Kahn, thank you so much for being here. Thank you all for coming out. If you want to listen to Pod Save America, ad-free, and get access to exclusive podcasts, go to cricket.com slash friends to subscribe on Supercast, substack, YouTube, or Apple Podcasts. Also, please consider leaving us a review that helps boost this episode and everything we do here at Cricket.

Pod Save America is a Cricket Media production. Our producers are David Toledo, Emma Illick-Frank, and Saul Rubin. Our associate producer is Farah Safari. Austin Fisher is our senior producer. Reed Churlin is our executive editor. Adrian Hill is our head of news and politics. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seiglin and Charlotte Landis.

Matt DeGroote is our head of production. Naomi Sengel is our guest. executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Ben Heffcote, Mia Kelman, Carol Pellevieve, David Tolls, and Ryan Young. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.