The Bulwark Podcast - Catherine Rampell and Robert Garcia: China Is Starting to Eclipse the U.S.

Episode Date: May 14, 2026

The Chinese have long envied America's power, influence, and market share. But after Trump's failed trade war, his attacks on allies, and the embarrassment in Iran, the view from Beijing has shifted: It now sees us as a nation in decline. Plus, inflation is creeping back up, the stock market is out of whack, new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh is screwed, and the ag community is feeling the pain of Trump's policies. And for the view from the Democratic resistance, Rep. Garcia tells Tim that Dems are not finished with their own redistricting and that Gavin's greatest strength is his obsession with winning. And he says Dems are going to fight like hell to win the House so they can investigate the Trump family corruption and the Epstein case—the single largest government cover-up in history. Rep. Robert Garcia and Catherine Rampell join Tim Miller show notes Catherine's newsletter, "Receipts" A grimacing, sweaty Trump getting framemogged by Xi Ezra Klein's town hall with Katie Porter's answer to CA's housing crisis Just announced: San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria and our own MAGA culture expert, Will Sommer, will join the gang on stage at Bulwark Live: San Diego on May 20. Get 15% off OneSkin with the code BULWARK at https://www.oneskin.co/BULWARK #oneskinpod

Welcome to the Bullard podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. We got a double header for you today. In segment two, it is, I think, alongside Rocana, the other congressman who has been the most effective in the opposition for the Democrats in the House this year. And that's Robert Garcia, the ranking member of the Oversight Committee. So we've much to talk to him about. But first, my colleague, my buddy, economics editor here at the Bullwark, she writes the newsletter, receipts, which is published this evening, Thursday evenings. also co-hosts MS Now's the weekend prime time. It's Catherine Rampal. What's up, go? Hey, good to see you. Long time, no see. I know. We saw each other everybody yesterday at the Bullwark All Hands, and I'm still in the

shit town in D.C., as you can see from my background here. I was wondering where you were. Okay. So you haven't made it back. It's all the Bullwork books. I took down the Sarah Longwell QR code that she wanted me to promote in my background. I'm like, this isn't, this isn't QV. You should buy Sarah's book, but this isn't the QBC.

QVC is bankrupt, so one of the many Trump victims. We got a lot of economics talk, and all China talk is at some level, all everything talk is at some level economics talk. I think that's Tyler Cohen. But I want to talk a little bit about the summit first. Trump and all of our greatest CEOs and much of the cabinet. All traveled to China to pay homage to the communist dictator, Xi Jinping. In their opening session, Trump said this, we have a fantastic relationship. I have such respect for China, the job you've done.

You're a great leader. I say it to everybody. You're a great leader. The top CEOs are all here to pay respects to you. It is an honor to be your friend. It's laying it on a little thick for me. I don't know. What you think about the meeting?

He's just a master diplomat right there. You know, he's buttering him up so that he can swoop in and make the deal of the century. I think that's what's going on. No, I think what's actually going on is he brought a little entourage of rich people to, I think he thinks impress President Xi because that's how Trump operates, right? He thinks when you're surrounded by rich people, that means you're great and that means that they're paying fealty to you. probably a lot of those rich people, i.e. the CEOs who are there, I think, are really in harm mitigation mode. Maybe they're there. Probably they have multiple objectives, right? One of them is to do a little

solid for Donald Trump or what Donald Trump thinks is a favor, but also make sure that they walk away without giant new tariffs on iPhones or any of the other supplies that they might be importing from China. So I think all of that stuff is going on there. Yeah. She didn't seem quite as effusive when talking about Trump. Maybe it's a cultural gap there. I don't know. Though Trump is was way nicer and more just, I mean, he's almost prostrate on the ground with his praise of Xi. You kind of compare that to the treatment of Zelensky getting lectured in the Oval Office or, you know, how he treats a lot of our, you know, democratic allies. It's a notable gap. There was this picture that was posted on our Reddit page.

I'm sorry for the audio listers. I'll have to describe it to you. For the videos, folks will pull this up. And it's Trump getting frame-mogged by Chairman Xi. They do the photo. It's the China flag, the U.S. flag, you know, behind them, a little step and repeat. And then we have Chairman Xi just kind of standing there quite casually, looking at the camera, a little smirk, very comfortable, nice fitting suit. you know, doesn't kind of seems almost bored a little bit.

Trump, on the other hand, leaning over, there's the green line test on social media who's leaning in a relationship as a person who has less power, leaning over aggressively grimacing, sweating, orange face, white hair, umpalumpa face, like trying to grasp she's hand aggressively. Very ill-fitting suit. Unhappy.

You know, you can overstate it, but the body language doctor, I think it says a lot. I don't know about you. Am I looking too much at this picture? I mean, I guess I don't know what frame this was in their overall interaction. It certainly looks like it shows the power dynamics that you just described. And I think it, however literal, this particular picture can be interpreted, I think it does reflect a general shift in the power balance between China and the United States,

economically, diplomatically, in basically all of the ways that matter. Look, there's been some good reporting recently about how China increasingly views the United States as a declining power. Not just China, presumably for that matter, but it's pretty important that China views us that way. For a very, very long time, China kind of, I don't know if looked up to us as the right characterization, but in many ways wanted to emulate the United States in terms of our living standards, our influence around the world. They wanted to do it a little bit differently, right? You know, socialism with Chinese characteristics rather than calling it capitalism. And their soft power was of a different form. And they said that they weren't going to intervene or admonish economic

partners if they committed human rights abuses, unlike the United States. But they, they wanted to have the same kind of power and influence and market share around the world that they envied the United States as having. I worked in China a very long time ago in the early 2000s and I remember that... What city? In Beijing. I was working for NBC News and it was in the lead up to the 2008 Olympics and I remember this was seen as China's big coming out. party and there was a lot of like emulation of American culture and inviting American pop culture celebrities. I remember I went to the MTV Awards in China while I was there. And there was a lot of like sort of knockoff versions of American pop culture icons and economic innovators and things like that.

And now China, I think, in many ways, is trying to eclipse the United States or has eclips the United States, at least in select industries. So that's kind of a longer-term story. I think that has been facilitated certainly by Donald Trump and hastened by the Iran war. The Iran War. Yeah. If you look at like who President Xi has met with just in the past month or a couple of months, you know, it's the leaders of a lot of Asian countries, Southeast Asian countries, even before the war. You had the PM of Canada. the PM of the UK, the president of South Korea, all coming to Beijing for the first time in many years, in part because they were seeking a relationship, a tighter relationship with a different authoritarian leader as opposed to Donald Trump.

And Donald Trump had sort of forced them into the arms of the Chinese government. And so all of that is kind of the subtext of that one photo. Yeah. And it's not just, you know, Trump's Arrangement Syndrome, Neo-Lib, Neo-Con, Tucker Carlson, Foyle, Catherine Rampel that has this assessment. We have a Washington Post report out today, a confidential U.S. intelligence analysis details the ways China is exploiting the war in Iran to further maximize its advantage over the U.S. across military, economic, and diplomatic and other fields. It goes through a list of a bunch of stuff, the ways in which China is, like, reaching out to our out. allies who are dealing with shortages, you know, and energy in other spaces. It seems to me that it is a pretty blanket assessment at this point that Trump comes to this meeting at a moment where China's been maximizing as their advantage. So a brutal frame logging by the ASU for leader, Chairman Xi, you might say. Other bad news for Trump is kind of the broader economic forces. I want to go through things kind of point by point with you, but I'm wondering what your

your sense is of the macro right now. And we are in a moment where I feel like we've told the story a bunch over the last year or two. Like the stock market, if you're just looking at the stock market, you think things are going pretty swimmingly, frankly, but a lot of other indicators not as good. I'm wondering what your sense is of the macro state apply. Yeah. I mean, this is why no one should ever take financial advice for me because I frankly do not understand what is going on in the stock market right now for pretty much the reasons you laid out. Stock market, seem almost euphoric. When there's bad news, they dip a little bit. Bad news like we don't have a deal with the Iranians, for example. When there's good news, they rock it upward. And it seems very

asymmetric to me. And if you look at the valuation of stocks versus how much the underlying companies are actually earning, so like what is the stock price relative to what that company actually earns. E ratio, isn't that what that is? Yeah, yeah, exactly. Look at me. I got a C minus in macro 101. There you go.

If you look at the long-term relationship, it seems totally out of whack. The last time it was this out of whack, that ratio was that this off was during the dot-com bubble in 2000. So I don't know that that per se means it's a bubble. Maybe this time is different, as people like to say, but it certainly doesn't look great. And I just don't know how much longer it can be sustainable, particularly if this war keeps going, if you keep on having these kinds of disruptions, not only in energy markets, but in fertilizer, in plastics, in aluminum, in almost anything that you can imagine. But now, that said, if you look at the actual, like, hard economic data, not the market data,

but what's happening to consumer spending or investment, it's not like it's falling off a cliff. it's not great, but it's sort of like chugging along. The job numbers that we got last week, they were fine. They were actually better than expected, but they still weren't like spectacular. There have been a bunch of big layoff announcements since then. I think who was it, Walmart announced that they were going to be laying off a bunch of people. Goodyear tires. They were closing a plan, but I think it's closing next year.

So there have been a bunch of big corporate layoff announcements, like, you know, how that shakes out relative to other. kinds of job growth, I don't know. But basically, the economy has not imploded, which is good, but it's still at all, it's okay, whereas stock markets are booming. And the thing that I worry about is that, well, A, markets are just too ebullient, like they're, they're too polyana-ish, and that B, the actual economy is just like one more little shock away from a real, you know, bad crash. We're not there yet, but it seems like there's enough fragility in the underlying economy that I'm worried about it. All right, y'all, one nice thing about working at home is that you can change easily. Some of you who monitor my clothes closely might notice that sometimes

I'm changing outfits in between podcasts, even if I'm taping them on the same day. But even though that option is available, it's nice to have flexibility. It's nice to have basics. It's nice to have something that I can wear on the pod, wear to a concert, where to dinner with my friends, where to do school pickup. And one of our longtime sponsors helps me do just that. It's our buddies at Quince. Quince has pieces that feel easy, comfortable, and still put together. Still sharp, you might say.

Quince has all the wardrobe staples for spring, like 100% European linen, shorts and shirts from 34 bucks, and 100% Pima Cotton T's of the softness that has to be felt. of all, it's reasonably priced, which is important in this economy. Quince works directly with ethical factories and cuts out the middleman, so you're getting premium materials without the markup. I was in Quince's linen shirt last night at dinner, as a matter of fact. We went out to a little dinner, even though it was Mother's Day. We don't have any personal mothers in our house.

I have my mother in Denver. I had to send her some flowers. I was unfortunate, but here in New Orleans where we don't have any money. others, we still decide to get a little dressed up and go to dinner. I wore a nice quince linen shirt. I looked very handsome, I thought. I got some compliments on it. Also mentioned this before.

If you got some kiddos, I've been putting mine in some quince shirts. And we actually have a little matching his and hers quince linen shirt outfit that we're doing now. That I think makes us look pretty cute. Refresh your everyday with luxury you'll actually use. Head to quince.com slash the bulwark for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. now available in Canada, too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com slash the bulwark for free shipping and 365-day returns. Quince.com slash the bulwark.

One of the invoked terms in 2020 from economists, and it was a lot of Democratic campaign folks were talking about this, was the K-shaped economy. Like you were seeing this where basically like the upper-middle class and upper-class was continuing to do well while things were getting worse for lower-middle and lower class. People kind of stopped talking about that a little bit in like the post-COVID kind of era because like wages were kind of going up for, you know,

people in the bottom quintile. You're starting to see that theme pop up again and I think, which is related to the stock market, which is this kind of K-shaped recovery. Yeah, it's totally related to the stock market. And actually, if you look at like the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment numbers, they broke out the share of people who talked about their personal finances deteriorating because of higher prices. They broke it out for those who own a lot of stocks and those who own no stocks. And as you can imagine, the people who do own stocks are much more copacetic, I guess. Like they're mad about gas prices and they're mad about grocery prices going up because

they are going up. They're mad about all of those things. But then they look over at their 401K and they're like, me, you know, maybe it's worth it. Maybe it's worth the tradeoff. Whereas people who do not have those financial assets who are lower. income, they can't just eat it on those higher gas prices or other higher prices that they're paying. And they don't have that like nice little nest egg to think about. So yeah, you are seeing a

divergence. But in general, I mean, people are still pretty unhappy with the economy. Even the people who are higher income. They're just like less unhappy than the poorest people out there. One of things driving this, just because as you mentioned, there with prices is, you know, the inflation kind of starting to rise again. I think I got this number a little wrong on yesterday's podcast, so my apologies and my notes. But we had this producer price index number that came out yesterday, which is the measure of cost that businesses are paying for goods and services. And that rose 1.4% in April, which means it's up 6% year over year. So that's more than what we're seeing in, like, in a consumer inflation, which I guess, as you tell me, but like this sort of signals that like more inflation is coming for the consumers, I guess. Yeah, it's the prices that are charged by wholesalers. I think that's a good role, like a good way to think about it.

And those prices are rising a lot. And one reason why, as you point out, you know, is like they're more likely to be dealing with the energy shock. It takes a little bit longer for some of that energy shock to work its way down the supply chain. They're dealing with those higher plastic packaging costs. And so, yeah, that's going to work its way through the system. You do normally see the PPI numbers shift a little bit earlier, you know, when there's like a big shock, than the CPI number. So the producers prices versus the consumer's prices, that totally makes sense. And that is concerning.

And again, it's hard to know how long or, or how disruptive this street of Hormuz situation is going to be. There are a bunch of circumstances where it looks like people are being a little optimistic about... I think people are being a lot optimistic. Yeah. My opinion is people are being a lot optimistic. Yeah, about how quickly things will resolve themselves. And there have been a bunch of like energy CEOs who have basically said,

you know, I'm not sure markets have fully priced in how much more expensive things are going to get or how much longer this disruption is going to be. And exactly, it's that optimism, which I don't entirely understand because, again, I feel like I hear these conspiracy theories about, oh, like, companies are just trying to support Donald Trump, and that's why they have these forecasts that seem optimistic, or that's why oil futures prices aren't higher than they are. And it's like, no, that's not how they work. They're trying to make money. You know, all of these traders are trying to make money. If there is an arbitrage opportunity to be made because everybody else is like, you know, trying to make

Donald Trump look good and you have the opportunity to make money, you're going to make the money. So I don't think it's about that, but it's animal spirits, I guess, is the best way to characterize it. There's weird stuff happening. Yeah, an optimism, madman theory, madman theory, just a feeling like Trump is not this stupid. Like, we're not going to actually get into a war. Like, it's got to end any day now. I don't know. I don't know.

They're not listening to the blog podcast enough. I don't think traders. Clearly they should. This is not financial advice either, but we've been right about this. I was, I forget if it was Goldman. It was one of the big firms like that. And they had like a projection, the week of the war or the week that Trump started for when gas prices were going to come back down. And it was like now.

Because, you know, we've been in the 70 days now. And, you know, somebody posted this graph that Goldman was like circulating a couple months ago. And I was like, maybe I should be a Goldman. not at the bulwark. Maybe I'd be making more money. Maybe they should hire me. I'd have a pretty high rate, like an hourly rate, and I'd call them and be like, guys, like this is a quagmire.

Even if he tried to get out of it immediately, like, Iran now realizes that they have power there. They're going to make it harder to go through. Like, Iran now has the TPS report that they're sending the ships that you're going to send to them if you're going to come through. And there was free passage, right? So I don't know how these numbers are funny. But if you've looked at the infographics of like how many,

ships were going through the straight before the war started. And so even if it reopens, but it's slowed because they don't know where the mines are, because Iran is vetting the ships that come through. All of that will also have an impact on the supply chains. And as a report came out, the oil inventories are already falling, like everywhere around the world, and that they're going to continue to fall for months. And so some of this is being buttressed by, like, backlogged infidories. But anyway, long story short, I think it's way worse than people are saying.

Yeah. And the question is, how credible is it? If the United States says the straight is open, if the Iranian government says the straight is open, if you are a company thinking about sending your commercial tanker through that straight, do you believe it, right? Do you believe that you're not going to get hit by a drone or a mine or anything else? Does your crew believe it? Right.

Let's say it is officially open. Insurance company. insurance company, all of those things add costs. Even if the tankers, you know, resume going through, resume transiting at the same rates that they were before, which I think is not likely to happen anytime soon, it's going to be much more costly because of all of that risk that's baked in there because people cannot unsee the fact that it has been closed and dangerous for a very long time. You know, you can't just like pretend it goes back. Yeah, and just being with the insurance, like, you know, again, not a macroeconomist, but I moved to New Orleans where the roads are shitty.

And guess what? My car insurance went up a bunch because there's more wrecks here than there is in Kansas or whatever. And so like that's going to happen to the whole economy. The people that are insuring and reinsuring these tankers, you know, the numbers crunchers back there at tanker insurance HQ, we're going to be like, I think we need to up the rates, okay, if we're going to be sending these ships. Right. So it's like, anyway. Yeah, I mean, that's already happened. You've heard me talk about One Skin before,

and whether you're someone who tries every new skin care product that hits the market, or you've been using the same one or two things for years, or you're one of those guys out there that is still not moisturizing, even though I've been telling you to for three years now. No matter which category you fit in, one skin's got something for you. It didn't just make my existing routine better.

It actually works different than everything else I've tried. As we age, some skin cells stop functioning the way they should, longevity scientists called those the zombie cells and that's what's actually driving those visible signs of aging the dullness that creeps in over time and we're all seeing that on the president and one skin's OS1 peptide was specifically engineered to address those zombie cells

so you're getting everything you expect from great skin care with OS1 doing something most skincare was never built to do I've been one skinning I almost think that you have to believe that there's been a material difference in the 40-something straight males skin longevity just based on my advocacy here in New Orleans. I can just see it. I'm seeing it at school among the dads, among my friends at the shows.

They're on it now. They're moisturizing. They've turned to one skin. People are complimenting them. Their wives are happier. Get on board. Do it. It's not just my visual experience you can trust.

OneSkin's results are backed by peer-reviewed clinical studies, and they got a bunch of five-star reviews as well. Born from over a decade of longevity research, OneSkin's OS1 peptide has proven to target the visible signs of aging, helping you unlock your healthiest skin now and as you age. For a limited time, try OneSkin with 15% off using code Bullwork at Onskin.co slash bulwark. That's 15% off. Oneskin.com with code bulwark. After you purchase, I'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. You're writing tonight about the bond rate.

Everybody immediately their eyes start to glaze over. It's nap time now once we start out the bond yield. But it is quite important. The craziest thing about all of this to me is one of Trump's big things when he came back in was he wants to get interest rates back down. And obviously he did it in a corrupt way and he did it in that ham-fisted way and he's not an economist, he doesn't know anything. Like there was something to the fact that in addition to inflation, one of the other reasons

I think why people were so down on the Biden economy was because interest rates were so high that people felt stuck. You know, if you're a senior and you want to downsize, you're like, I'm going to downsize and pay more because the mortgage rates are so much higher, right? Like us, like, if you moved for a job, you're like, ugh, you're not to move just a lot. Or, you know, if you had another kid, you're like, I want to move out to the suburbs and get into a bigger house and upsize. Or buy a car?

Yeah, or buy a car. Like, it just wasn't affordable. Like, it wasn't affordable to do all of that. because the interest rates are so much higher than they were pre-COVID. And that was starting to come back down. Like, we were, you know, I was looking to refinance. Like, we were watching it. It's like we're almost like a couple quarters away from being like, you know,

where there's a little bit of slack out there for people. And I think that that was going to have a real impact that was going to benefit Trump economically. You know, the people are happier about the state of the economy. If interest rates are lower, not everybody, not the people collecting the interest, but, you know, most of the economy. And he just fucked all of that up in two months. To be fair, it's more than two months because it started with Liberation Day when he raised tariffs. Because what happens is interest rates are related to what's happening in inflation, right?

I think typical consumers are like, well, higher interest rates make things more expensive. So they're part of the problem. They're actually the solution to the inflation. It's not super intuitive. But basically what happens is when you have prices going up a lot, that means. means the Fed is more often than not going to raise interest rates to try to like squelch inflation. And then eventually you hope to get to this equilibrium where prices are lower and interest rates are lower. But you kind of need the inflation thing to go down first before you can

bring down interest rates. And what Donald Trump has done instead is he's re-accelerated inflation. He did it with tariffs. And now he's doing it with the war. And the real question for the Fed is, well, is it like a one-time increase in prices? That was the hope with tariffs, that it would be a one-time increase. It's not like an ongoing increase in prices that you really have to worry about, you know, inflation kind of spiraling out of control. Same deal with a massive oil shock. Is it a one-time increase in oil prices? And what happens is there's this fear that there's like this one-two punch of those things together that will reset people's expectations so that they start to expect ever higher prices. Even if the oil shock was kind of a one-time thing,

people start worrying about prices going up. So they preemptively raise their own prices, which becomes self-perpetuating. Because nobody wants to get caught off guard being the only, you know, chump out there, essentially, who isn't raising their prices when everybody else is. I was thinking of more vulgar words for that. But yes, I like a vulgar word. I want to hear you cuss. Give me something. Sucker. Anyway, so that's the real problem here. here that Trump himself has re-accelerated inflation and now the Fed doesn't know what to do about it. When we started this year, it looked like, you know, markets kind of thought that like the Fed was going to cut rates a couple more times. As you mentioned, they had cut rates last year. It looked

like they were going to cut rates a couple more times. And now that seems to be off the table. Markets do not think that there's going to be a rate cut this year, maybe not even next year. In fact, it looks more likely that they're going to raise interest rates rather than cut them by the end of next year, which none of which is good for consumers, none of which is good for voters, when they're going to the voting booth for all the reasons you just mentioned. It's also really shitty for Kevin Warsh, who just got confirmed to be the Fed share. He just got confirmed yesterday. Yeah, let's talk about this. He is really in a, like, what do you do if you're Kevin Warsh? I guess maybe you don't care because you got the job you always dreamed of by sucking up to

Trump and now you just do whatever you want. I guess it would be the hope, but I, like. Yeah, he's screwed. He's in a real tough spot. He's screwed because he got the job because Donald Trump thinks he's going to cut interest rates. There were a number of reasons to think that that would be difficult for Kevin Warsh to do. One is that he historically is considered an inflation hawk. Whatever he's been saying recently about cutting interest rates and he has publicly, at least like last year when he was auditioning for the job, he has said that he wanted to cut interest rates. He is known throughout his career as like airing more on the side of high. rates, tighter monetary policy because he was so worried about inflation. So like he seems to be constitutionally primed, not constitutional like our founding document, but like in his character, right, he seems to be like more likely to lean towards higher rates, not lower rates. Then you have the actual inflation that you are seeing throughout the economy. Again, largely instigated by Trump's own policies because Trump doesn't seem to understand what his policies do. That makes it harder for Kevin Warsh to get on board with rate cuts.

And then the biggest challenge is that Kevin Warsh is one of 12 people who will be voting on interest rates, even if he wants to cut rates lower, either because he believes that's the right path, which I don't think, or because he's worried about wrath from Donald Trump, which I do think, he can't do it. And so the real question is, how does he manage that? How does he manage Donald Trump? When he comes into the Fed, he's supposed to be, you know, sort of like, operating by consensus, getting everybody onto an agreement about where interest rates and other monetary

policy should go. He's supposed to be marshalling the troops and getting them to, you know, more or less they vote as a block. There are a couple of dissents recently. That's unusual. Usually they vote as a block. So he's trying to get them all on the same page. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is going to be breathing down his neck saying, why aren't you cutting rates? And even if he wanted to, can't force this group of people to do it. So I wonder what Kevin Warsh is going to do. Is he going to like be the first Fed chair ever to dissent from the rest of the Fed board. I don't think that's going to happen. But he's going to have to manage expectations for Donald Trump.

If I was saying I'd do it Trump and I would start tweeting, trash talking the other Fed board members, the other governors, and just blame them and just be like, these losers won't let me do what I want to do. Wink, that's what I'd do if I was Kevin Warsh. Yeah, except that Warsh's vote on interest rates will be public. So is he actually going to, you know, he can tweet like they're not. 11 to 1. Yeah, I mean, he can tweet saying they did what I,

the opposite of what I wanted them to do. But A, he looks ineffectual. And B, like his vote will be a matter of public record. Did he vote along with him? He's going to vote just like Susan Collins. He's going to vote how Trump wants. And then say, I'm very concerned about what these other people are doing over there. But I'm covered.

I don't know. I'm just joking. I mean, and I wonder how worried he is or, should be about Trump weaponizing the state against him, like Trump has against Jay Powell and against Lisa Cook, who's another Fed governor. I think probably less concerned about that because his father-in-law is Trump's buddy Ron Lauder and they, you know, were doing the mine deal in Ukraine and he was trying, and Lauders are pushing for the Greenland. Greenland thing. And they're both in the Epstein files. I don't know. He might have a little more cover than Jerome Powell on that, that little Epstein class love.

I don't know. I mean, Trump has has certain. certainly turn heel on lots of other people who thought that they had more of a shield than Kevin Warsh has. All right. I have one other topic. But before I just, I just, I just want to let you let you know. Like, I've got an apple bomb to cuss on this podcast. Bill Crystal and Jim Comey. I said shitty. I said shitty. Bill Crystal and Jim Comey cussed on the podcast this week. So whatever vulgar word you had in your mind, this is the place for it. Just let it loose. Let your animal spirits loose. That's all I'm saying. Catherine. All right. I saw you talking about the ag economy this week on a social clip, and I do just want to close with that because I think it's important because we care about the well-being of our farmer brothers and sisters who feed us. So for earnest reasons, it's important. For political reasons, it's pretty important because if the Democrats are

going to take the power back that they need this fall, they're going to have to win in some farm areas. Iowa, Ohio, Nebraska, Kansas. Like, this is, This is where the Senate is being fought, and the economy is there shitty. And I was interested this morning to see Roger Marshall on Sputnik, Fox Business, his senator from Kansas, talking about how things are going in his state. Let's listen. China knows that he means business as well. So we're trusting it.

We trust in Trump that he's over there making a great deal for us. No one's done more for American agriculture and rural American than President Trump, Secretary Rollins, and a Republican-only Congress. Hmm, excuse me, that's Sputnik-N-Newsmex, not Fox business. It's hard to tell the difference between the three sometimes. Roger Marshall's Kansas Center on Newsmax, he's got an election coming up. What do you think about that assessment? Nobody's done more than Brooke Rollins and Trump and Farm Country is just having a golden age right now. I think few people in American history have done more to screw over farmers than Donald Trump has in a very compressed period of time. If you look at what's happened to farm bankruptcies, they rose 46% last year. And that's not only because of Trump policies, to be clear, but it's largely because of Trump policies through tariffs, which raise their input costs for things like fertilizer, for the equipment that they need. The tariffs also led to countries around the world, basically boycotting American goods. China stopped buying soybeans entirely for a while. And that's obviously hurt farmers in a lot of the states that

you just rattled off. You have Trump deporting a large share of their labor force. The interest rates are really hurting farmers as well. And then you have little noticed, I think, by much of the media, but the cancellation of a bunch of food aid programs that helped these farmers, you know, not just USAID and, you know, foreign aid programs that have been cut off that U.S. farmers historically have have been very supportive of because their crops and their meat products are being used to feed the world, but also here in the United States. You have SNAP getting huge cuts, which the administration is bragging about, of course, saying that like they've lifted people off of snap. No, they've pushed people off of SNAP. That hurts farmers. And then a lot of other, like,

more niche programs related to school lunches and other kinds of domestic food assistance programs that historically have supported farmers and have given them a little more cushion, particularly because they get hurt by all sorts of shocks that are, again, not policy-driven, things like droughts, which we're also dealing with in parts of the country right now. So all of these things have tremendously hurt farmers, which, as you point out, is historically one of Trump's core constituencies. And then, of course, the war, right? The war has accelerated all of this stuff. higher diesel prices, higher fertilizer prices, everything has gotten more expensive. So I think that's why you've seen a number of these kind of like, I don't know, sob stories or whatever, you know,

this is the genre of news story where you have farmers saying, I thought he was going to help us, and then he didn't help us, and he's done all of these things, and why can't he look out for us? And it's really hard to know how much of it is about him not understanding the impact of his policies and his just total indifference to the impact of his policy. Not caring, I think, not giving a fuck about them, actually. No, I was covering this during Doge. There's a farmer in North Louisiana that cold called me, kind of through a friend, just trying to get in trying to get attention on this.

And it was, you know, they did the kind of like healthy greens for the local schools, right? Like that for that food program, right? Like the, you know, lettuces are like grown in Louisiana that didn't have, this is not my area of expertise, but didn't have all the nonsense. sense that the mass market lettuces have. And like in addition to that, you know, there's less travel, so it's fresher, right? And that program was canceled. It was just like, that was my, I was like half the far.

That was what our food was going to. And instead, now the school kids are getting, you know, whatever iceberg lettuce sent in from Nebraska. And it's like, this is crazy. So anyway, that's out. And then this week we had the beef thing also on top of that where Trump talked about lowering tariffs again on beef to help get beef prices down to get more. foreign beef in, but the domestic farmers were like, what the fuck? Like, you keep screwing us

left and right. And so he kind of backed off that. So I don't, they're in a bad way on this. I think that food prices are going up in farm countries bad off. Anything else we're missing out there in Econ World? Do you want people to know about? I don't know. I'm sure there's stuff we're missing because there's always stuff we're missing. All right. We're doing our best. You send any tips to Catherine Rampel. The receipts newsletter out tonight. There'll be more on Kevin Actually, can I make one call out? Yeah, do it. I am working on a piece about the tariff refunds that are being issued.

They've started trickling out. And I want to hear from people who have applied for them or who are considering applying for them or who are afraid to apply for them because they're worried about retaliation. I want to hear your stories because I'm trying to get a sense of how it's going out there. All right. So if you want to send a tip to Catherine on that or if there are any other tips, things you should know about us. We have a tip line, the borgic.com slash tips.

So go check that out. Catherine, appreciate you very much. Everybody subscribe to the receipts newsletter. We have a million subscribers now. Email subscribers on the bulwark. Isn't that crazy? That's awesome. We appreciate all you guys. And up next, Congressman Robert Garcia. And we're back. He's a Democrat representing California's 42nd Congressional District. He's a ranking member of the Oversight Committee and has been part of the effort to force the Trump administration to release the Epstein files. It's Robert Garcia. What's up, man? Good to see you again. Good to see you. Been a minute. Been a minute.

I guess we had you at the free Andree event. That was a win. That was a huge win. Seacott. Nobody's in Seacott right now. I mean, they're El Salvadorans in Seacott. We could, you know, but we can only do so much here as a congressman in America. But none of the folks that we sent there are still there.

People don't talk about that stuff anymore. I think it was kind of like Minnesota for me, an example of aggressive resistance can work, actually. And there's a lot of stuff to be upset about. There's a lot of frustrating stuff. But I do think it was kind of an early sign that if he was pushed back against, that there actually are levers to put pressure against this administration, even though they've, you know, have control of D.C. Yeah.

And I think also it shows that if you actually fight and, like, take action and be aggressive, you can get some stuff done or bring attention to issues. And I think going down there, whether it was for Kilmer-Brigo Garcia, for Andrew, of course, I mean, elevating his story. It was the first time that folks are at the State Department had heard his story. It was important. And he's actually doing fine now. I mean, he's out there.

I've actually talked to him since. I know you've talked to him since. So I know that he would love to come here to the U.S., which has been great. Maybe 2029. We'll get to that in a minute. The other example that, as I mentioned, that you were spearheading on where pushback against the administration has been effective. And maybe we haven't gotten everything that we wanted, but you've seen the difference is on. Epstein. Earlier this week, you were in West Palm Beach, getting testimony from Epstein victims.

Talk about that hearing and, you know, what else is ahead? Yeah. I mean, look, I think first, the Epstein case is, it is a single largest government cover up in modern American history, number one. This is the single largest international sex trafficking ring. We think in modern American history as well. So the issue is front and center, I think, in the public. It's also Donald Trump's most unpopular issue. It's bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats agree. Everyone agrees that this is a big issue. People have got to be engaged. The reality is, is that there has been a huge cover-up going on being directed by this White House and failures going back multiple administrations. Like, I put a lot of blame also on Merrick Garland, for example.

Like, why the hell weren't we prosecuting folks? Why was information out during that administration? But now we're at a point where the current president has called us a hoax. The Attorney General, former A.G. Pambondi and the current one have wanted to move on for months and months. And the survivors have yet to receive justice. There have been co-conspirators. There have been other men that have caused the abuse. And there's been no convictions as well. And so we're trying to highlight the stories of the survivors. You've tried to work when possible in a bipartisan way to get support for subpoenas. Even in the majority, we have fought really hard, been really aggressive. And we've gotten information. I mean, the only reason why you've had those emails out

that got released earlier from Trump and Colleen Maxwell, and the only reason is all those photos and videos of the island. And all that information has been out, and quite frankly, the files that we've seen was because Democrats have fought to get it out, even though half of the files are still in the possession of the DOJ. Half, 2.5 million documents at minimum. And so this is not an issue that's going to go away

and we're going to push it all the way until we get justice for the survivors. The Democrats and Thomas Massey. He's got a primary next week. Shout out to Tomnastic. Absolutely. Well, and look, and credit to some of the Republican women. Nancy Mace, Lauren Bobert, Anna Plina Luna, while I disagree with them on almost everything, have actually been quite good on this issue.

The one frustrating thing about, and maybe this is part of the other documents that they have, but I do think the one thing that from those of us in the outside are wondering is it still seems like there's a dearth of like co-conspirator information. Like, we know what Jeffrey Epstein was doing, maybe not everything, but, like, you know, we know what Gleine Maxwell was doing. Overseas, there have been some examples, Prince Andrew, et cetera. But there really hasn't been any kind of big breakthroughs or accountability about other co-conspirators who were sexually abuse and girls. What do you think, what do you make of that? I think that is partly true. I think one is we can't know the full story until we get all of the files. I think one thing that Donald Trump has been saying, and he's told this to other members, and Marjor

Taylor Green recently said it as well, was that if all the files get released, a lot of his friends are going to get in trouble. And he doesn't want to see his friends go through this. Well, some of these friends are likely these co-conspirators and our folks that actually rate and abuse women and children. And so we have to get to the bottom of that. You cannot complete an investigation when over half of your evidence is still in the possession of the DOJ. And of the evidence that they've released in the current files, some of the information. of those names are still redacted that we haven't had access to. And so when you're redacting the names of co-conspirators of men that possibly committed the harm and you're, don't,

you know, don't give a shit about exposing the women and the survivors and doxing them and putting their names out there so that they're actually in danger. That's a problem. And so there's still a lot of work to do. And look, we know and we have heard of certain folks that could have been involved, but the evidence, and to actually build that evidence, is ongoing. Yeah. Has it been anything, like, as you were reviewing the files, going through all this, like, what was the thing that shocked you the most? I mean, honestly, what has shocked me the most is that the level of effort by our government, current and former, to not aggressively prosecute anyone or conduct through investigation.

So I'll give you an example. Folks like Les Wexner, who was, of course, Epstein's chief, you know, financier benefactor, his former attorney and his former accountant, Darren Indyke, Richard Khan, those three were never once interviewed by any law enforcement agency, the FBI or the DOJ over the last few decades, not once. And it's not just them, it's multiple other folks. So for the very first time, we are interviewing these key figures. The Oversight Committee is not law enforcement, but a congressional committee in trying to put this investigation together. The folks that should have been interviewing these people were the FBI, were the Department of Justice, were to local police departments, but no one did anything. And so that part to me has been stunning and clearly points to a cover up of where folks were pulling strings to ensure

that people weren't being interviewed and that the truth wouldn't get out. So that part has been, I think, the most surprising. The second one I'll say is all signs point back to Alex Acosta. And I think what people don't realize is when the 2008 sweetheart deal happened with Jeffrey Epstein, which was essentially given to him by Alex Acosta,

numerous prosecutors in Florida had gone to Acosta and said, look, we have evidence to go after a strong federal charges. We have evidence to go after co-conspirators. There's a lot here. For whatever reason, Alex Acosta makes a decision to say, we're not going to do any of that. And instead, we're going to give Epstein this slap on the wrist. He serves less than a year and has his own house arrest. He gets to walk around. And not only is on a house. Like walk around town, not walk around the prison yards. He's basically not in prison. It's basically a fake conviction. And then he goes on to continue to

rape and abuse women and children. And he begins this international sex trafficking ring post 2008, what he's bringing in women from Eastern Europe and other places. And this only happens because Alex Acosta chooses to essentially not listen to the prosecutors in his own office. So the question is, why did Alex Acosta do this? Did anyone direct Alex Acosta? And then, of course, Alex Acosta goes on to become Donald Trump's Labor Secretary. And so I think those two things have been What's kind of ominous when you say, did anyone direct? Like, who, do you have someone in mind? I mean, look, I think there's a lot. I suspect that this investigation has so many layers. There's, there's so much money involved here. So many people were clearly engaged at the highest levels of government.

Look, when you have, when you have the monarchy and you have, you know, former prince is engaged, this is a very high level of influence in people that are involved in this investigation. We might come back to this when I talk about what's ahead in 2027, but we've got little news stuff first. So there's a war powers vote coming up probably today in the House on the Iran War, even though it failed in the Senate. Thanks to our friend John Fetterman, who voted with the Republicans to continue to give Trump these war powers. I guess I'm just wondering at the broadest level before we get to the politics, like what's your sense for how the war is going? terribly. I mean, what are we doing? There's no mission. There's no outcome. We call it a war, then we don't. That's an attack, then it's not. There's no real consistency what's going on as relates to the Strait of Hermuz. Our international allies are all over the place. We're being

condemned by folks that should be working with us. There's no end in sight. I have no idea what's going on from day to day. There's really no briefings happening to the Congress. So it's been going to, and we're spending, what, a billion dollars a day to do what? The same family is still in power. And when you talk to folks, look, even when you talk to Iranian Americans or folks that are here, and I have a large group in my community, even many of them that early on wanted that regime change. We all did, right? I mean, we're talking about a horrible situation.

Now are wondering what the fuck is going on. You are seeing a change one kind of X-Bexam. 100%. I mean, when I talk to my Iran-American community back home, I have seen the shift. I mean, early on, there was strong support, hoping that there would be some kind of major change. And now you have seen a lot of them going, a lot of them actually believe some of them that they are worse off because now their dreams have been crushed. The idea of rebelling or overthrowing the regime for many now is gone. And so, and we're spending endless amounts of money. So why aren't we spending that money here to help people back home?

And so I think there is no end or mission. And that I think is a clear problem. Yeah, Cam shows you how bad it's going that I had to, that I laughed at myself as if it was a ridiculous question to ask how the war is going. Because it's just so obviously going terribly. And I do wonder, I've been almost surprised a little bit that there hasn't been more pressure on your Republican colleagues, you know, from their home districts to start to push back on this. I mean, again, it's a party line vote. The Senate, I expect it'll be close to a party line vote today in the House. We'll see.

But, like, what is your sense for your Republican colleagues about why they're going along with us? And they can't even offer a plausible argument for what's happening. Look, I think it's supportive Donald Trump. I think they just want to support the president. I mean, I think many of them are also wondering what we're doing. But they have decided to essentially, you know, march lockstep with the president on everything. Now, I think back home, it's a different story. I think you're starting to see folks within the party and the base and Republicans back home going,

what are we doing? My gas is still six bucks a gallon like it is in California. I'm not. I don't, I don't, I know. I'm not getting any more money from the government. Where the hell is no tax on tips? Where the hell is my check I was getting from Donald Trump? I mean, they're not safer.

I wasn't scared of Iran in the first place. Exactly right. And why are we launching all these foreign wars when you said you were going to be the president of peace or whatever the hell he was calling himself? So I think that there is a clear break that's happening at the base level that has not yet reached the Congress. Here's my political question for you on the Democratic side about this. And feel free to tell me that I'm wrong. But when you took over the Oversight Committee, I noticed that there was like a big change in like the level of aggression and oversight and oversight. And kudos to you, particularly on immigration and ICE issues and Epstein.

And it was like, we know that Garcia and Kahn are the guys. that are going after the Epstein, you know, files, that are doing oversight, they're on, they're in the media, they're on social media, they're pushing this. Given the scale of the disaster of the Iran War, like, the Democratic response has felt a little tepid to me. It's like, I feel like if I was a Democratic House member, I would be essentially Cindy Sheehan during the Iraq War. Remember her?

I think she was outside But W's house. Like, I feel like I would be outside Jared Kushter's house or something with a bullhorn screaming. Like, it is an insane war. the economic damage that's happening to Americans is only going to increase. And I just wonder, like, do you feel that? Like, that there's maybe not as much fight as you might expect? Or do you have a suggestion for a good person who might be the Robert Garcia of the Iran War within your caucus? Look, I think there's so much horror happening at once that I think folks are trying to push back in ways that they can.

And I understand, first of all, the anger. I am of the belief that we should be angrier about everything. Sure. Not just Epstein and not just ICE, but we should be angry about the Iran War. We should be angry about affordability issues. We should be angry about what's happening with voting rights. So all of those issues we should be angry about. I also think that is where it's important to bring in newer folks.

And, you know, when I got elected to the caucus, I think I was the first sophomore in 100 years to be elected to lead a committee in our party. And I think that tells you that for too long, I think we have elevated just whoever's next. And I think it's really important that to match the anger that you're seeing, we elect new folks, bring in new ideas, and bring in next generation Democrats. As far as the Iran war, look, I think I think people are pretty pissed and they're pretty pissed in Congress. And I hear it. I wish we would be anger. And I think I think there's plenty of opportunity for us to push back even harder. Like, get out on Fox.

I don't know. If you have some congressional buddies who are looking to make a name for themselves, I do think this is a moment. And I say this kind of cheekily, but have you ever done the Pierce Morgan arguing show? Have you ever done the Jerry Springer, Pierce Morgan show? I've never done Pierce Morgan. Okay. Well, I, I, they ask me all the time.

And I always choose to do it when Trump is the weakest, because that's when it's the most fun, when he's done something particularly stupid. Because it's like I know that the other people on the food fight aren't going to be able to put forth a compelling counter argument. And I felt like this is the moment for that for like the last month. I mean, maybe Fox won't have Democrats on right now. I don't know.

But like I do feel like it's a moment to kind of go into MAGA territory and make the case. You don't have to be condescending about it or a dick about it. But like go in there and just say, hey, he's betraying you. And this crisis is going to get worse. And anyway, that's not really a question. It's more of a comment that a question. I tell your colleagues, get out there, do this. Look, I think, look, I've been fucked a few times.

We're going to continue to do that. But I think we actually have, I think some of our best communicators have some of their best moments on Fox. Yeah. Jason Crow has been on recently. Jason Crow. And look, Jason Crow is actually somewhere, I think, in our caucus. It is an excellent communicator. And because he's a veteran also, he brings a really great perspective. I think we got a lot more of those folks in the Congress and we should encourage to uplift them.

Let's talk about the this fall election and the prospects in the House. And I think a week ago before the gutting of the voting rights act, there's no assurances in life or in politics, but everybody felt very strong that the Democrats were going to win the House and that Hucking Jeffries is going to be the Speaker and, you know, Republicans might try to cheat, but that just the dynamics, the dynamics, the map with such, that it was going to be very challenging for them to hold the House. Now, after that ruling and after the ruling in Virginia, I think the Democrats are still favored. I think you guys are still favored to take back the House, but it doesn't feel like a guarantee.

and I'm wondering what the feeling is among your colleagues. I think that is about the feeling. I mean, look, I think if we fight like hell, we're going to win. And I think that the leader is mapping out a path to victory and has. But I think that the attack on voting rights and what's happening right now with redistricting is incredibly serious. And I've said this often, but the response from our state and our governor should have been that level of action should have happened everywhere immediately in that level of intensity. And I don't think we saw it everywhere. And Republicans are always going to have that level of intensity. They're always going to push

hard, go all the way. We're seeing what's happening now again in South Carolina. I mean, they are pushing. And so I think we are going to win the majority. I think it's going to be hard and a big fight. And I think that redistricting makes it infinitely more difficult. And I also worry about not just redistricting this year, but in 28. Because whatever they don't do, in 26, we're going to do in 28. And so we've got to make sure that when we win the House this fall, that we hold it. Because at the end of the day, we're going to pass a lot of great policy, hopefully something we can get through when we're in the House. Are we going to have the Senate? I hope. We have a shot at it. But we need the presidency. In 28, we have got to

get to a place where we hold the White House and the Congress so we can actually make real change in this country and reverse some of the horrors of Trump. And so what's the answer to that? Is that maximum redistricting in all of the other blue states turn Illinois into a computer chip? Or is it trying to find the Thomas Massey of redistricting to try to get some compromise bill passed? And it's kind of almost impossible to imagine Trump signing some sort of anti-jerrymandering law. So I don't think there is any other solution than maximum warfare, right? Maximum, I think maximum aggressive warfare has to be it. And it has to also be something coming from the states. And so, you know, look, when you have had governors in blue states not excited about redistricting, I think that's a disservice not just to your state, but to the country and democracy. This is like bigger than how we might feel about redistricting. In California, we had an independent commission. I supported it. I don't want to redistrict, but we had to get it done. And so we look at California.

have to go back and redistrict again. And I think... 51 to one, baby. Look, and I think that people are prepared to do whatever it takes to stop the Trump agenda and to stop what's happened right now with the extreme right. So I think we've got to get it done. Speaking of maximum warfare coming from the other side, news out today, J.D. Vance and his so-called fraud commission or whatever he's doing, he's the he's the fraud czar for

for democratic fraud. I guess, let me put it this way. He's the frauds-zar where he looks into fraud unless you've donated to the Donald Trump campaign and then you get a pardon actually. Who knows? You might get honored in the ballroom. But the latest move is like pretty shocking where they're looking into denying California Medicaid funds because of accusations about Medicaid fraud in California. And I kind of see this as of a piece with the gerrymandering war where they're going to step it up even more.

And it's not just that they're going to try to cut out representation in red states, but in blue states they're going to try to deny citizens that didn't vote for Trump Vance access to services. Well, and I think where Vance and Trump get it wrong is that a lot of the folks that they're denying services to actually voted for them. You're talking about oftentimes working class whites in communities that voted for Trump that are some of the highest users of government assistance. And so that is something that I hope folks see that are these kind of Trump voters and communities across the country that they're being impacted. This attack on essentially on health care in California is really serious. And we're talking about people, some of the most working class that are low-income folks.

They need access. This fraud stuff is complete bullshit. Look, any government or private entity, anyone, whether it's federal, local, private company, you're always fighting fraud in waste. Always. There's always going to be mistakes made. There's always going to be someone trying to cheat the system, and you've got to take it on as you go. What you shouldn't do is for a small problem that will always exist, somehow eliminate enormous amounts of services for people that really need it. The attacks on SNAP, for example, or food assistance.

Is there fraud in food assistance? Of course. Just like there's fraud in any large at Microsoft or at the largest companies in America. A lot of fraud. A lot of fraud there. I think that they sold cell phones to a bunch of people that never got them, for example. Tennis shoes, cell phones. Don't forget the Trump Bibles.

Yeah, it might be something for J.D. to look into. Exactly. And so I think that this idea that we're going to punish the working poor because there are shisters out there, I think is disgusting. Same. Let's say that the gavel is taken back. Let's say that their attempts to fuck with the midterms are unsuccessful. You're in charge next January.

there's so much fraud, there's so much corruption, there's so much shit to look into, you know, there's not enough time of the day for you. I hope that you're not a big sleeper. Like, what's at the top of the list for you? Yeah, top of the list is a real investigation on Jeffrey Epstein, where we have actually access to all the documents, subpoenas. And I really, having met now so many of the survivors in conversations, one-on-one in person, I feel very committed to ensuring that there is justice for them.

and that there are criminal prosecutions of the men that cause the abuse. So that's going to be important. And we've got to get the job done there and do right by them. The second one is Trump family corruption. Look, this is the most corrupt administration and family in American history. They're running this like some criminal operation. The fact that Jared Kushner gets $2 billion from the Saudis when he walks out of the White House, that the Trump boys.

Do you know, can we just pause on Jared for a second? Do you know when the last time Jared Kushner testified before Congress was? I googled that this morning. Do you know? No, because it hasn't, I can't even imagine it's actually happened. He did, I guess, 2022. Yeah, it's been a long time. What?

I mean, he's taking money from the Saudis, and he's the point person on our diplomacy in the Iran war, and he's on the take from all kinds of interests. And we don't even know. Like, we don't even know where he's getting his money from. We don't know anything. it's crazy that he has testified in front of Congress. Crazy.

Well, and of course, you know, the administration would argue that he doesn't have an official government job. He's on background to Axios as a senior American official. That seems like a government job to me. He's negotiating the end of the Iran war. And benefiting. I mean, getting enormous amounts of money, billions of dollars for this investment fund that he runs, who's giving him, God knows what. Who's giving him the money besides the Saudis?

Well, there's been no investment. And by the way, right, the Saudis have actually made zero return on their investments. directly. Indirectly, I'm sure they're benefiting plenty. And so the level of Trump corruption with Kushner, with the Trump sons who basically, you know, fly in or fly with their dad when he's doing diplomacy. Eric's going to China. Eric's going to China. Well, I'm sure we'll see a Trump hotel there pretty soon, and they'll be announced in the next few months. And so the real estate deals are happening, this crypto scheme, which is like insane. I mean, I'm not sure there's ever been a

a bigger level of corruption by an American president than basically opening up. There definitely is not. No. I mean, Jimmy Carter sold his peanut farm. Peanut farm. Opening up basically this account where infinite amounts of money just get poured in and with no record of who's giving all this money to the president? We still don't know.

And we know some of them because they've gotten pardons. So we've learned that, you know, Justin's son and CZ. And now there's this IRA. Now he's going to get this $10 billion from the federal government. And the IRS. So the amount of Trump family corruption, like, to the question is, I think, key to our work, along with, like, abuses at ICE and abuses at HHS and so on. So the pushback you get is, well, they're not going to testify. They're not going to give any more Epstein files. They don't care. And you're dealing with this right now with the question

of Bondi, whether she's going to testify or not. She's ducking subpoenas. How do you guys think you're going to address that? Well, that shouldn't stop us from trying really hard, right? I think what we've shown on the committee is even in the minority, like we push really hard and we get some shit done. Every subpoena that we've had in front of us, every interview, every piece of paper and email has been because we have fought, used public attention, got the public to join us. And we pulled one or two Republicans, whether it was Massey or whether it was Mace or whoever to go along. And so I think we're going to have to continue that same approach. we're going to make the strong requests. And there's no compliance.

What I tell the folks is you are going to be in front of us at some point. And either do it voluntarily, do the right thing. Because when we get to the point where we actually can force that testimony, it's going to be infinitely worse. And what we're not going to do, one thing, one of my annoyances, but oftentimes I hear from folks in the party or whatever. that we're going to move on. Like, you know, when we get, when we, in the majority, it's on to move forward,

and we're going to have this forward-looking agenda. That's fine. We're going to have a forward-looking agenda, but there has to be accountability. And if we just move on and don't spend time actually saying, this shit is actually really fucked up, and we've got to show people that there has to be accountability, people have to be accountable for the crimes they committed, I don't think we can move on. I think we, this is the moment where there has to be accountability. Great. I love that. There are a couple hundred other members of Congress. They can focus on going forward, and you can have the trust and accountability and reconciliations are.

That's exactly, I feel, as part of our role. That's good. Here's just one little thing on this for me. Is the, I don't know whether Jared Kushner will come before, Don Jr. or what they'll do. But they are in business with a lot of people right now. And I think that that would be my strategy. That is our strategy. Yeah. Which is like, you know, going to Justin's son. going to the companies that have put Don Jr. on the board. And they're going to, they'll come testify. And, you know, and it's like not to compliment Tray Gowdy, but it's, I mean, it's the Hillary, it's the Benghazi thing, right?

Like the craziest thing is that, like, the Jim Comey letter about the, you know, Clinton emails, like along a long, weird string of oversight started at the Benghazi hearings, you know? And so you just don't know what you're going to uncover. And there's going to be a lot of shit for you guys to uncover. So get on it. And we're on it. Let's fight about California for a second. No, I'll let you go. This governor's race is a shit show.

It's a total shit show. And I don't understand why we're at. You've endorsed Katie Porter, I guess. Why don't we start there? Maybe make the case for why Katie Porter. Well, look, first, let me just say, I think that there's a couple of folks that are running that would be good governors. And so Katie was the first person to endorse me when I ran for Congress, my first supporter. We actually shared neighboring communities.

and overlapping, overlapping cities. When I got to Congress, besides being my strongest supporter, she was immediately a mentor on oversight. And when I got to the Oversight Committee, I honestly saw what she was doing and the way she'd grill CEOs, the way she fought really hard. And I try to model a lot of what I do in oversight off of what she taught me as a true mentor. And so for me, the decision to support Katie was not hard. But look, I think I've known Secretary Bricerara, Tom Steyer, we've got candidates. We're not sure this is a very fluid race who's going to win. At the end of the day, we're going to support whoever the Democratic nominee is.

We're going to get behind. I will say about Katie Porter in the Ezra Klein town hall they had over the weekend. I'll put this link in the show notes. He asked her about housing stuff, which I think is the biggest issue in California, among others. I was pretty impressed with her answer, a little less so. Javier Bacera, and I'm like the mayor of San Jose. But my issue with all of them. You say you like Matt?

Yeah, I like Matt too. Look, I think I know that some of my party have problems with Matt. He was, he is a good mayor. I was mayor of my community. Longstanding relationship, got to know him in San Jose. What I like about Matt is that he, we have to be a party that also embraces technology in the future. And we can't just turn our back on innovation and tech.

And so I think that he understands that. And so he's a viable candidate. What I like about Matt is he was the only one on the stage in the debate when asked about his current governor that didn't just talk about how great he is. And there's things to like about Gavin, I've given him nothing but love about what he did on the redistricting effort. He's a good fighter. Katie Porter, the person you endorsed that called his leadership as governor as bold. And I just like, people are leaving California.

You know, and California is taxed higher than any other state. The services are not the highest of any state. It's really expensive. It's hard to be a working in middle class person in California. It's not all Gavin Newsom's fault. But to me, if, like, you're running to run California, I want somebody that's like, we need to change things and, like, make things better. Like, we don't need a status quo governor for the state.

And that, to me, is the issue I have with some of the main candidates running for governor on the Democratic side. And it's also kind of my issue with Gavin as a presidential candidate. It's like he's good at the tactical stuff. but it's a lot of baggage in your state. What's your pushback on that? Look, I disagree with some of that. First, a lot of the issues

that have been in California have existed for decades. And anyone running for governor should want to make change, period. So I agree with that. For example, you've been constructing a railway for 18 years. So that's been happening for a long time now. You have like a couple of tracks down now.

And having the single largest state in the country, you're going to have oversized challenges. And so all of what you said is true. And the area where I think as a state we have failed has been on housing. On housing, we have done, we have pushed hard, but it's not only in California an issue of the governor. We've had cities, we've had the legislature, we've had the counties that have all essentially created this NIMBY system. We haven't produced enough housing. And so the governor has pushed.

And I actually credit the governor for going after cities that have actually not produced enough housing. He has ensured that the economy in California to stay strong. He has pushed, I think, bold, progressive ideas. I think he has actually been an excellent governor. I think he'll be an excellent candidate for president if he runs. You're smiling. This is my, I believe this. And at the end of the day, the thing I love about our governor is he is obsessed with winning.

And he has won every fucking election. I like that too. He pushes really hard against the legislature. He's independent. And he is really smart. And he's not just out there pushing ideas. is because, you know, this group or that group, he believes something and he pushes really, really hard and he wants to win.

Look at redistricting. How many governors, I'll name him, zero in this country on the Democratic side, did what he did? Because he's obsessed. He's obsessed with winning for the American public, for California. And I have, over time, learned to, I just really respect him, to be honest. I think he's a great governor, and we'll see what happens with the presidential. Total shout out to him on that. I was just using it as a progressive coded issue as an example.

I saw this chart this week where Texas has passed California in production of solar and green energy stuff. Because the nimbism isn't just about the houses. It's about building other things. And it's just like, if a blue state can't build green energy, and if working class people can't afford to live in a blue state, then like something's wrong in the blue state and we need a reform and we need somebody to fix it. I don't disagree with you. And I think the governor will say this as well.

Our biggest challenge has been housing production and the burden that we have put on housing production, which is not just the governor, but you have a legislature. We have allowed, unfortunately, our love of being an environmental leader in many cases to stifle housing production. The reality is it's just too expensive to build housing in California. and our land use policy is completely fucked up. We don't allow enough housing. It's not dense enough. We don't invest enough in transit.

And so that has been our biggest issue in California. And it's one that we have to continue to fix. Do you get to have any fun? I don't know. Do you get to go to hunters in Palm Springs or Hamburger Mary's in Long Beach? I like both hunters and hamburger trees in Long Beach. What do you do? Do you go to hunters?

I've been to hunters in Palm Springs. Yeah, it's not like, Palm Springs isn't really. Yeah, Volstrinks isn't my go-to spot. But, you know, I went there for my buddy's 40th about a year ago. We had a good time. Yeah. I don't know. Are you doing anything?

California is beautiful. California's beautiful. You know? Do you get to do anything? Are you just sitting at your computer thinking about what the oversight, what oversight we're going to do? And maybe that might be the right answer for you. I do say actually most of the time sitting around what are we doing an oversight.

But I also think it's important that we're like, we're regular people and we do fun things. And, of course, I try to do different things. Long Beach Pride's coming up in just a few, a few days. So I'll be there and I'll be enjoying the community. What's the best gay bar in Long Beach? Ooh, my favorite gay bar in Long Beach for a long time has been a place called the Sweetwater. Okay.

It's a little neighborhood bar on Broadway in the neighborhood. Great place. Jukebox, old school vibes. It's probably my favorite spot. I'll check it out. Robert Garcia, thanks for coming by the office, all right? I appreciate you very much. Thank you. All right.

How good was that? Thanks so much to my colleague, Catherine Rampel and to Congressman Robert Garcia. We'll be back tomorrow. I'll be back in my home studio. Hope to see you all. Then, peace. I never ran from none but the police. I never ran from them but the police.

I never ran from them but the police. From the city was skinny, kept strong heat. Northside Long Beach. Northside Long Beach. The Borg podcast is brought to you thanks to the work of lead producer Katie Cooper, Associate producer Ansley Skipper, and with video editing by Katie Lutz,

and audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.