The Bulwark Podcast - Rep. Sarah McBride: Our President's Drunk History Take

Episode Date: January 21, 2026

In his rambling mess of a speech at Davos, Trump confused Iceland and Greenland, and demonstrated that he doesn't understand how NATO works. The infamous draft-dodger also seemed to call Truman and Eisenhower "stupid" for not just taking Greenland after WWII. Nevertheless, his threat to somehow get the island is undermining our international rules-based order. Plus, the secret, imperfect alliance in Congress that is blocking anti-trans legislation, the growing Dem opposition to the DHS funding bill, and the need to fight the trust deficit in the country —and the anger-tainment that is driving it.Delaware's Rep. Sarah McBride joins Tim Miller.show notes Sam's, JVL's and Andrew's reaction to the Davos speech McBride's column in Delaware's News Journal Get 20% off when you go to trustandwill.com/BULWARK

Hey, everybody. We have a good one for you today. I was delighted to welcome Sarah McBride to the show for the first time. I got to meet her last year at the Bullwark Live event. And she's just so good and thoughtful and do stick around for, I think a pretty stirring and important rant that she gives at the very end of the show. I do want to know one technical thing. We had some gremlins, some internet gremlins this morning that, you know, made our fancy audio system that producer Jason navigates to, make everything sound beautiful and chocolatey in your ears every day. That broke down. So we're using you know, basement podcast audio equipment today. As such, you know, there are going to be some crackles. And I apologize for that. Hopefully we'll get that fixed for tomorrow's show. As we were sitting down for the show, Trump was giving an insane speech at Davos. We get into that a little bit at the top. JVL Sam and Andrew. did a full breakdown of that over on the Bullwark Takes Feed, if you want to check out that as well. Before we get to Sarah, I want to talk about one thing.

And it's not I feel a little bit like emotional manipulation. And in some ways, I'm kind of, I'm emotionally manipulating myself a little bit because I do think it's important to make sure we are feeling the reality of what is happening in the country right now. And I think back to at a moment, I have late in the 2016 campaign, when a friend of mine, who was a Republican strategist, talked about how he was with me on Trump because his daughters,

he's Hispanic, his daughters were getting bullied at school and, like, called a bunch of names and being like, Trump's going to deport you and blah, blah, blah. That really, like, got me at the time. and stuck with me in a lot of ways. One, I got very mad on his behalf and then later kind of mad that I was more mad than he was maybe, but that's for another day.

And through the first term, like through the first year or two, like it was something that I talked about a lot, you know, like I felt like I would make fun of myself and be like, I'm like Maude Flanders over here going like, won't somebody think of the children. But it was legit, though, also. This has real ramifications, right? Like, some people just don't believe the politics matters and the president matters. And, okay, that's a point of view. That's not mine.

Like, I believe that what the president says matters, that his words matter. And that there is a trickle-down effect through society. And maybe it doesn't affect everybody. But there are, you know, people out there, young people that are getting radicalized. There are young people out there that are getting bullied. And maybe that radicalizes them in a different way. And there are people that are going to grow up thinking that they don't have opportunity in this world. And, you know, like there will be ripple effects, you know, there'll be a butterfly effect

that, you know, that will, you know, impact us years into the future because these kids that are getting picked on and bullied are going to have lower self-esteem or they're going to get angry. Or they're going to feel like America's out to get them. And who knows what that ends up looking like. And also, even if it doesn't have a ripple effect, it's just wrong. It's just wrong. Like, our kids shouldn't be crying and afraid because of what the president is saying and doing. So I want to play this clip. What's going around yesterday of a kid coming out of a soccer game. Well, let's just listen to it. Tell me again, what the other player told you, doing games.

So the goalkeeper in football? He's such a really bad stuff to me, and it just made me get really emotional. I barely get emotional in soccer. And this guy told me I'm an illegal immigrant, even though I was born in America. He said Trump is going to get me and sent me back to where I used to live. And I was born in America. I don't live anywhere else. that he called me an effing b word

and I just don't get why kids like to say those stuff and it makes me really sad that how they just control their power like that they think they have power and it's just not nice but kids are going to be dicks okay I see it

I'm coaching basketball now I see I see how kids are sometimes with each other But we should have higher standards for the president and vice president of the United States than a seven-year-old bully. And a seven-year-old bully shouldn't be taking their material from the president and vice president of the United States. Because it does hit a little harder. It's a little harder if you're a kid. It's a citizen, by the way, not that it matters.

And you're out there. It's hard being a kid. You're trying to learn a sport. You're trying to figure out how to live in the world and be social. And the other people out there who are more comfortable than you are, for whatever reason, are telling you that you're going to be put in a camp or jail kicked out of the country or that your parents are bad or your parents are criminals because that's what the president said. That's what the vice president said. The vice president said that you eat dogs and cats. Like, right?

And isn't that crazy? Like, little racist bullies on the soccer field are just. taking their racist jokes from the vice president. Like, kids are crying because other kids are repeating what the president and vice president said about them. It's fucking sick. It's sick and it's wrong. And we should be better than this.

And I know that we aren't, right? And I know that it like feels cliche and corny to be like, I wish some Republicans would say something. But I do. I wish people would still say something because it makes me mad. And we should aspire to be better. And as you'll hear at the end of the pod, Sarah McBride wants us to be better. And so I figured I could model that a little bit by talking about it still, even though I'm in year 10 of being Mod Flanders at this point.

So stick around for Sarah McBride. It's great. Thank you for navigating a few crackles and pops in the audio. And we've got some more good ones going for you later in the week. Hello and welcome to the Bullard podcast. I'm your host Tim Miller. Delighted welcome to the show. Someone who just finished her first year as U.S. representative for Delaware's at-large congressional district.

It's on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Previously, it was a state senator representing parts of Newcastle County. What Up 302? Welcome to the show. It's Sarah McBride. How you doing? I'm doing. I was going to say I'm doing well.

I'm doing okay. I'm a little jet lagged. And obviously the state of the world is what it is. But it's great to be on with a former temporary Delawareian. I don't know if people know that or I mean, it's not part of my bio. I talk about a ton, you know, it was a four-month-stint living between Wilmington and Rojoboth Beach on a failed gubernatorial campaign of a good man, Judge Bill Lee. The best four months of your life. It was a pretty fun four months. I was in the closet. It's a long story. We'll see if we have time for it at the end.

So, you know, there were some mixed elements of it. As you referenced, you just returned from a Kodel over in Denmark. And I do want to talk about that. But unfortunately, I think we got to start with the imbecilic performance by our president at Davos this morning that just ended as we were taping. Where to start with that? I guess the news, which we should say for people who didn't punish themselves with it, is that he said he was not planning on using excessive force to take Greenland. But he does really, really want Greenland and think we deserve it based on some interpretations of history. that he has. And he also, we're going to keep doing tariffs if we don't get it. And they better appreciate us. And we need the ice. And Iceland called me daddy. But I'm mixing up Greenland and

Iceland. So that's kind of the gist. So no war in Greenland yet or planned. Economic war with our allies in Europe. And he hopes they just give it to us. What do you think about that? Well, it was like a bad and inaccurate episode of drunk history. I mean, it was unhinged. It was his classic rambling mess, but a classic rambling mess that has real consequences, not only for Denmark and Greenland, not only for NATO, but for the United States. First of all, if the president really wants Greenland, he should learn its name and be able to differentiate it between Greenland and Iceland. Which is confusing for people because Iceland is greener and Greenland is more ice.

Whoever came up with those names, that's a problem, I would say. So you can understand how it's confusing. But if you're going to try to... If you're going to seize it, you should probably learn what its name is. But, you know, I just came back from this Kodel. And I cannot begin to encapsulate in words just how deep the fear, the pain, the indignity is for both the Danes and specifically, of course, the Greenlandic people. And despite that, they are still very passionate about the U.S. Danish partnership and

alliance. They're obviously still passionate about NATO. And there is quite literally nothing that they aren't willing to give us short of Greenland itself and undermining sovereignty and territorial integrity and the right of self-determining. of Greenlander. There's nothing short of that that they aren't willing to give us. And that was true before all of this saber rattling by the president. And so this, as a colleague of mine said, it benefits us not at all and risks everything all at the same time. And I think people have to understand that this is essentially this president's Crimea. And if he is able to be able to

through coercion and intimidation, through economic warfare, if he is able to take Greenland, it completely shatters the foundation of NATO, which I also think based on the speech, he doesn't actually fully understand. Yeah, he thinks NATO is like a country club that you pay dues to. It's somehow nine years, 10 years later, he's still confused about that. Like that the 2% part is just the amount that people commit to spend on defense to their GDP. It's not like a dues-paying organization like the Mar-a-Lago club. And he said if Russia or China were to do anything in Greenland that Denmark would not be able to respond by themselves.

That's literally the whole point of NATO. It's collective defense. And the president has said the only way to actually truly secure Greenland is for the United States to own it and seize it, which also implicitly suggests that the United States, it's turning its back on Article 5. that we will only defend places that we have territorial control over. And so either the president doesn't understand this, or he is willfully and intentionally trying to destroy not only NATO as an institution, but quite literally the greatest force for peace and stability, not just in Europe, but in the world that we've really ever known.

I think people have to understand that we are at an inflection point right here. I think they know that domestically. But the world international rules-based order is coming collapsing in around us. And, you know, we're celebrating 250 years of the United States. And as we celebrate 250 years of the United States, I've been thinking a lot about another sort of time frame. And that is 80 years because it does seem like this country every 80 years faces an inflection point. We have the Revolutionary War. 80 years later, we have the Civil War.

80 years later, we have the Great Depression in World War II, and now we are 80 years from that last inflection point. And I think it's as the last living memories of that previous inflection point and the lessons learned in that previous inflection point die out, which is what's happening with the greatest generation right now. We are faced with either learning lessons of history by listening to the voices of the past or forced to repeat that history. And I fear that Greenland is quite literally the beginning of a change in the world order that could result in widespread conflict that we've not seen in 80 years. It's interesting to use that 80-year reference point because the president also took

his back 80 years during the Drunk History speech. I don't know if you caught that part of it. It was long and rambling. I know you've other work to do over there. But he attacked Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, said they weren't strong enough to take Greenland. We should have taken it from them after World War II. So, you know, I mean, I guess we're looking for the judgment here of somebody who dodged the draft and didn't serve the country over Dwight Eisenhower and the greatest generation who sacrificed. It's interesting, like all of Trump's resentments, like on behalf of other people who actually sacrificed.

As Imran Khan once said, he sacrificed nothing and no one for the country, but he still manages to be aggrieved on behalf of those other sacrifices. And that is that grievance is powerful and dangerous. It absolutely is. What is profound here, though, is that he is acting like the Danes or NATO, for that matter, has done absolutely nothing for us. And, you know, frankly, the grievance that the Danes would rightfully feel. in this moment after sacrificing more people per capita after 9-11 in defense of the United States in Afghanistan than the United States did. I mean, what an incredible slap in the face by the United States after that kind of sacrifice. And that sacrifice itself reinforces, too,

the President Trump social yesterday that NATO would never be there for the United States and it never has been. The only. instance where Article 5, our collective defense provision of our NATO alliance has been invoked, is after 9-11 in defense of the United States. All of this is just completely a historical. This president doesn't know history. I don't think he cares to know history or is capable of knowing history because I think as a speech in Davos demonstrates, he's a moron. Yes, he is. It's really stupid. We can use the ars floor again. We're not. We can, thanks to Trump. And it might be, it might be apt. Let's talk about something nobody

wants to talk about except my mother. What happens when you die? Because unfortunately, it's going to happen to all of us. Even Trump was thinking about his mortality at his Luna Tocdavo speech today. Maybe he can feel his brain starting to fall out of his ears because he mentioned that he was one of the older people in the room. Anyway, if somebody like Trump can start to come to terms with their own mortality, you sure as hell can. And if you're going to do it, you might as well do it with our friends at trust and will online estate planning. You know, personally for me, A, I don't love thinking about my mortality. B, I don't like doing paperwork famously.

I've mentioned that a few times. And so it's imposing. It's intimidating to try to think about this stuff. And yet, trust and will does make it super easy. You can create a will online as little as 30 minutes to protect guardianship of children, asset distribution, and health care directives. Their products are attorney, design, state, specific, and customized to your needs. It was created by legal experts and designed to grow,

with you. You can easily update your plan at every life stage. And they got bank level encryption and secure sharing features so your most important documents and details stay protected and accessible. They also provide real customer support from real people, not Sam Altman's drones. So don't write until it's too late. Protect your loved ones today, tomorrow and beyond with Trust and Will, the most trusted name and online estate planning. Go to trust and will.com slash bulwark and get 20% off. That's trust and will.com slash bulwark to get your 20% off trust and will. dot com slash bulwark.

I want to hear a little bit more about the codeau and kind of what you learned from it. You did a social media post with some takeaways, including some observations about the dog sleds that Trump has been mocking. I think many of us are learning about this in real time. You know, I've been to Copenhagen once. I don't know a ton about Denmark's government. I don't know a ton about Greenland. Like we're learning.

I'm sure you're learning. I wonder if you, what were kind of your interesting takeaways from, from those conversations. I know you have some thoughts about the, but the Codell. I heard your conversation with, with Bill. Yeah, I suppose about the Republicans, the quote, unquote, Republicans on the Codale. Lisa Murkowski was like, Chris Coons planned this. It was such a short time. And no wonder no Republicans could make it because it was such a short turnaround.

And I'm like, I think if a couple Republicans wanted to go, real revocels. Republicans, not Lisa Murkowski and retiring Republicans they could have. But that's maybe on me. That's going to be a former family fight for me to work out. But anyway. Well, I think what is abundantly clear is that we need Republicans who privately say that they oppose this to speak out. frankly, the confusing statement by the president in Davos that first he said, and I think this might have been in the actual text of the speech, that he wouldn't use excessive force. And then a couple seconds later, it seemed like he perhaps ad libed. I won't use force. I think the White House is going to have to clarify whether he means he's not going to use force, period, or he's not going to use excessive force, because those are two different things. You know, I think one of the reasons why the Kodell was so important was because it is easy here at home for all of us to watch what's going on and think of this as sort of classic sort of political performance Trumpism, seeing it up close and being there on the ground and seeing the real and tangible impact this near conversation is happening. It wasn't shocking, but it was jarring. People would actually come up to us on the streets, bleeding, not just with us to try to stop this, which of course we are, but pleading of how can we

get out of this nightmare. What can we do? Because we are willing to literally give anything except what we truly can't give up, which is our sovereignty as a nation, which no nation would give up. And the reality in Greenland is that families are thinking about leaving. Children are going without sleep. And what I think people here don't understand is that Greenland, I think everyone knows it's an island of ice. But because of that, Denmark, essentially subsidizes the majority of the cost of habitation in Greenland, which we would have to absorb as a government if we were to take it over. We right now, even if we don't engage in force,

are utilizing or potentially utilizing vast economic coercion, which will result in the imposition of a massive sales tax on the American people, to get an island that we would then have to pay for indefinitely, and that we don't want, the vast majority of Americans don't want. Even if we don't use force, this is a drain on the taxpayer when we could get everything without all of that costs associated with it. Yeah, and in addition to the taxpayer, I talked about this briefly yesterday, but, you know, the instability is, you know, creating an increase in the treasury yields, right?

People like in other countries and investors around the world, like invested in the U.S. and the U.S. dollar because it's a safe haven. And that did Trump, who you think would know about this as a real estate guy, was like rambling. One of those other rambles today was about interest rates and how they aren't going down enough. But like the Fed has been lowering interest rates, but still people's mortgage rate is still going up because of instability. And like that skyrocketed over this week to like the highest point it's been since last year, like when the tariff nonsense, after Liberation Day. And so like, That has a real impact on regular people. If you get a new job, and want to need to move to a different part of the state, or you want to buy a new house, or your family's growing, or if you're downsizing,

if you're a senior trying to downsize your house, right? Like, this matters and his instability is affecting people. That's like a little hard to explain, you know, because you got to use the word 30-year yield, you know, but it does affect real people. And I don't know, David Pluff and I were talking about this. Do you think it's possible to kind of break through the economic side of the Greenland Gambit to voters?

I think if it continues, absolutely. I think if it continues, and we are seeing 10% new tariffs on these European nations, potentially 25%, potentially more in the weeks and months ahead, I think we absolutely can make it clear to people that Donald Trump is taxing you in order to get something that we don't need, because everything that we could materially benefit from the Greenlandic government and the Danish government are willing to give to us.

We had 20 bases in Greenland after World War II. It's now down to one. If we want to reopen those 20 bases, they are more than happy to let us do that. There are essentially uninvestable natural resources in Greenland because of the hostile terrain. But if we want to spend whatever money to try to get those natural resources,

they're willing to work with us to do that. There is quite literally no reason for this. And I think with no reason, coupled with a potential sales tax on the American people, coupled with the argument that we're going to have to, if we take this over, subsidize this island, I think that that's resonant for people. And I think it betrays the president's fundamental promise to his voters, which is to put our country first and to try to solve problems here rather than, going around the world being the world's policemen and spending massive amounts of money on

on endless wars. Did you ask them if it's offensive to call it an Eskimo Ice Desert? Because I did that on social media. Some people got mad at me. My guess is that that's probably something they wouldn't appreciate. And you mentioned, look, you mentioned the dog sleds and the president keeps mocking this, the fact that the Danish government, the Danish military has now two dog sleds there. that is literally the only way to traverse the tundra parts of Greenland. If you had motors, in many cases, those motors would cease working in the cold. You couldn't have the amount of redundancy that the dog sleds have, should the motors fail,

and you'd be stuck in the middle of a tundra and would likely die. And so the only way to get across, particularly the northern part of the island, is with these dog sleds. And so it shows that we don't have the knowledge. Greenland is one of the most treacherous terrains in the world. We do not even have the knowledge. And we don't have the equipment, the ice breaking ships. We don't have any of it to actually run Greenland.

It would collapse within weeks if the Danes pulled out. I want to move to the funding kind of fight conversation, two elements about it. The house is like moving surprisingly fast on these little, I don't, I don't want to bore people too much with the minibus talk, like the internal house things, but just as a broad brush, it's kind of getting, you know, this next kind of budget cliff passed. And they're moving a little faster than I think some of us expected to do that. The Republicans in the House.

Some Democrats in the Senate, we heard Chris Murphy and others basically say the Democrats should be totally stalwart against and potentially be part of another shutdown fight over these next budget negotiations, centering on. what DHS is doing in Minneapolis, obviously, but all around the country. What's your sense of that, like what's coming with the potential budget fight and whether Democrats should use this as an opportunity to fight? I mean, I think we should fight. I think we should fight smart.

My perspective on this, and I'm still deciding exactly. I'm still reviewing the appropriation bills that are coming before us. I am a no on the DHS appropriations bill. There are real wins in many of these appropriations bills in terms of great. greater guard rails, which I know everyone says, well, the president won't follow the law. And it's like, okay, well, in some cases, that's true. In some cases, he does. Guard rails do matter, especially if there's a final say from the courts.

And, like, if we're just going to say he's not. And there's a bunch of stuff that he doesn't pay attention to. This is the other thing why I don't like that fight. Like, it's important to have guardrails in the, you know, budget for, like, random departments that he's not meddling. Exactly. Exactly. And there is more funding in some of these cases than what we would have without these appropriations

bills or greater guardrails, not just for. the agencies and the federal workers, but also for folks who, for instance, live in Section 8 housing. There's a prohibition in the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill that would protect 4 million people across this country who live in Section 8 housing from essentially the federal government unilaterally evicting them. There are real protections for people in these bills. And so I think that people can in good conscience vote for those bills. We unfortunately, if the DHS bill does not go through, the Department of Homeland Security Bill doesn't go through.

ICE will have all of the resources it needs because they were able to pass hundreds of millions of dollars for it in the big ugly bill. But I do think by isolating the DHS bill, I and many of my colleagues will be voting against it. And I think it's worth making that department, which is where ICE is located, make that department the center of the conversation and the center of the fight rather than throwing in everything else and all of the collateral damage that comes with a larger potential government shutdown fight. And I think if we make that issue the issue and we've isolated it by having a standalone DHS appropriations bill, I think that means we can fight on that issue without hurting people that we are trying to protect every single day.

Speaking of people are trying to protect, there is a little thing called secret Congress people talk about. It's almost like it doesn't incentivize anybody to talk about the ways that Republicans and Democrats work together. This is not healthy, but it just is where we're at, just as a political matter. That's what I'm talking about a couple of the elements of the secret Congress. There's this post by Aaron in the morning yesterday talking about how in all these budget bills, the Republicans had attached some anti-trans riders to them. You know, they're kind of these poison pill elements that weren't really,

relevant to the actual funding bill. And they all ended up being stripped. And, you know, that's the kind of thing that's all happening behind the scenes. And I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on what was happening there. I'm really proud of my colleagues on this particular issue. There has been an endless amount of stories about the pending, throwing of of the trans community under the bus by the Democratic Party for a year and a half now. You know, every single time one random politician says something that's not particularly great or

eloquent. There's a story about how, see, this is proof that the Democratic Party has thrown trans people under the bus. That's just not accurate, right? At a certain point, the facts demonstrate a different reality. And the reality in this Congress is that because of essentially near unanimity of my colleagues in the Democratic House Caucus and the Democratic Caucus in the Senate, not a single major anti-trans bill or provision has passed and been signed into law by the president. And if you had told me that when I was coming in here in November of 2024, that not a single anti-trans bill or provision would have become law by this point in this presidency, I would not have believed it. And that is a testament to the pragmatic principles of my colleagues. I will also be

honest, it is a byproduct of an approach to navigating these issues that has allowed space for imperfect allies for people who have questions or concerns about trans people in sports consistent with our gender identity, for people who don't always use the right language. for people who fundamentally believe in the dignity and rights of transgender people and this Republican effort to fearmonger and scapegoat around us is just rule and blatant bullying, who still believe that there are certain questions that need to be answered in public policy about funding and about participation. If we create enough space for people to remain on the life raft, people will be able to remain on the life draft.

If we have an ever-shrinking life raft and we push people off because they aren't with us 100% of the time, we're going to find ourselves pretty alone on that life raft. And I think that that's one of the things that people on our side don't always appreciate because there's this demand to fight, which is a reasonable demand and something we should do. But any general who is going into battle would tell you, one, you don't battle on your opponent's terrain, right? You don't die on every single little hill. We're not invading Russia in the winter. Yeah. Okay. And you make sure that when you go into battle, you have as many people within your army as possible.

You don't go in with a tiny army that will be defeated in a matter of minutes. And I think that the approach that I have tried to take is to keep our party together to welcome imperfect allies, both as a short-term necessity and as a long-term imperative, because if you aren't engaging in conversation with people who enter with goodwill and good intentions and in good faith but have questions and might disagree with you on some things, there is no way for you to change their hearts and minds in the long run on those issues that you continue to disagree on. And so I think we have real receipts. Our caucus has real receipts and our commitment to this community. I think I have real receipts and being a part of that effort to keep people together. And I'm also proud that this approach has not only paid off with some of my Democratic colleagues, but it's not only resulted in me being able to bring some Republicans in to vote against an egregious anti-trans bill that my former colleague, Marjorie Taylor Green, introduced. But it then also allowed me to be more effective because of the way that I have navigated the first year in Congress, including the attacks early on, a number of my Republican colleagues knew that I was someone who was willing to have an outstretched hand, that I was someone who was willing to work across disagreement.

And so not only would these colleagues come up to me and say that the way I've been treated, it's wrong and it's not very Christian-like and all of that stuff, which, yes, they should be saying publicly, but they say it privately. But they would say, let's find opportunities to work together to show people that not everyone here is like this. And it's resulted in me being able to introduce more bipartisan bills in my first year than any other freshman this Congress. So you're saying there's a couple of Republicans in the empathy closet. Okay. Honestly, there are a lot of Republicans in the empathy closet. Okay. So we're not going out any of them if we don't need to. They're welcome to any time, we'll support them as allies. But I assume that those people, just because you're kind of

talking around it, like those people are involved and not including these trans rioters and the budget bills. Or they just didn't want the fight. They don't want the fight because it feels icky. Some have said to me to have these fights. There's some people who are helpful behind the scenes. There are some people who have, you know, a record where they have voted against. For instance, the most egregious anti-trans bill that has ever come before Congress, which was that Marjorie Taylor Green Bill that would have literally imprisoned parents and doctors for following medical best practices and inserted the government into those deeply personal health care decisions. They're on the record publicly on it.

I want to come back to the secret Congress, but not since we're doing the trans stuff, I just have a couple of the things. I assume bulwark podcast listeners are familiar with the fact that you're trans, but I feel maybe I should have said that beforehand. Just, you know, so everybody knows is fully contextualized here. On the Marjorie Taylor Green side of it, so you've mentioned her a couple times, where are you at on the Marjorie Taylor Green's face turn and the fact that she's on the view and a lot of Democrats are kind of welcoming her criticism with open arms? A lot of us that the bulwark are. Does that rub you the wrong way? I'll take her disagreements with Trump and certainly welcome those disagreements in the context of that issue.

I think we should be under no illusions that Marjorie Taylor Green on 95% of things is still the same Marjorie Taylor Green. And that what we've seen over the last year, look, I think her departure from Congress was not some master plan to set herself up for three or others. I think it genuinely was a byproduct of the physical threats that she and her family were facing from the president. And whether or not she contributed to that, over the years that kind of politics to those types of threats against other people, that does not matter. She should not face those threats.

Her family should not face those threats. I think beyond that, the evolution that we've seen, quote unquote, of Marjorie Taylor Green is a mix of genuine, you know, she's America first, quote unquote. And there is a battle going on in the Republican Party between the new Republican MAGA establishment and the America firsters. And I think there is a real disagreement there, genuine authentic disagreement there. and it is manifested on things like Epstein and the ACA tax credits. I also think that there is a bit more of a self-interest in motivation where she wants to prove to these people who have dismissed her, frankly, many of the other women in the Republican caucus,

that she is capable of moderating herself and that she could be an effective politician statewide, which they did dismiss. And I think that's part of why she's going on the view and why she's going on CNN and doing that media tour. Yeah, I think that the fact that she's the same on 95% of issues actually makes her criticism valuable, is what I think. It doesn't make her necessarily a good person or somebody that, like, you know,

that you want to go to brunch with. But it is important because it's genuine and I think maybe it has a chance of resonating. Yes, agree. The other kind of hot button on this is the folks at Axios last week decided that this was the moment amidst all of the global. and domestic crises that we had to reach out to 20 Democratic politicians and ask them if they think a man can become a woman. And then they wrote a outraged article about how only one replied and how like the Democrats aren't sure how to deal with this question. I mocked that on social

media as ridiculous. And you can see why this becomes such a flashpoint. You can see why you end up being at the center of a flashpoint because it's like I have an insane number of MAGA people, you know, doing the, why can't you just answer it? I have my own thoughts and suggestions on this, but I'm wondering, you know, if somebody running for president in 2028 called you and said, what should I say when they asked this stupid rage bait question? What would you tell them? I think you can say, look, I know what you're trying to do here. I know you're trying to have a gotcha moment. I know you're trying to have a moment here for yourself. For a small number of people who are transgender,

there are steps they can take to transition. But I think at the crux of the question, and for people of goodwill who are interested in my answer here, I think they are looking to see whether I believe there are differences between transgender women and women who are born female. And yes, there are differences. And no one is denying.

that those differences exist. And regardless of whether you think those differences should impact certain policies or not, I think all of us can agree that people should be treated with dignity and respect and that we shouldn't be bullying a small group of people who are just trying to live their lives to the fullest and be contributing members of society. I think that that's a great answer. And like the thing that frustrates me about the question and why I got mad is to that point, right?

It's like there are serious like real policy questions that need to be navigated on this front, right? Like, you know, whether it be around, you know, sports or medical treatment or, you know, we could, you know, talk about a number of issues. But like that question is, you know, can a moon become a woman is like a is a semantic question that is trying to use to humiliate people and embarrass them, you know? Yes. And to me, that's why I get my backup. And like, my instinct and my response to that is, you know, kind of be like, can a woman board a woman become a Mara Lago-faced woman? Because, like, they seem to be a different species to me than like an actual regular woman. And, you know, Donald Trump, like, I'd love to see what Donald Trump looks like without, you know, any makeup or any work done.

I don't know that he would seem like an alpha male to me. Like, lots of people, like, do things to feel comfortable in their own skin. when I do that though, some folks tell me that that like diminishes what trans folks go through. And so I'm wondering if you give me, you know, absolution to continue making those jokes or if you think that diminishes the real challenges that we face here. Well, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'm comfortable with that line of argument. Great. People ask me to give them absolution for making gay jokes all the time. And I make a judgment. I'm like, that one's okay. That one's not okay. So, you know, you can't speak for everybody. But that's what I'm wondering. I am of the mind at this point that, like, this is an all-out assault on our rights. I mean, they will, nothing will stop these people in going to extreme ends in their pursuit of targeting trans people other than public opinion.

And I am happy to have any argument at our disposal to defend vulnerable people in this moment. And some of the most powerful arguments are humorous arguments. And I am done with dispensing tools at my disposal because they don't. hold up under the scrutiny of every single abstract academic argument. Great. Thanks for the absolution. Let me know if I start getting overboard. Because sometimes, you know, sometimes I get a little hot and a little hot and loose with my arguments.

I guess the only other thing about this is I don't really care about the assholes who want to dehumanize people attacking me. You know, for example, I'll just use her name because she says as a public guy, Martina and Avertilova as a liberal. She was a really like a pioneer in gay rights activism, you know, when I was growing up in Colorado. And she was pushing back on me pretty hard, like on this and saying like, no, this is actually an important question because we need to protect women-only spaces and there need to be rules around this. And so I take that, I don't know what it is anybody's heart, but I take that feedback more than I take the feedback from a daily wire podcaster who's just trying to get clicks, you know. And so I do wonder what your reaction would be to something like that.

Well, I think I got to that in the response that I gave you, which is like, let's be clear about the motivation for the question being asked in the way it's being asked in the format that it's being asked in, which is clearly an effort to score a point on the backs of trans people while recognizing that there are people who have good will and good intentions and have. questions and want to understand and might be with me on 80% of, you know, trans issues, but not with me on 20% of trans issues, that those folks still might be curious. And frankly, that there are people who will want to know what to say if their family member asks that question or they're asked that question, again, in goodwill and person not just completely shutting down the conversation. I think, you know, what I said earlier about, like, we can acknowledge. that trans people exist, that this is something that that is real and that trans people are

deserving of being treated with dignity and respect. And that trans identities, trans reality, has existed throughout human history across cultures. This is not a new invention. This is a reality of the world we live in and of the reality of human diversity. And recognize that there are specific policy questions that people have diversity of thought on and that we can engage in a reasonable conversation about about those particular policy issues. And I think at the end of the day, for those who come to a different place on particular issues than some trans people, the fundamental question that they're asking is, do trans people think that there is a difference that trans women are identical to non-trans women? And no two women are the same. Yes,

trans women have a different experience on average than a non-transgender woman. And that there are differences in the lived experience in the policy questions in some cases for a trans woman versus a woman who's not, who wasn't born trans. Here's the last thing on this. Obviously, there's some limits to this metaphor. Like, religion is different than gender ideology. And, you know, everybody's going to maybe offended at some level by this metaphor. But like, I just mean it in the sense of it's just important for us to have respect for other people, even if we don't necessarily believe in their worldview. And I think that right-wing folks would understand this in the context of like, it would be a gotcha question for a reporter to be like, raise your hand, yes or no.

Do you believe in the biblical age of the earth? Or raise your hand, yes or no. Did Jesus really turn the water into wine? You know, like, obviously there are limits to this. But it's just like you could, you see that that question comes from a place of mocking their point of view. And like, that's the thing that bugs me about it. Yes. And I just think like the reality, the existence of trans people is not a philipal.

philosophical or ideological disagreement. Trans people exist and trans people have existed throughout human history. And there might be conversations around specific policies, but a question framed and asked in a way that reduces trans people to an ideological question is fundamentally dehumanized at the end of the day. We can have a conversation about policy, but dehumanizing trans people into some sort of philosophical or political act only reinforces a, narrative that allows for the dehumanization of trans people, not just in our political rhetoric, not just in policies, but in our day-to-day lives. I told you I closed by going back to the secret Congress and actual substantive things that you've been working on.

You wrote about this. Like, you've been there a year. A lot of us, I'm sure even a lot of listeners of this show, like it feels like Congress has done nothing. Mike Johnson did go on vacation for like nine weeks or something. That must have been nice for you. I don't know if you were in Rojoba, what you were doing, Purple Parrot. But it must have been nice to be on vacation.

for so long, but you also have worked on some things. And so I guess I just wanted to give you a chance to talk about what you worked on and maybe also the ways that Mike Johnson's extended stay vacation because of Epstein has limited the ability to do more things for folks. Sure. Well, I certainly wasn't on vacation. In fact, I was down here showing up for work like we all should have been. Not one brunch at the purple parrot.

Not one drunk, no, not one during the Mike Johnson vacation. Well, I don't think so. But if I did, it was a work appearance. I was being amongst my constituents. I do think that it is easy for people to turn on the news, open social media, and just think nothing is happening in Congress. And certainly not enough is happening in Congress. A lot of bad things are happening in Congress with these majorities. And there are some things that we are still able to do and we are still able to do together. As I mentioned earlier, I have been able to introduce more bipartisan bills than any other freshman legislation. I was the first freshman introduced legislation. It was legislation protecting people across this country from these so-called credit repair organizations that charge these large upfront fees on false promises and end up doing nothing to actually repair a person's credit score. That's a bipartisan bill I introduced one week after getting sworn. And I've introduced legislation supporting small businesses, upholding human rights internationally, legislation that expands workplace protections for folks who are out on on family leave. We've been able to introduce

legislation protecting Delaware farmers and lowering the costs for consumers at the grocery store. I mean, and we've been able to get real investments for my constituents, both investments, tens of millions of dollars in investments to critical projects here in Delaware, but also part of my job is doing constituent advocacy, the individual Delawareians who reach out to my office to get help with a tax refund or a veterans benefit or a social security check. And in a year, we've gotten $4 million back to people. All of this comes together, person by person, policy by policy, to not only deliver tangible things for people, but in so doing help to maintain people's faith that democracy can still

deliver for them, that government can still work for them. And while it's not enough, and while I certainly won a Democratic majority in November elected so that we can do big things, in this moment, we can't give up on the possibilities for progress that are before us, even if they aren't grabbing headlines. Because I think in this moment, the problem, one of the problems in our politics is that we have a trust and a faith deficit in one another. and in government's capacity to do anything for the public good. And in this moment, if we are to fight for democracy, if we are to fight for a system of government that is of the people and by the people and for the people, then we have to maintain two things. One, our faith that politics can be a force for good and progress,

because in the absence of that, we turn to a politics of anger attainment and maintain our belief in one another because democracy can only exist if we maintain our faith in other people's capacity to change. And that is hard, and we have every force in our society right now

trying to push us apart, trying to tell us to give up on politics, on government, and on one another. And if that succeeds, the authoritarian force, that we see right now that have way too much power, that will be their final victory. And that is at the heart. That is what I wake up every single day thinking about. How do we deliver?

How do we have conversations across disagreement? How do we engage in the art of social change, in political change, in policy change, both because in this moment it makes a real difference in people's lives and because it is the only way for us to preserve the system of government. and this free society for generations to come. Hell, yeah. I appreciate you very much, girl. Thank you so much for coming on the show. Thank you.

And let's do it again. We didn't get to do Delaware talk. Maybe we should do something in Roebuth sometime, all right? I can show you my old haunts. You can show me your favorite new spots. I've been there in a hot minute. We can go to the Purple Parrot together. All right.

Sounds good. Thanks so much. Thank you. Representative Sarah McBride. We'll be doing it again soon. She's amazing. We'll be back tomorrow with another power player. I think you'll be enjoying it.

Stick around. We'll see you all then. Peace. The Bullwark podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.