The Chris Cuomo Project - What Minnesota Is Exposing About Immigration and Power

Episode Date: February 1, 2026

Chris Cuomo brings together key moments from this week’s Cuomo Mornings on SiriusXM as the fallout from Minnesota collides with immigration enforcement, political rhetoric, and the fight over what comes next.Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) weighs in on the administration’s aggressive approach, sanctuary city policies, and why breakdowns between federal, state, and local authorities helped fuel chaos. Cuomo presses Lawler on rhetoric, escalation, and whether the White House misread how Americans would react to deadly consequences playing out in the streets.Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha joins to break down why overreach has shifted the political terrain, how Democrats risk fumbling the moment, and why affordability — not outrage — still drives voters heading into the midterms. Across interviews and calls, Cuomo challenges both parties on immigration, enforcement, and the widening gap between political theater and the realities Americans are living with. Join The Chris Cuomo Project on YouTube for ad-free episodes, early releases, exclusive access to Chris, and more: https://www.youtube.com/@chriscuomo/join Follow and subscribe to The Chris Cuomo Project on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday: https://linktr.ee/cuomoproject Rho Nutrition https://rhonutrition.com/discount/CUOMO for 20% sitewide Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Congressman Mike Lawler joins us now so we can talk to him about the state of play and what isn't being played with because of what we're dealing with writ large. Tony, bring in the congressman, Mr. Mike Lawler. Hey, Chris, how are you? Hey, Congressman, thank you so much for joining us in the morning. Appreciate you, appreciate you. So let's touch on Minnesota and then let's go into affordability. the president taking Walls' call, let's work on this, give me access to the jails and prisons,

let's agree on the bad guys that we want to go after that you can help us with, and let's bring down the temperature. I'll take guys off the streets. We'll do this a different way. Are you okay with that accommodation? Yeah, look, I think, unfortunately, that's what should have happened from the start. There should have been greater cooperation

between federal, state, and local officials. This has been one of my critiques of sanctuary city policies for years, is that you're actually endangering the public by not allowing law enforcement to fully cooperate with each other. Even if you just viewed it through the prism of crowd control, which we saw last night, where finally the police were engaged on crowd control, That would prevent, you know, in my opinion, these types of interactions between ICE agents and the general public.

And I think that was something that, you know, is long overdue. I'm glad they finally spoke. And I think that's a positive step forward towards de-escalating the situation. This is not what anyone wants. Nobody wants to see Americans. Are you 100% sure? this type of interaction. Are you 100% sure of that last part?

No, you know me well enough to know I'm not a cynic, but let's just chew on it for a second. I agree. Everybody knows that people dying in the streets at the hand of the state is a bad look, no matter what the circumstances. But sanctuary cities have not only been litigated for decades, okay and I totally understand the political conflict on this I get it okay and I understand why they're

parts of it that don't seem to make sense but they keep being tested and keep being found constitutional under the 10th amendment so they're not a new player in this they were a problem for Obama also okay so it's not as simple as oh they only care because it's Trump I don't think that's true I think what is different here is Trump went super aggressive by design. And that is evidenced not just by what they're doing on the street there, but what is being said about it, one of ours,

all of yours, Bovino in his coat, and saying, hey, F-A-F-O, you know, this is how it is, and Vance saying,

and federal officers have complete immunity. Isn't the Wall Street Journal right? He said, as a bad taste, entered his mouth. ripping Noam and Miller saying, you guys are just about owning the libs. That's not competent rhetoric for a presidential administration. Miller and Noam have to be sidelined, and it can't be all own the libs all the time,

because look what happened in Minnesota. Is that a fair criticism? I think criticism of the rhetoric has been fair. I mean, the calling American citizens domestic terrorists just because they exercise, you know, their First Amendment rights is wrong. Equally as wrong is calling ICE agents the Gestapo. And I think the challenge here is this situation has been inflamed for months. I have colleagues in Congress, I have colleagues in government that have encouraged, these protests in a way to interfere with, to track, to docks, ice agents, which I think was

disastrous from the start. When it comes to sanctuary city policies, look at New York City, Chris. The NYPD always handles crowd control. They are always engaged. They never walk away and say, no, we're not getting involved because this is the federal government. And when you when you abdicate that responsibility, when you say, we're not sending anybody, we're not going to cooperate at all, in my opinion, that helps create this dynamic. And it was foolish. So that is why I think it was imperative yesterday that the president and the governor did speak, that they did, you know, find a way to start to de-escalate the rhetoric between both of them and their administrations. Why do you think the president took that step? Forward to cooperate.

Why do you think the president did that? I think the feedback is that matters to him. I think the president looked at the situation and understood that this is not good. That no one should be shot dead, you know, in that circumstance. And I think the president saw that and recognized that this is a major. problem. I think that when I look at this situation, Chris, I think most Americans agree on a few basic points. Number one, the border was out of control and needed to be secured. We have effectively secured it. We've had nine straight months of net zero illegal border crossings.

That is a positive step forward. I think most Americans agree that the worst are the worst, those who are committing crimes, those who have committed crimes, murder, child rape, trafficking, et cetera, they should be arrested and deported. Agreed. I think most Americans also agree that there needs to be a legal path forward for Americans who have, for folks who have been here, 5, 10, 15, 20 years that have not committed crimes that are participating in our community whose children and grandchildren may be American citizens.

I think most Americans want a reasonable path forward. It's why I've co-led the Dignity Act, both last Congress and this Congress, because we need to actually have a sensible immigration system. What we have done for 40 years, we've allowed this to devolve into what we are seeing today, the American people don't have trust in the system, the enforcement that has gone on, It goes beyond what I think most Americans believe is reasonable. And so the question is, how do we move forward from here?

And I'm hopeful that this moment gives people an opportunity to say, you know what, we actually have to come towards a solution, not a Democrat solution, not a Republican solution, but an American solution that deals with a system that has been broken for 40 years. I'm going to be 40 in September. We have not had immigration reform since 1986. I know, because that was when, really, the mid to late 90s, really Newt Gingrich, the contract with America, which I believe was the contract on America at the time, one of my earliest pieces. But this has become a great wedge issue, and the problem works better for the two sides than working on it to solve it. Oh, each side is happy to use it as a political way. And I agree with your analysis. I agree with your analysis.

We know from the polling where the majority is, and this is not a mystery. Where it gets a little mushy is ironically what you say, hey, everybody agrees. You've got to find a path forward for the people who are already here. Not MAGA. Not MAGA. They do not agree with that at all. In fact, as we both know, the administration has a plan that is a Trump policy. come forward register we'll give you a thousand bucks we'll send you back to where you come from you'll get priority coming back this way uh if you check the boxes they don't even talk about that

to that to that point to that point the issue is over over the four years of joe biden you had 10 and a half million people come into the country it overwhelmed the system you saw it in cities like new york eric adams said it very clearly they could not handle it the social safety network was collapsing. So not everybody is going to get a path forward. And that's why I say those that have been here long term, meaning more than, oh, I get it. I just, I don't think that there's, I don't think that the right will do that. I think you're an outlier in your own party. They won't even do dreamers who you didn't mention specifically, but I know you care about them. Trump used to say on the campaign trail. Oh, we'll take care of the dreamers first. Everybody agrees on the dreams. Think about that. Wait, think about that. Go back to 2018. What was the deal?

on the table. It was a deal for the Dreamers for the border wall. And we couldn't get a deal. Right. And, you know, Chuck Schumer at the time rejected it. They shut the government down over the border wall. It was a whole fiasco. But think about that. We wouldn't be dealing with the crisis today had they cut that deal back in 2018. Well, there was a little, yes, but, right, I wish it was that clean of cut, but it wasn't because I remember with Boehner and, and, And that your guys' caucus at that time didn't want it as a straight-up. And the concern was we give them the dreamers, which has always bothered me. I don't know why you see that as giving the Democrats anything.

But if we do the dreamers, we need family reunification, what they used to call chain migration, and a couple of more things that are punitive. and that rhetoric of the Muslim ban was still up in the air a little bit. So it was a little bit more complicated than just one for one, and the Democrats were against the wall so much that they didn't want to do it. It was a little bit more than that. But you're right that that deal would be better than where we wound up. No question about it.

Now, here's my pivot point. It's like what Teddy Kennedy said back in the 70s, when Nixon offered him a deal on health care. And years later, he said, you know what, I wish I took that deal. That's oftentimes when you're in these moments, you know, people let perfect be the enemy of the good. Absolutely. You have to find a way to get to advance the ball forward, to make concessions, to find compromises, not to compromise your principles or your overall view.

but there are there's a realistic path forward and that's what we have to find let me ask you something on something that actually matters more to me not than the death the death is different but the idea that i just don't believe that people being in this country illegally unless there are homicidal maniacs or rapists or whatever but again anybody who studies the numbers if you're worried about rape if you're worried about murder you can say one is too many fine we just don't apply that standard anywhere else. But illegal entrance are not our problem in those categories. And I don't believe that the problem of people being here illegally warrants this kind of energy and upset. I think part of this is just politics, but part of this is distraction because this is an easier fight

for both sides, but certainly for the administration, than taking on big pharma. The banks are the weakest of the Troika that we want to go after, right? You got big pharma, you got the banks with the credit cards, and you got the health care companies. And those are the people who are really in control of this society. Those are the people creating a lot of the affordability issues because of the cost structure. And I believe the administration would rather take on this issue, immigration, the brown menace, that this is the problem, these people are the problem, than take on the real culprits of the problem. Am I right or wrong?

I don't agree with that. I think, look, you had a situation that the American people rejected. They said this is a major problem. Donald Trump campaigned on it. He won on it. You had over 10 plus million people come into this country. It overwhelmed the system. The social safety net was absolutely.

getting destroyed. You look at New York, they spent upwards of $10 billion in this crisis. So this was something that had to be addressed, and the American people want it to be addressed in terms of the border. They want it to be addressed in terms of those. I agree, but this issue has also been hyped. And so that, I don't think it's, look, I think obviously you have people that have a much more hard, approach like Stephen Miller in the administration who, you know, have been working to implement that point of view. And I will tell you within Congress, there's been a lot of pushback throughout the course of the year on this issue. The pushback didn't start this week.

This has been, there's been ongoing conversations for months about this issue and how it is being approached. But from the standpoint, the other point you made, though, I mean, look, the president is talking about capping credit cards. The president is talking about most... It took three days. It took three days for the bank, for the banks to push back and that idea to go away. Three days, he said 10%. They come back and say, yeah, yeah, we'll put your name on a credit card.

Let us figure out the rates. And the issue was gone. I don't think it's gone. I'm on financial services. I can tell you there's still a lot of conversation happening. But one of the points that the banks will make, which is not an illegitimate point, is obviously most Americans rely heavily on credit. And if you artificially cap the rate at a certain level,

what's going to happen is the credit markets are going to seize. That's the argument they would make now. Right, right. But they've always made that argument, Mike. And we both know, we both know. That's not true. They make 6x on credit cards what they make on any other asset class that they have. And they'll say, well, there's no question.

It's immensely valuable to them. I know, but they say, we're going to loan to less people if you do this. But the analysis on that should be, well, first of all, okay, but then we're going to affect your tax structure if you loan to less people. There's going to be a penalty. So get ready for that, because your tax. your tax relationship is in part a gift that you get as a C-Corp that most others don't get. And the reason so many people are desperate for credit is because of the cost of living.

So they're just beneficiaries of a problem that has to be addressed. You shouldn't have people who need credit to pay medical bills and for all these essential. Well, this is certainly a larger issue about. know, fiscal literacy and people being able to save, people being able to invest, people being able not to rely on credit as much. We've seen over the last 20-plus years a shift in that the credit markets have exploded. To your point, this is a major asset class for them, for the banks. But it is something that a lot of Americans have been relying on,

especially you look at all these rewards programs tied to the credit cards, et cetera. You know, people like it. They think they're getting a great benefit from it. But it obviously creates a larger issue with respect to debt and how people are consuming. So, you know, but there's that there's a, the point I'm making is the president is talking about these things. But he was elected in measure on this issue. of immigration. I don't think it's fair to say. I don't think it's fair to say he's only focused on it

because he's avoiding these other things. That's just, I don't agree with that. I don't think it's, no, and I don't mean to say it that way. I'm saying it's a factor. I'm not saying it's dispositive. I'm saying it's relevant in the analysis, and I think that that's been shifted back. And one of the, one of the signs of it, if I were tracking this in some of the deep and unyielding snow around me right now, Christy Noam taking the fall for this Which I don't even know she knows happened yet But that's what you get when you put that stupid slogan on the podium One of ours, all of yours when you're talking about other Americans

But he sees that the harshness isn't working for him And Independence especially And I hope he gets back to where you are, Mike Because I love the debates you want to have And the considerations you have And that's why I wanted to make sure my Sirius XM audience here knows you and knows your name and we will talk again and I will see you on News Nation and I appreciate you being here this morning.

Appreciate it and good luck with the new show, Chris. You like that taste of Cuomo mornings? That's my new show on SiriusXM, the Podish channel, 124, every weekday morning, 7 to 9 Eastern. But if you want to just join here on my YouTube channel, you'll be getting a steady diet. of selects, and depending on your subscription level, you can have priority call in on that show. You can have more access to me to ask questions, smaller groups, individual conversations about what matters to you. It's all about your level of subscriber. So, on the regular basis, we'll be putting excerpts of the show that resonate right here and how much access

you get is up to you. So check out the menu and make the choice that works best for your appetite. Support comes from Roe Nutrition. Now, you've probably been hearing a lot about NAD Plus lately, okay? Roe Nutrition's NAD Plus is the one that you should consider using, okay? Why? NAD plus is one of the most important molecules in your body. It is what motivates your inner engine, right, your mitochondria in every cell. NAD plus is the fuel that mitochondria run. on, all right, ties to metabolism, recovery, focus, cellular repair, all the things that keep you functioning at a high level and all the things that you have to manage better as you age. Okay?

NAD levels drop, all right? They do it depending on your stress level, but also upon your age and development level, all right? So you've got to support your NAD plus level, and this is how to do it with Roe nutrition. If you want to check out Rose Liposomal NAD Plus or any of their formulas, go to R-H-O-Nutrition.com and use the code Cuomo for 20% off. Aaron in New Jersey. I don't know about that sound. Yeah, sorry, the heater's on it. It's up in the northeast there.

It's getting a little cold. Tell me. Hey, just wanted to ask, you know, everybody's talking about these Minnesota protests. But this all stems from the Somali and fraud being exposed. Billions of American tax have just gone to waste in Democrat cities across the country. We've really lost sight of that over the past few weeks. And nobody has even mentioned it. Nobody even acknowledges it on the left.

And it's infuriating just to see that level of fraud take place. And it goes completely by the wayside. I don't disagree with you that we've shifted focus. but also let's deconstruct it okay first of all let's avoid the straw man what's the straw man an argument that isn't really true that makes your conclusion about it true there is fraud in red and blue states if you adjust for population any equal amounts of frequency and depth okay you can google right now government fraud in red states and texas florida there's time tons of fraud of the same kind that you are talking about in Minnesota.

Here's my beef. I care about all of it. Most don't, okay? What you also have to see is Trump didn't go in to Minnesota to investigate the fraud. You don't go in this way with thousands of people who are not investigators. They are instigators. They are in there to start making arrests. That's not how you investigate the fraud.

And I've got to tell you something. you know well played for nick shirley you don't know anything that hasn't been known for years in minnesota now you can argue how they dealt with it but the idea that he knocks on a door they won't let him in and that's proof of perfidy no it's proof that they have kids on the inside and that they're not going to let you in some random white dude with a camera they're not letting you in why because they got miners inside no no no they're hiding their fraud most of the places that he went to have been investigated penalized or found not to have penulted penalty and have been inspected. Yeah, but they screwed it up. Maybe, maybe do that. But don't pretend

that this is outsized fraud. And I think that takes you to who the fraud involves, which is someone that is an article of convenience for this administration, also known as brown immigrants from perceived shithole countries. That's part of it too. Okay. And thank you. I am not running away from the fraud. I would accuse the administration. of doing that because if you cared about the fraud you don't do it this way now let's get into how this is playing and what it means uh for both sides with somebody who studies this for a living uh brother rocha do you hear me i got you chuck yes good uh let's start with the with a layup.

The left saying Trump surrendered, we win, Bovino's out, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, gnom is next, right approach to Democrats getting where they want to be. I don't agree with that. I think that you can bring a highlight to somebody who's obviously not been prepared for the job, overreached, put people in harm, and talk about now opening up the conversation. More so than ha ha ha, we're right and you're wrong of. Let's sit down and try to fix this. De-escalates easy to say any common sense person with an elementary education should understand de-escalate.

But let's get to the root cause, and Dan Bovino is just a symptom. He is not the root cause. What's the root cause? You have these ice agents that are in the streets trying to all be tough guys. They got their best zone. They're pushing on protesters. when even this Democrat says, sure, ICE, we've seen you operate before under Obama. We've seen you operate under Biden.

You want to go into a community and you want to get rid of bad people? Sign me up. I'm a Democrat. I will help you do that. But terrorizing communities, you want to act like a badass, ain't the way to do it. Do you believe there's truth to the suggestion that the protests are just a now covert and being exposed sequentially? opposition movement to this government that is coordinated and funded, not organic, not from communities,

manipulated to attack this administration and stall it. I don't, and I'm a product of the left, Chris. You know that I ran Bernie Sanders presidential campaign. I'm on the group chats. I came up through the labor movement. Every bookey man on the left, I've been a part of, and I'm in those group chats. And ain't nobody asked me or paid me to go to Minnesota. But what they have done is Donald Trump is astute politically.

And people around him know what they're doing. And you go to a blue state that's had Democratic control of cities, Democrat controls of legislatures, and you start bringing in these tough guys again. That's where they want to poke at this progressive movement, the movement that stands up for people because they know they're, they're Portland, other places like that. they're more apt to go to the streets and say, these are our civil liberty, we will stand against you in peaceful protest to make sure the American people know that this ain't right and you can't kill Americans in our streets. He's not doing this in Austin, Texas. He's not

doing this in Georgia. He's doing this where he's doing it because he wants to fight because he wants the visuals of dumb protesters on the left that every now and then do get out of hand. And I'll admit that. So what do you think this issue means? for the left going forward. The main stick that they're swinging is sanctuary cities may be constitutional. You may have the right to do it, but it's not right to do it. If you don't want violent criminals who don't belong in the country here, work with ICE to get rid of them.

Stop shutting them out of the jails and the prisons. Do you believe that's a fair criticism? It is to a certain degree, but they've lost the high ground on this, Chris. If he would have just shut down the government, and he would have put up pictures of bad people that they're actually deporting like they do on Fox News every single night and not tried to militarize our street. Oh, my God. He would be winning so big right now because Democrats couldn't say shit. But because of the overreach, he's lost the high ground on the argument. If you want to start arguing sanctuary cities, again, you're killing U.S. citizens in the street. Sure, there's nuance there of sanctuary cities. In sanctuary cities, if you go in there and

You do a violent crime, little known fact. Minnesota will work with federal government on violent criminals who have raped somebody or murdered somebody. But somebody with a speeding ticket or civil offense, they won't work with you. But we never get to the nuance of what's really happening because we want to throw sticks at each other or overreach like this administration has done. You're on the phone calls. Do you believe that the Democrats have the leadership and the direction for the midterms? Look, this is my party.

I love my party. We are not perfect, and we're made up of so many different factions in the party from the middle to the left to labor to business. It's a big party. And there's no one exact answer, but there's one thing that Democrats and Republicans are scared of. And that's the voters. And when you see the voters start really getting pissed, and I'm not talking about the far left voters with blue hair or the far right voters with bulletproof vessel. I'm talking about regular common sense folks in the middle. They're pissed right now, Chris, and they're mad about what they're seeing when

American citizens start getting murdered. They were all in for let's deport criminals. They were all in for let's get rid of bad people, Venezuela. They had bought into all of that Trump rhetoric, and that's literally what got him elected. But because of the overreach, now you're going to see Democrats start pulling back to things to try to fix things, and you see Republicans backtracking Ovino gone and others because they're scared to death. of the voters and the midterm elections and that's where the real power is.

What do you think the play is for Democrats? Do you just lean into affordability? Is there any space in immigration? Is it a full frontal on Trump is dirty? What do you think winds up being the main thrust? You know I'm about affordability and I think that that's the way to be. But is that too hard and is there an easier path being perceived? No, Chris, you're owned or something and you've always had your finger

on the pulse of that. And you know, I'm not a professional TV star, like some of us on this call. I'm just a poor old political hack. And so I get to see the Poland in a lot of these races right now. And you're exactly right. Affordability is still number one,

even with what's happening in Minnesota. But number two, ironically, is this whole perversion of corruption. People now are starting to see that this whole thing looks a little corrupt. They see the ballrooms and they see folks, getting paid and they see the pardons and that's starting to add up you coupled that with now they're probably being somewhat of an appetite on Capitol Hill to actually fix the immigration system

because now they've seen the overreach of the administration how big the problem really is you lead with affordability you lead with prices of what people's lives are like every day and you pivot to a distinction between the two around what we've seen in immigration and what we've seen with the perception of a RIC system. I think that's the key to winning back in midterms for Democrats. So when you look at where the opportunity is, and, you know, by the way, you know, one of the callers before you was saying, Chris, wake up, we're not getting rid of the parties. It's never going to happen. I refuse that argument, Chuck. And obviously, I was raised within the real blue collar democratic party right you don't get more blue collar and mario quomo in terms of

you know who he spoke to and for um so i understand the depth of the culture and tradition of parties i just think it's killing us and i think that we see the electorate moving away from those identities right more people now register uh explicitly to not be Democrat or Republican, even in states where they get boxed out of the primaries. What does that mean to you? It means that you've been reading what folks have been doing and you have been following what's been happening because you're right. And even me as a Democrat, me as a Democratic soldier, me as somebody that went Democratic

campaigns, the reason I still am a Democrat and the reason I still do this is because much like your family, I went to work in a tire factory when I was 19, became a union member. And then they shipped my job to China where my dad. and five of my uncle's work and I fought for that every day and I have seen Democrats more in line with my beliefs but to your point more young people today are registering as no party preference or independence than ever in the history of America and I'm with you to say that the parties could be vulnerable they're not going to be tomorrow but if this continues with the registration of these young people who are then

going to become middle-aged people and having babies having to buy houses, there are going to be more frustrations. And unless the parties show up and talk to them about their concerns, and there's an opening now for Democrats to do that in a direct contradiction of what they're seeing in Minnesota and the streets and other places, you can even get some moderate Republicans back. But if you fumble the ball and do the same old thing that you've always done and just send a strongly worded memo instead of stand up like a damn man and take this shit on, then we're going to end up where we could be neither party being likeable for folks. And I could see that very easily, five, six, ten years down the road because the momentum is there in these

states where most folks are registering as no party preference or independence because they're fed up with both parties. What do you think about Ilhan Omar? Do you think that she's a problem? I think that there are caricatures that we let Fox News or MSNBC make on both sides. I think if Ilhan Omar or even the Republican you just had on your show this week, name one if they show up and they talk to people about what they care about I think folks are very very forgiving of anything that they may not agree with

them on some small social issues some other issue around whatever the justice of the day is folks in America and folks don't know my party don't even like when I say this but folks are just trying to figure out how to make it that's why you keep going on your show back to this affordability piece because no matter how much you're disgusted about what you're seeing in Minnesota or how much you want to see the border closed on the opposite side of that equation. If you can't pay your heating bill

and if your mama gets sick tomorrow, she's got to come live with you. That's real shit that politicians need to speak more about instead of all of this other stuff, not making light of Minnesota or making light of the border, but folks are really suffering right now. Donald Trump took advantage of that to get elected.

Democrats now have to step up and take it on if they want to gain some of the support back from these workers. 8669676. One of the points of this show is to bring in better minds. Chuck Rocha has been in the game a long time, comes at it from the proletariat level of what the roots of the Democratic Party were, understands Texas, understands all regions,

and is a high-level professional. He's not just, you know, at the community organizing level. He is all the way through and understanding where the Democratic Party is headed. The idea of affordability, here's the tricky part that I'll ask you to leave the audience with, Chuck. Doing something about it versus blaming the administration for it is a tough mix, and the latter works better than the former. So is there enough motivation to do something about it or just to hope all of the different various economic measures get as bad as possible between now and the midterms? Let me put it to you in an old country boy analogy. Sugar is sweet. People love sugar and candy, but it's not good for you. But it's the easy high.

Right now, Donald Trump's unpopularity of what we're seeing is an easy high for Democrats. And we've been winning by not being him. And we will continue to win by not being him. The question is, do we want to have the guts to win bigger? because if we make the point quickly that we're not him and we differ with his policies on this issue. And then you pivot Democrats to say, and here's the things we're going to do immediately, like Mikey Cheryl has done in New Jersey when she's like, first day in office, state of emergency. No longer your utility bills go up.

I'm freezing them until we can figure out what's going on. Or Abigail Spanberger in Virginia, who says on day one, we're going to have health care, not health care, excuse me, child care for these kids, and I'm putting this money into this thing for Virginia families to have free child care. These are the ways you differentiate yourself with policies that people really need. Child care and utility, some folks have to deal with every day. Democrats would be wise to stay in that lane talking about those things. And Chris, I apologize if there's some banging in the background, you'll appreciate that I'm in the gym moving some iron around. Of course, you are. You're clanging and banging, Chuck Roach. Are you real?

man, baby, throwback. Chuck, thank you very much for joining me this morning. Appreciate the insight, always here and on News Nation, anywhere I am. Chuck's been on the podcast. I wish you all good things for the Rocha Revolution, and I appreciate you helping out my audience this morning. God bless and be well. Thank you, brother. Laura in Florida, what is your question? I'm on my way down there on Thursday, by the way. Hey, wonderful. Good morning. Well, I was, you were talking before about Republicans and Democrats. And I am, in Florida, you have to be one or the other.

You can't vote in the primary. So my philosophy on the whole thing is the fact that you have to choose one side, but they give the name Republican and Democrats so we out here in the field can fight with each other because we don't agree. Meanwhile, they're stealing our money, okay? That's all that it's about. I mean, everybody should be an independent and just vote for who you want to vote for. Mm-hmm.

God, I love you, Lord. And then one other thing, you were just talking about Minnesota. If I could just say one thing, you know, when they shot the woman, whatever, her name is good. Renee Good. Why didn't they just shoot her tire instead of shooting her? They are not trained to do that. They are not trained to do that. I know.

We get this question all the time. Why don't you shoot it in the leg? Why don't you do this? Why don't you do that? They are not trained to use their weapon. except to kill because the pressure point is don't use the weapon. But it's not easy. And it's a wasted shot that now makes you vulnerable to someone who is trying to kill you.

So you're shooting, I'm trying to shoot your tire, which isn't easy, by the way, especially when I'm nervous. And you're trying to run me over. It is easier to target what is trying to hurt you than to do something other than remove the most immediate a threat. I am telling you how they are trained. The car wasn't running into him because it was out of control. The car was under her control. So you target the threat. I'm just telling you how they're trained. Could they be trained a different way? Yes, but they don't. Why? Because it's not as easy as we make it sound. I think that the better analysis here is why did he need the weapon? How reasonable was it that he thought this woman was going to run him over? And I'll tell you what

wasn't reasonable is our president saying she did run him over, which was a big, fat lie. Let's talk to John in Texas, 866, 967, 6887. I'm very happy with the flow of calls on this show. But do not be, too many of you are telling me on social media, you know, it's hard to get through. Come on, brother. You know, you're getting wherever you're getting. Just put it on redial and just let it roll. John, what's your point, Texas?

Well, I am an independent. To be very honest, both sides are completely off. The Republicans, I don't even need to say anything. All of this stuff executing our citizens is just craziness. It's totally against America. But the Democrats and the other side, you know, I mean, some of the stuff that they stand for, it's like, man, gee, I love your father, but the Democrats nowadays, they're more for the special interests, too. I mean, like, for instance, all this LGBT stuff, I don't really have no problem with people who they sleep with. My problem is don't try to push it in my face. Don't, because you know what? I should have a right also to choose what I think is right for me and my own family. You absolutely have a right to choose what is right for you. pushing a lot of people. You know, the social stuff is pushing a lot of people away.

I get it, John, but don't don't get it. Listen, John, I get it. I get it. I get it. I don't mean to cut you off. I just wanted to cut you off. The point is this. Don't take the bait. Don't take the bait of being about some non-consequential issue. Now, when you say, everybody, I don't care who they sleep with. One, a couple things, okay? And I am obviously not a woke guy. Now, what does that mean? I am not a woke guy, meaning if you take wokeness, which is being aware of what systemically and culturally has caused major division

and problems in this country, especially with respect to type and race, to be aware is great. To weaponize it and create crowdsourced canceling I'm against and not just because I was targeted, but because I don't think it gets you where you want to be. I'm an advocate of me too. I am an advocate of changes in the workplace and changes in our culture that free people up to tell the truth about what's happening without reprisal. I'm good with all of those ideas. How they've been made manifest is a problem. But don't take the bait and think that because somebody is gay or trans, that they're putting it on you. They have every right to celebrate themselves the same way you do. And don't be bought into the,

they want your kid to chop off their genitals. Look, they, they, exaggerated it. It was a wedge issue and they did it because it worked. All right. The country, the majority, stick with the majority, not right left, right wrong, okay? Should someone my size be playing high school sports against your daughter? No, of course not. Have standards, have tests. I, you know, trans is part of our reality, okay? And you can't just write it off as an illness or something that's going to pass. So just stick to the law, stick to right and wrong. and let the law lead. The best measure of where we are as a society

is hearing from other members of that society in conversation that has some cogency to it, some intelligence, not just, what do you think about Greenland? It's not about provocation, okay? It's about conversation. That's what we're getting after here on the YouTube channel for the Chris Cuomo Project, on News Nation, where I'm doing my cable show,

and Sirius XM, POTIS channel, 124 for Cuomo in the mornings. Bon Appetit.