The Daily - 'The Interview': Lisa Murkowski Went Viral for Saying ‘We Are All Afraid.’ Now She Explains.

Episode Date: June 14, 2025

The senator from Alaska reflects on her many years in Washington and what is happening in the country right now. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

From the New York Times, this is The Interview. I'm Lulu Garcia Navarro. Lisa Murkowski is one of the best known senators in the country, which is strange if you think about it. She's from Alaska, a state that has only about 740,000 people living in it. She's not a bomb thrower who constantly seeks the spotlight. Alaska, a state that has only about 740,000 people living in it. She's not a bomb thrower who constantly seeks the spotlight, though she did recently go viral for being recorded at an event saying of Trump's second term,

we are all afraid. Murkowski's name recognition rests on her defense of and positioning in the middle. As the country and the Congress has become more polarized and the Senate so evenly divided for so long, she's found herself frequently courted by both her fellow Republicans and Democrats for her vote. And the public too is also interested in which way she'll swing on any given issue. In her new memoir called Far From Home,

Senator Murkowski explores her own political journey, which she says began when she was a PTA mom in Alaska. She became a national figure when her father appointed her to take over his Senate seat when he was elected governor in 2002. Decades later, she's still here and acknowledged in our candid and wide-ranging interview that she's lonely in the Senate and sad about the state of political discourse in her candid and wide-ranging interview that she's lonely in the Senate and sad about the state of political discourse in her party and the country.

We talked twice over the course of a week, first as the Trump-Musk alliance was falling apart, and later as the protests in Los Angeles were escalating. We began, however, by talking about her book and negotiations over Trump's so-called big, beautiful bill. Here's my conversation with Senator Lisa Murkowski. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to have you. Normally I understand why a politician has written a book. It's in advance of a run for higher office or it's with an eye to their legacy. Your term though is not up for several years. So why did you write this book now? Well, I didn't set out to write a book. It's just as simple as that. I do think that there are many who do set out

to write a book. This is their legacy. They, yeah, you want to be president. Well, I don't want to be president. But there was a story. There was a story after 2010 with the write-in. And this was the campaign where you lost the primary. We're going to talk about this.

And then you had a write-in campaign, which allowed you to win back your seat. Win back the seat in a very unconventional way. When you lose your primary and you run a write-in for a statewide federal seat, kind of unusual, like- Historic. Definitely unusual.

Last time it had happened was 1954 with Strom Thurmond. So there was a lot of interest in what had happened in Alaska that could actually allow for this political, you know, the Phoenix Rising, because I was a political roadkill after I'd lost that primary. But I didn't have time and I didn't know how to write a book. And what had happened after that write-in when I was returned to the Senate, and again, a very unconventional way, with not the ties or the burdens that may come with support

from your party? So, it was kind of a newfound, unleashed Lisa, if you will. And- More independent Lisa, as you write in the book. It was definitely a more independent political figure in our state. So why now? What this is about is not so much a legacy.

I'm trying to offer a little bit of hope to people about a political process that seems to get more mired in partisan infighting with every passing day. And at the same time, trying to explain that my groundedness, my centeredness in Alaska is kind of what keeps me, keeps me in my place today. We're gonna get back to the book, but I'd like to ask you a little bit about some big events that are happening in the Senate right now. And please feel free to be the unleashed Lisa that you mentioned earlier.

President Trump has given the Senate until July 4th to get the reconciliation bill, the so-called big beautiful bill to his desk. What are your priorities in the bill? I want to make sure that as we advance a reconciliation package that we are not increasing taxes on all Americans. So I am supportive of what we're trying to do with the extension, permanent extension, if you will, of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act from 2017. There are significant provisions within the bill that I'm following very, very closely. Energy provisions are very key to us as an energy-rich state and a state whose economy

is very reliant on energy. Our state has a very, very significant population that is Medicaid eligible. Some 40 percent, just about 40 percent of Alaska's kids are in Medicaid, so health care costs are some of the highest, if not the highest in the nation. And so getting the reforms right with Medicaid are a huge priority to me right now. You've opposed the cuts to Medicaid. You've had unexpected company like Senator Josh Hawley. He's more of a populist.

And then there are the people who are very much in the deficit hawk camp who want to see the tax cuts extended, but deeper cuts to Medicaid. I think there's an overarching question, which I was wondering if you could answer. Do you think that as the Republican Party has become more working class, cuts like the ones to Medicaid will present more of an ideological crisis because Republicans Have traditionally wanted tax cuts. That's been always part of the Republican mantra But the base that you have now is more working class and they benefit from entitlements

Absolutely, and I think the president recognizes this. I mean the president I don't know It was a month two months, says, you know, we just, we shouldn't be making cuts to Medicaid. Waste, fraud and abuse. Well, okay. How are we defining what waste, fraud and abuse is? That is, that's part of what is going on with the debate right now. But you're absolutely right. You look at those states that would be heavily impacted

by Medicaid cuts, and so many of them are red states. They are states that have supported President Trump. They are states where you have Republican members right now who are looking at this and saying, you know, this is going to be hard here. And so there has been a shift. And I think you're seeing that reflected in many of the comments coming from colleagues. But you point out that we've got an interesting group of colleagues to work with.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. And, you know, the fact that Senator Hawley is in alignment with Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins on this issue I think has raised a few eyebrows. I've heard Republicans call Josh Hawley now a

big government conservative disparagingly. You know, I don't think that that's constructive when we decide to label people because we don't like a decision that they have made or a position that they have taken. One thing that I found shocking just a few, well, a month or so ago, Justice Amy Coney Barrett had ruled on a decision that the conservatives didn't like and all of a sudden this jurist who everybody said was the conservatives' conservative now is thrown off the bus. This is not where we should be. I want to dig into that a little.

But before I do, I'm sure you've seen the social media war that's erupted between the president and Elon Musk over the bill. And by the time this publishes, maybe they will have patched things up or maybe it will be worse. It's hard to know, but this is the moment right now that we're in. But you know, as much as it feels like this is a dramatic breakup, it actually speaks, I think, to something that has been a real concern, which is the power that Donald Trump gave to the richest man in the world.

He invited him into the White House. He gave him the keys to the federal government. And now Musk and Trump are threatening each other with retaliation. What do you make of all this? Musk and Trump are threatening each other with retaliation. What do you make of all this? You know, I can't spend my days trying to think through why President Trump has chosen to go in one direction or another.

I think we have watched with great interest as a country, how he, to use your words, invited the world's wealthiest man into our government, basically said, you be the auditor here and figure out where the waste is in government. As somebody who believes very strongly in the institutions of government and my role in the legislative branch, I didn't particularly care for that. We have, Congress has the role of oversight. And if we need to root out the waste, fraud, and abuse, we need to be doing that.

And in fairness, we need to be doing a much better job. And so making sure that we are doing our job is part of my whole frame of reference every day. So I could get caught up in all of the comings and goings in the White House. But as I tell my kids, look, I got a day job that I got to be focusing on. And I'm worried right now that our role when it comes to the legislative branch's constitutional legislative branches constitutional mandate there, which is the taxing and spending, that we're kind of ceding everything to the executive. I'm not good with that at all.

And so there's a lot of focus on what is happening right now with President Trump and Elon Musk. We'll see how that settles out. I have not liked the manner in which Musk and his Doge team kind of air dropped in and very summarily dispatched people who were doing their job. Talking about the mass firing. Yeah, right. And basically being told that, you know, your services are no longer valued. If we are looking to reduce the number of federal employees, there is a way and there is a manner to do it. I come from a state where we have, on a per capita basis, more

federal workers than most any other state. So to come in and tell these people that have been helping us with everything from permitting a mine to the visitor's center at the Mendenhall Glacier and telling them, sorry, your services are no longer warranted, that's not how we operate here. So it's been a rocky, rocky five months with dealing with some of what we saw with the Doeish effort. I just want to stay on this one more beat because I understand when you say you've got bigger issues to focus on, but what impact do you think Elon Musk's threats will have

on the work that you're doing now on the bill because he is saying that he will use his vast resources to act against members of Congress who defy his wishes. That's not just about Elon Musk having a Twitter fight with Donald Trump. That's about trying to influence the work that you're doing for the American people? People with money try to have that influence. This is where Congress has got to stand up. Whether it's Donald Trump that says, you must vote for this bill or Elon Musk that says, you must not vote for this bill, what we have to do is we've got to do our job. As lawmakers here, we have got to make sure

that we're focusing on not what is this gonna mean to me? Am I gonna be primaried? Is Elon Musk gonna dump a lot of money against my opponent? If you're that concerned about your security here in the Senate, then, you know, maybe it's not the place for you. You recently went viral for a comment you made at a conference in Alaska in response to a question

from the audience you said, "'We are all afraid of retaliation.'" And that it made you anxious to use your voice. Can you explain what you meant by that? Because there's been a lot of discussion. Yeah. And I didn't say that we're all afraid of retaliation. I did say we're all afraid because I was in a room of about 500, 550 nonprofits, many, many of whom had received notices that their grants had been cancelled,

their grants had been frozen. And what was happening was there's just so much uncertainty. It was not only the grants, it was they couldn't find anybody at an agency to even answer their question as to what was happening. And so everyone was on edge. Were they going to lose their employees? Were they going to be able to continue to provide services for vulnerable women and kids?

Were they going to be able to continue to build out that small hydro project so that they could finally get that village off diesel? Everyone, everyone was on edge and afraid. And the question to me was, you know, what do you say to those who are afraid? And it was one of those moments where you're looking out to this sea of people and it was just they needed to hear the honest answer that not only do I hear how afraid you are, but we are all afraid of this uncertainty.

We are all afraid of what may be coming next because we do not know. And then I said, and retaliation is real. And I wasn't saying anything that was new to anybody because people were seeing that. They were seeing that in ways that were different, whether it was retaliation to universities or to individuals or at the time it was the targeting of specific law firms for clients that they had represented previously, Pro Bono for January 6th. And so I acknowledged what people were feeling. And it made the news.

It absolutely made the news because- Shorted? It seemed like nobody was willing to talk or to verbalize what everyone was feeling. And I think sometimes as elected officials, we feel we have to be that strong voice. We have to pretend that everything is okay. I raised two boys. We fly a lot. And I can recall one trip we were flying,

and there was just a lot of turbulence. And my younger son was like, oh mom, it's like, I don't like that. I don't like that. And I needed to be strong for the boys. And I came up with some crazy story about, oh, you know how when we go down the road and it's just really bumpy and we hit that one pothole and it's about, oh, you know how when we go down the road

and it's just really bumpy and we hit that one pothole and it's like, oh, and it just jars. It's just like that. We're just going through this bumpy air. It's just fine. And inside, I'm just screaming like, oh my gosh, we're gonna go down. And so sometimes you need to be that strong figure

and tell everybody it's gonna be fine. Don't worry on that calming mom voice. And other times it's okay to tell your kids, you know what, this is kind of scary right now. Has there been fallout from that moment, from the administration, constituents, other politicians? Well, when you say fallout, what I have heard from constituents, so many are very, very appreciative that I've just called it for what it is. I mean, deeply grateful. And I've made clear, I don't have a lot of answers right now,

but I am going to listen to you and I am going to try. And I have heard from some that have said, you know, if you feel so afraid that you can't use your voice, you should just leave. What I wanted to say is that, yeah, there are times when I really don't want to speak up because I know that there could be some backlash. But I have to take that scary step and say, call it out and say, I don't think that this is the way that we should handle our federal employees.

I have to stand up and say, I don't think that you can just summarily say we have an emergency and now we can apply unilateral global tariffs. I don't think that that is within your lane. And so I've got to stand up and push back. And so I may be scared to do it, but I'm going to do it because you've asked me to do it. Do you ever fear for your physical safety?

Do you ever fear for your physical safety? You know, I, maybe it's because I come from a place like Alaska where we're usually more afraid of bears and moose and just kind of the natural environment. But we are in a heightened moment. We are in a heightened moment. And I am aware that I need to be more vigilant about my safety. And there are those who have threatened me and they have suffered the consequences. They have been tried and they have served some time. I'd like to talk about your path to politics.

Because in your book, you say it shapes so much of who you are. You were born into a political family. No, no. Because when I was born, my dad was in banking. And he didn't enter politics until he was 40. I think he was 45. You also didn't become a politician until you were in midlife. How do you think it affected you and your ability to legislate that you had a sort of

whole life before you got political power? I think it made all the difference in the world. As I have viewed the different phases in my political career when I was in the state legislature, and then being back here in Washington, D.C. for many years. I knew that what I was doing in terms of public service, my government service was important, but it didn't define me.

I always knew that if I were to quit, if I were to leave, if I were to lose, I would have a pretty great life to go back to. And so that has always been very freeing. The other thing that really comes through in the book is how much you don't respect Sarah Palin. You write about her, that you cringe when she was campaigning as McCain's vice presidential candidate, and that you regret not putting your own name forward,

because you thought at the time that they'd never choose someone from Alaska, which is a red state. Actually, that was my son's regret. He was like, mom, you need to tell John McCain that he needs to select you to be vice president. And you said, you wrote in the book that you had a second. I said, no way. There's no way. We come from a state where there's only three electoral votes. It's never going to happen. And then of course, John picks Sarah Palin. And Nick still holds that over me.

But you know, it's interesting. Sarah Palin is really, she's an extraordinary figure in Alaskan history in terms of how she came on this scene, small town mayor. And... And then in 2006, she ended up defeating your father and became governor. She became governor.

And that in and of itself was not anything that I should have held against her. And I didn't. But she was always kind of testing the waters, if you will, to see if the Senate was going to be her next step. And so when you're the senator and you just kind of get the sense that she's checking out the job that she may or may not want to come to. So that caused some level of just, I don't know if it was friction. You're also very different politicians. Very different politicians.

You write that she was sort of a precursor to the Tea Party movement, to in some ways the populist MAGA movement that we're seeing now, that she was kind of the OG, if you will, of those movements. She was. And again, when you think about her rise, not only within the state, but what caused her to be selected by Senator McCain. And then just as she continued on, she had an incredible following.

There was a magnetism to her that again, and I mentioned this in the book, it's not unlike what we see now with President Trump in terms of how that populist appeal to an individual. We didn't have a personal relationship, but there were some human moments that I still think back. And despite all that I may have said about, you know, I didn't think that she had just curiosity about deep issues. As a mom and as a woman, we shared some, we shared some just openness about what it means

to be in hard jobs when you have families and you don't have the time to have coffee with your friends or just be a real person. And so I think there are some who think that, you know, there's just this intense dislike, which is very, very different personalities. But she's a good mom. You link Sarah Palin to then Joe Miller, who in 2010 was the Tea Party candidate who challenged you in the primary and won. And then you launched that historic writing campaign and you kept your seat. You say in the book, if Joe Miller were running now, he'd win.

Can you explain what you mean? Yeah. Well, times change, right? And Miller was, at the time, somebody who was very, very conservative in his views and his approach, I think very combative in many ways about how he presented himself. Some of the things that Alaskans really found distasteful were his aggressive approach to handling questions, actually handcuffing a journalist because he was offended by the questions. And at the time, it's shocking.

You're a candidate, you're putting yourself out for the voters to review and determine whether you're worthy to serve. And just kind of a very arrogant approach. He was a Tea Party conservative, I think more in the line of the MAGA camp right now. And so it's a different environment. And I think that it could have had a different outcome. Why do you think that's happened?

What has changed so much that a man who was reviled back then for actions that now are celebrated? Well, the MAGA movement is very real. It is one that I think has gone beyond just President Trump himself because he clearly built, advanced this movement. And so there is a greater loyalty, perhaps an unquestioning loyalty. You can do just about anything and your supporters still stick with you.

But there's also something like when you look at your colleague Senator Joni Ernst, who just said in regard to the bill and people expressing concern over cuts to Medicaid, well, we're all going to die. And then doubling down in a video, basically making fun of those who were concerned about that and about her comments. There's a different attitude politically that people are adopting in order to break through, in order to communicate with the public that-

Danielle Pletka It is different. Danielle Pletka That is unlike anything that has come before it, even from someone who's normally quite sober like Senator Joni Ernst. Think about some of the things in the recent news, the whole issue with Secretary of Defense Hegseth and that signal chat and instead of saying, you know what, maybe that wasn't the smartest move, doubles down on the defensive. I take it back to some of the things in my book when I speak about the Kavanaugh nomination and you know what was reported was that President Trump was not impressed with Kavanaugh's performance

until he was just loud, angry, and in self-defense. That was the thing that actually turned me off most directly. And so you did not vote for, we should say, Kavanaugh's confirmation. You also did not vote for Secretary Hegsath's confirmation, so... And so you're right in observing that something is changing. I think what has happened is we are not only more accepting of confrontational behavior, we are expecting it. When did civil society become so uncivil?

When did we cross that threshold where it is now okay to be wholly partisan? I mean, wholly, wholly partisan. We used to celebrate bipartisanship, but now you're fraternizing with the enemy. I don't know what it is, but we have become different. And I don't think we've become different in a good way. There was a sense, and also reporting confirming that, during Trump's first term, that Republican senators were supportive of Trump in public,

but were more skeptical of him in private. Do you feel like the enthusiasm for him in your caucus is more genuine this time around? Do you feel like the enthusiasm for him in your caucus is more genuine this time around? I don't know if the answer to your question is that there's just greater acceptance of President Trump this time around. I am one. I made it clear in the book. I didn't vote for President Trump in the first election and I didn't in the second.

But he is the president. Do you speak with him? I have. I haven't recently, but I do speak with him. How long has it been? It's been since he came into office. Okay. Yeah.

But he is our president and I'm going to find every way to work with him for Alaska's benefit. And the way that I phrased it in the book, and it was my very first discussion with him ever, was in a telephone call right after he'd been elected. It was Thanksgiving, so he hadn't been sworn in. And he knew that I hadn't supported him, but I wanted to weigh in with a recommendation for a nominee for Secretary of the Interior. I called him up cold, got the number from Rob Portman and thought I was going to just get some appointment secretary and it was him. And we had a great conversation.

He was very generous with his time and I just decided to say, look, you know, hey, you know, I didn't support you. And he said, oh, I know that. And I said, but look, the way I look at it is you won and I won. You want to do good things for the country, I want to do good things for Alaska. And he says, we're going to get along just fine. And so I go into it with that attitude. I didn't vote for President Biden, but I was able to get some things that were helpful

for Alaska during the Biden administration. And I'm going to work with President Trump. You talked in this conversation about how you feel the Senate is not acting as a sort of check on the executive. The Congress. The Congress. The Congress, the whole Congress needs to be more of a check. I want to ask you about President Trump's conflicts of interest, specifically his mean

coins, his use of his office to reward investors. Do you see that as corruption and should Congress be doing something about that? Does it look bad to invite substantial investors to a dinner in the White House to promote your Bitcoin? Yeah, I think it looks bad. Is it corruption? No. I am one who believes that it is right to hold your elected officials, particularly those at the highest levels, to highest standards. And so appearances of impropriety, I think actually matter. But we've kind of come to this point where it's like almost like whatever.

I can hear people listening to this and going, but you're a senator. You shouldn't be saying whatever if this matters. And I'm not saying that, I'm saying that the outcry that you would receive from a constituency is just muted. Like we've become numb to what others would say, well, no, that's not appropriate. When it comes to the law, right, if if you violated a law, we're seeing these matters then go before the court, right? But when it is where it's something that you would just not have seen it before. And now it's like, well, that's just what we're seeing. It's not just that it has been done, but that it is viewed as not surprising.

I can hear in your voice, maybe I'm reading into this, but a sort of... Sadness? Yes. Sadness, I think, is the word. Yes. Yeah, and it is because, and maybe it's because I've been here in Washington for over two decades now, and I've been through multiple presidents, some I really liked and some that I didn't really like that much. There were policy things that we just would disagree on or we would really celebrate,

but with a few failures, character, kind of the integrity of the individual was not something that we would call into question. There was a time when we just had higher expectations, again, of integrity and tolerance and manners. But, I don't know, I try not to sound like everybody's mom, but it bothers me that we are not more conscientious and respectful of one another. It bothers me that we are not kind towards one another in how we're viewing our differences. Do you think this will be your last term in the Senate? It was an interesting conversation with my family to decide if

we were going to run this last time because it was kind of a natural transition. It was just about about 20 years and it was it was surprising because I fully anticipated all of them to say, all right, you've had a good run. But every one of them said, if you have the energy and the desire to do it, you've got our blessing. So I'm gonna evaluate it in two years. I've got another four years left.

I'm gonna evaluate it another two years and see where we go. But I- It's just when you're talking about seeming like you're from another era, right? Yeah, it does kind of feel like that, yeah. And so I guess the question is, do you think that people still want Alisa Murkowski in the Senate? It's a great question. And I don't want this to sound like I'm something

super special. But I think there is a need for there to be those who are willing to stand in the middle, those who are willing to say it ought not be about our party loyalty, it ought not be wholly partisan all the time. I think people want that. And I hear from so many around the country who are like, thank you for being that voice in the middle.

Thank you for reminding us that we can be something other, that Congress can be something other than just this ugly divide of partisan politics. But it's kind of lonely out there right now. Lisa Murkowski, sorry, Senator Lisa Murkowski, thank you very much. I would be happy with just Lisa Murkowski because that's what everybody back home calls me, just Lisa. We'll talk again. I appreciate your time. Thank you. After the break, I call Senator Murkowski back at the Capitol, and we talk about the escalating situation in California and also how she deals with the expectation from some

that she'll be a Trump-era savior. Believe me, being the hero is not a position that I want to be. I want to be helpful. And I've gotten myself in an unlikely spot where people are looking to me for answers in different areas that I certainly hadn't anticipated. Senator Murkowski, thank you so much for talking with me again. It's been a week since we spoke, but in our political timeline, it's like three years, I think, because so much seems to have happened. Last week, we were talking about Elon Musk.

This week, we have protests in California, President Trump talking about possibly jailing the governor of California, and the Marines are mobilizing on American soil. I think I'm just gonna start with asking you how you're seeing what's happening. Well, you said it. It's been a week.

What we're seeing in Los Angeles right now is deeply disturbing. We recognize the role of peaceful protests in healthy democracies. This is important, but what we're seeing with the level of violence against law enforcement, destruction of property, wrong. But what I think so many of us are concerned with is what we are seeing in response to that. First, President Trump, without working through the governor of California, calling up the National Guard to come in to Los Angeles, and then the deployment of Marines to the area, I think it's fair to say unprecedented in terms of a response and one that I find deeply concerning.

We do have laws. We have an understanding that our military is not to be used on our own people. So is this a test from President Trump in terms of his authorities? One has to wonder. Last week, we discussed your concerns about the direction of our politics, the partisanship, the lack of decorum. And there is, as I'm sure you're aware, this larger concern among many Democrats, independents, about the state of our democracy. And in Alaska, these are your voters too, because of the makeup of the state and the way that ranked choice voting works. And so I was left wondering, are you worried about our democracy and how power is being wielded by this government?

I think we as Americans should always be worried about our democracy. Every day we need to fight for democracy. I just didn't really think it was going to be this fight against ourselves that we're seeing right now. This whole beautiful notion of the separate but equal branches of government, the fine balance that we have that outlines the individual powers of the executive, of the legislative, of the judiciary. It's tenuous and we always kind of find our level of equilibrium. I'm talking to a lot of people that are asking me if it's just their imagination or if the

equilibrium is so out of balance. We will not regain it. I refuse to believe that we are not able to regain it but right now um, it is as uh It I think it's dangerous for us in the legislative branch right now. Um When we are not standing up for for our roles under the constitution And we effectively cede to the executive. You're speaking in sort of vague terms. The executive is Donald Trump.

Do you think President Trump wants to be an authoritarian leader? Because that is the specific worry that has been articulated over and over? I don't know if he is looking to be an authoritarian leader or if it is Donald Trump being Donald Trump and that we as a country have said that's the type of leader that we want for right now. This is the type of leader that we got behind and the country voted for. But we know through reporting that a lot of what we're seeing

by this administration have been planned for a while. Many of the people in this administration looked at Hungary and other countries with strongman leaders for ideas on how to amass more central power going after places they see as liberal bastions, like universities and law firms and the media. Do you see that when you look at what is happening? I don't know how I want to respond to that because I've said in my book that I didn't think that Donald Trump was able to divine the direction

that he did in his first administration. Now having had the benefit of four years to be thinking about what he wanted to do, how he wanted to do it, working with those who wanted to see that done, do I think that this is more clearly planned and orchestrated? Absolutely. Is that your phone? No, it's the bell to the, I think we're adjourning. Oh, okay. There was a long pause there and you were very careful about the words you used. Can you tell me when you're answering a question like that, what goes through your mind? What are the calculations you're making in being so careful?

Well, first of all, I'm careful because I know that my words matter because I have been one who has been critical of President Trump when I feel like the criticism is merited. Some of my colleagues will say that they may disagree when we're in quiet conversation, but not willing to say it out loud. And I have ventured out. But I don't want to say things just to be mean-spirited. I don't want to say things that I really haven't given consideration to. And so I do pause and I do think about, all right, what are the right words to say?

And again, I am very cognizant of the fact that President Trump was returned to office. Nobody was arguing about whether or not he won or didn't win. In my state, he is quick to remind folks that he won by a significant margin. And there are many people who feel very strongly about him. And I am supportive of many of his initiatives, particularly when they come to resources. So it's not that you're trying to walk this line where I don't offend anybody because I think I manage to offend people equally on both sides, sometimes because I have spoken out and sometimes because I haven't spoken out enough.

And that is just the way it is. Yeah, I mean, you're getting at something here because fairly or unfairly, people look at you and they see someone who is either standing up for the things that she believes in or someone who is equivocating maybe at moments when perhaps more is called for. And in fairness, I actually talk about that a fair amount in the book saying that, you know, oftentimes I'm not well understood.

People can't figure it out. You know, they'll listen to me talk about the impacts of climate change on my state and then they'll see that I've just introduced a bill to open up ANWR and they look at that and they say well that's absolutely positively inconsistent or hypocritical you name it but again if you know me and you understand where I'm coming from, you would say, oh no, that actually makes sense. I think you also find that when people who like the fact that I have pushed back on say, for instance, I did not support Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense.

And I got many people who contacted me and said, good for you. Thank you. I think that that was absolutely the right vote. You're doing great. And then the next nominee that comes up, I vote for him or her and the response is just pure vitriol. Like, we thought that you were with us. We thought that you understood how bad all of these nominees are. And I'm looking at it from the perspective of, Is is the individual have they disqualified themselves one way or another in my view? Um, i've got to balance that but i've also got to balance the fact that I have said that presidents are are by and large

Entitled to have their cabinet Do you regret the Robert Kennedy Jr.? Well, I'm mad at Robert Kennedy Jr. now because of this announcement with the vaccine board where he has- He's dismissed the entire board. The board and his response to- And in the hearings, he made it understood

that he was gonna leave it alone and he hasn't. And consult, and consult. And he said that he's trying to restore the credibility or the trust in the board. I don't think this is how you do it because it makes it look like now he's going to put in everybody of his liking, which is not how you restore trust. So yeah, I don't like that. I guess the question that people who might be critical of you would say, understanding

that you feel that the cabinet is under the purview of the president, Robert Kennedy Jr. is someone who has always made it clear what his views on vaccines are. But keep in mind that there are other things that he is charged with as secretary of health and social services, where I actually agree with it. I'll tell you one of the things that that we have had a good connection on. As the secretary of health and human services. He is also head of the Indian Health Services. Very important for my state where we have half the tribes in the country. And I'll tell you when they when they announced those first layoffs with the probationary staff, Kennedy called me up on a Saturday

morning. I was in Alaska and it was early my time, but he called me up to say, you need to know, they told me that I was supposed to find 10% cuts across the board for IHS and I told them I wouldn't do it for IHS. That IHS has chronically been underfunded, we cannot go backwards and I'm not going to do that. And so I'm not going to be able to find folks within a Trump administration, a Biden administration, Obama administration, a Bush administration, where I'm agreeing with all of the nominees that are out there. But what I've got to figure out is how I can work with these people, how I can get them to return my calls, how I can get them to return my calls, how I can get them to

figure out how we're going to get the IFQ permits for the halibut and the sablefish that Secretary Lutnick has no interest in. I've got to figure out how to interest him and make a connection. What I'm hearing you say is that you're not interested in being anyone's either savior or villain, that that isn't the role that you see for yourself. Oh, yeah, absolutely. Believe me, I do not enjoy taking pot shots just so I can get in the news. And being the hero is not a position that I want to be. I want to be

helpful. I want to be there for the people that I serve. And I've gotten myself in an unlikely spot where because in an effort to just say things as they are, people are looking to me for answers in different areas that I certainly hadn't anticipated. It's not necessarily something that I'm welcoming, but if I can do right added role, using my voice and speaking as I feel is right and appropriate and timely. That's what I'm going to do. My last question. Do you worry sometimes Senator Murkowski that in focusing on sablefish and all these things that are important for your constituents, you might be missing the broader question of what is happening to this country. I get my strength to do the hard things on the big things by knowing that I can

help the fishermen back home. And so it's not one at the expense of the other, but I have to get my reservoirs built up. And so when I get that thank you, we were able to get our permits to get out there on the water on the day that I paid my crew to do it. I know that I'm doing something right. And when you know you're doing something right, it makes it easier to just kind of face the storm and say, we got some heavy lift that we've got to do. And so it's a fair question. And you've framed it in a way that I perhaps had not thought of.

I need more hours in my day, days in my week to do everything. But I can't lose sight that that fisherman that's counting on me is also counting on being free in this country, on living in a place where he knows that we remain a country of laws and that nobody is above the law and that his safety and the freedoms of his family are going to be appreciated. That's Senator Lisa Murkowski. Her book Far From Home, An Alaskan Senator Faces the Extreme Climate of Washington, D.C. is on sale June 24th. This conversation was produced by Wyatt Oram.

It was edited by Allison Benedict, mixing by Sonia Herrero and Atheme Shapiro. Original music by Dan Powell, Pat McCusker, and Marian Lozano, Photography by Philip Montgomery, our senior booker is Priya Mathew, and Seth Kelly is our senior producer, our executive producer is Alison Benedict. Special thanks to Rory Walsh, Renan Borelli, Jeffrey Miranda, Nick Pittman, Maddy Masiello, Jake Silverstein, Paula Schumann, and Sam Dolnick. If you like what you're hearing, follow or subscribe to The Interview wherever you get your podcasts. To read or listen to

any of our conversations, you can always go to nytimes.com slash the interview, and you can email us anytime at theinterview at nytimes.com. Next week, David talks with comedian and podcaster Andrew Schultz. When you talk for two or three hours on a podcast every week, you can take excerpts from it and make me look like the sweetest, kindest, loving dad. You can make me look like an absolute tyrant, and that's the cost that we have to take on for putting out content. We can't complain about that.

I'm Lulu Garcia Navarro, and this is the interview from the New York Times.