The Dispatch Podcast - The View From Congress | Interview: Sen. Lisa Murkowski

Episode Date: June 24, 2025

Jamie Weinstein is joined by Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska to discuss her new book, Far from Home: An Alaskan Senator Faces the Extreme Climate of Washington, D.C., as well as Congress’ role in the Iran-Israel conflict. The Agenda:—Lessons learned from Congress—Congressional approval and conflict with Iran—Should the U.S. support regime change?—Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill—Political retribution from President Trump—January 6: ‘You cannot unsee what we saw.’—Age limits in Congress—Optimism for democracy Scheduling Note: This episode’s publication was moved up due to the news value of the conversation. The Dispatch Podcast with Jamie Weinstein will return on Monday, June 30. The Dispatch Podcast is a production of ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Dispatch⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch’s offerings—including members-only newsletters, bonus podcast episodes, and regular livestreams—⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When you're with Amex Platham, you get access to exclusive dining experiences and an annual travel credit. So the best tapas in town might be in a new town altogether. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at Amex.ca. www.ca.com. Did you lock the front door?

Check. Close the garage door? Yep. Installed window sensors, smoke sensors, and HD cameras with night vision? No. And you set up credit card transaction alerts at secure VPN for a private connection and continuous monitoring for our personal info on the dark web.

Uh, I'm looking into it. Stress less about security. Choose security solutions from TELUS for peace of mind at home and online. Visit TELUS.com. Total Security to learn more. Conditions apply. Welcome to the Dispatch podcast. I'm Jamie Weinstein.

My guest today is Republican Alaska Senator Lisa Markowski. She is the author of the new book out this week, Far From Home, an Alaskan senator, faces the extreme climate of Washington, D.C. And of course, we get into that on the podcast, but also tackle some of the major issues she faces in the Senate right now from the big, beautiful bill,

as President Trump calls it, to the war in Iran, the strikes in Iran that President Trump authorized Saturday evening. Now, we recorded this two days before he authorized those strikes on Thursday. So there's a bit of a time lag here. We are talking about those questions whether she believes he should and where she would stand if he authorized such strikes. We also discuss whether she thinks that he should bring those strikes before Congress, before authorizing, I guess in retrospect, you can view them as should he have brought them before Congress before authorizing those strikes. But I still think you'll find the discussion both interesting and relevant. We also get into a bunch of other issues, including should there be an age limit for

the Senate with so many senators in their 80s, 90s, late 70s, some very famously in recent years having certain issues of decline. So I think you're going to find this whole conversation interesting. So without further ado, I give you Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski. Senator Lisa Murkowski, thank you for joining the Dispatch Podcast. Good to be with you. morning, I guess morning, your time afternoon, D.C., but yeah, good to be with you, Jimmy. Wonderful to have you, Senator. There's so much going on, but I want to start with your book.

Why now? What is the reason that you put this out now and not five years from now or not five years earlier than now? Oh, yeah. So I've been working on it really since 2010. A lot of people are saying it's about dang time, right? There's never a good time to write a book. I've decided that, particularly in a work environment like ours where things are evolving every day. You don't really know when to stop the story. But I started in earnest about five years ago when I met up with an old friend from Alaska

and we were talking about my write-in back in 2010. And he says, Lisa, you've got to share that story. You've got to write a book. And I'm like, Charles, I do not have time to write a book and I don't know how to write a book. And he says, well, that's what I do. So thus began a great friendship and a great collaborative. It took a long while.

It's not like I have a lot of extra time in my day, but I really did feel like I had a story that was relevant at the time and continues to be relevant today about offering perhaps a little, a little slight glimmer of a hope in a political environment that just seems to be increasingly divided and more toxic. I don't know whether I am a dinosaur or the beginning of something that's going to build. But I do find that we're operating in an environment where people want to know that there is more than just kind of the partisan party rhetoric that maybe you can make a difference in the process. Was there any part of the book that was particularly difficult to write a section that was about something in your life?

that you kind of walked away from, but ultimately came back to writing it that you found that may be more difficult than the rest of the book. Yeah, I think the hard parts were really trying to communicate the thought process of some of the very difficult issues that we faced at a time when there are consequences, right?

Consequences to an impeachment vote. Consequences with the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee. I talk a lot about the need to respect and honor the institutions that are holding us together. Why, I think, a balance within the branches is important. Why I don't think that the Supreme Court should cross into the legislative or the executive to the legislative. The easy parts of the book, quite honestly, were the ones that really came from my heart, which bring it back to Alaska. The thing that centers me, grounds me, and excites me. These are all hard things that we're working on in the Alaska space. Everything's a little more complicated or complex because

we've got such big geography and small people and a great diversity. But that was this, those were the sections of the book that just seemed to just flow within ease and still my favorite parts of the book. The thing that struck me the most, and I thought you might mention it as more of the difficult parts, but maybe it wasn't difficult, are kind of the personal anecdotes of things that you struggled and overcame. You talk about your bar exam where you didn't succeed at the first go, or when you were appointed to the Senate, your questions of whether are you really legitimate because it was appointed by your father, not legitimate, it's not the right word, but the questions you had there.

What do you think lessons are there for those who are reading the book? Obviously, you've now served in the Senate for a long time. You've, in terms of anybody can say, succeeded mightily, but you did have these struggles or at least struggles of questioning, you know, identity. What do you think those lessons are in the book? I think that the takeaway there is that you're elected leaders, whether they're in the United States Senate, whether they're in the Alaska State Legislature or whether they're in the PTA.

They're real people. They have real fears. I tell about just my real sense of inadequacy in the early years in the Senate when I didn't feel like I was a good enough mom because I was 4,000 miles away from my kids. I wasn't a good enough wife because my husband was now having to pick up the burden of parenting. And because I didn't have enough hours in my day, I was probably not a good enough senator. and as elected representatives, nobody wants to admit to a sense of weakness that I am not invincible, that I can't handle this on my own. We want to project this air of confidence. I think it is sending a message that, yes, we are all real. We have our fears. We don't share them every day, but we do have them.

I mentioned some of my struggles. We mentioned the bar as a specific example. And I speak about that very, very openly. At the time, man, raw, open wound. I didn't want to talk about it with anybody. But I learned, as I have moved through that experience, it was not the failure that defined me. It was what I did with that failure.

Did I give up? No. Did I double down? Absolutely. Not only did I commit past the bar after multiple temps. But then I said, nobody should have to go through this kind of a process. What can I do to help others? So, you know, for the next two years, I was engaged in, on my own spare time,

trying to help others who were struggling with that lack of confidence. And so it is important that people understand that not everybody who gains higher office walks into this position. Star athlete, they dated the most personal. perfect person. They had the highest GPA and they were all brilliant. That's intimidating. Nobody wants to insert themselves into that venue if you think everybody else is perfect and you, you're a flawed human being. Well, you know what? We're all flawed human beings. It's what we decide that we're going to do with that. I think I was okay being vulnerable. Now having said that, now I got a book out. Now

people want to talk to me about it. You know, there is that vulnerability. It's hard. it's hard. Well, Senator, as you speak and as your book is coming out, some major consequential things are happening in the world, things that you will decide on in the Senate, at least in part. As we speak, President Trump is considering entering the conflict with Iran, perhaps with airstrikes or perhaps seeking something greater. Where do you stand on that? I think I am in an extraordinarily good and broad company in saying we do not want to be engaged in in these endless wars. I recognize and respect the determination of Israel, the right to defend themselves. What we're seeing unfold by the hour is causing us all great concern about what

happens next. I think that President Trump has given a pretty strong signal to Iran that if they want to avoid serious and significant consequences, they can move to address that. They can avert this, but we cannot allow Iran to move to nuclear enrichment. And I think that has been clear. And so how we move forward, the role of the Congress going forward, there's a lot of discussion about moving to invoke war powers. That will be a subject for us in these truly next few days. We don't know what the president may do. We don't know if it will be a strike or if it will be a more direct engagement or if any of this happens. So it is very tenuous.

The stakes and the consequences, I think we all recognize are extraordinarily high. There's a debate whether the president is authorized to strike without going to Congress through the powers of the AUM passed after 9-11. Do you believe he has the authorization to authorize a strike? without Congress? And even if you do, do you think he should take it to Congress first? Where do you stand on that? Yeah, we have seen the presidents authorize strikes on different enemies. I think the difference is whether or not it is one targeted strike or if it is something that would then put American troops on the ground that, I think, brings it to a different level. I think the public feels. And I, I don't want, I'm going to, I'm going to dial that back because I've seen a couple

very quick polls on, you know, where, where's the American public right now on what should happen in Iran? We are still trying to gain a sense of that, but I do think that there are more that are of the view that Congress should play a greater role because that allows them, the constituents, our constituents to feel like they have a more immediate path to express their views. I think we will have this discussion, this debate about war powers. I would like to think that it is not a discussion that happens after action by the president. Do you have a view that if the U.S. does engage, whether it should be limited to striking foredo or other targets from the air, or whether the policy of the United States should be

regime change because the belief would be that no matter what you leave in place that this regime will try to reconstitute a nuclear weapon. Well, and that is the debate. What is the mission here? And again, we don't want to be engaged in a forever war. What is the mission here? Is the mission to eliminate the ability to move forward with uranium enrichment? If that's the case, I think the target is certainly made more clear if it is broader regime change. What does that entail? You know, one of the things that we do know for certain. Iran gains its wealth. They have the ability to have the war response that they do because of their oil wealth. And so is there greater targeting towards refineries to basically bring Iran to a place where they are no longer able to not only have

the weaponry that they need, but also the resources that they would need to, again, move towards nuclear ambition. I think this is something that the president needs to articulate is what that mission is. And I think you've seen in just the recent days that debate going back and forth. And I don't believe that President Trump has indicated one way or another what his view is on that. I think you framed the issue very well, Senator, but this seems to be a very fast-moving issue that this is going to happen the next few days the president authorizes a strike. I don't know if he's going to seek congressional approval. But if it was brought to Congress today, you know, where do you stand on a strike? Where do you stand on regime change? How would you vote? You make it sound like it's an

easy, it's an easy choice because a strike is defined to us. What regime change means is defined to us. I don't think we have that. If it is a strike that is a targeted strike and it could move to cripple Iran's abilities in the war theater is there is they're attacking. Israeli targets and help to dismantle their nuclear capabilities. Do I think that the president, if he needed to move that quickly and is not able to gain the support or talk to members of Congress, I think that that is a situation that we have seen before. It is different than if you are bringing, if it is more than just a targeted strike at an Iranian asset by U.S. assets versus a decision and a determination to move to move U.S. forces in to Iranian soil, or not into Iranian soil, but

into the area there. One more question on Iran. There has been discussion in some public information of arrests related to Iranians supposedly trying to hire someone to assassinate the president of the United States, but also other high-ranking officials from the past Trump administration. In the interview yesterday, Ted Cruz seemed to suggest that people, members of the Senate have seen more information regarding this. Have you seen information regarding Iran attempting to assassinate U.S. leaders, including the president? I have not, and I didn't see exactly what Senator Cruz had said. I'd gotten kind of a brief highlight, but no, I have not been privy to any of that information. And again, we as members of the

Senate have an opportunity for certain classified information as it is as things are moving forward. I think it's appropriate to note that we will be having a Senate members meeting, a bipartisan meeting next week on the situation in Iran. My hope is, as you have suggested, things are moving so quickly. My hope is that that briefing will be in time to give the information to us and that we are not looking at things in past chance here. During the Volvo Fall Experience event, discover exceptional offers and thoughtful design that leaves plenty of room for autumn adventures.

And see for yourself how Volvo's legendary safety brings peace of mind to every crisp morning commute. This September, Lisa 2026 X-E-90 plug-in hybrid from $599 biweekly at 3.99% during the Volvo Fall experience event. Condition supply, visit your local. Google Volvo Retailer or go to explorevolvo.com. Maybe It's Mabelaine is such an iconic piece of music. Hit the track.

Everyone in the studio that I worked on this jingle with all had like childhood stories or memories. Yeah, we're around either watching these commercials on TV or sitting with our moms while they were doing their makeup and it became really personal for us. Maybe it's Mabelene. Maybe it's Maple Lane. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace.

Squarespace is the platform that helps you create a polished professional home online. Whether you're building a site for your business, your writing, or a new project, Squarespace brings everything together in one place. With Squarespace's cutting-edge design tools, you can launch a website that looks sharp from day one. Use one of their award-winning templates or try the new Blueprint AI, which tailors a site for you based on your goals and style. It's quick, intuitive, and requires zero coding experience. You can also tap into built-in analytics and see who's engaging with your site and email campaigns to stay connected with subscribers or clients. And Squarespace goes beyond design. You can offer services, book appointments, and receive payments directly through your site.

It's a single hub for managing your work and reaching your audience without having to piece together a bunch of different tools. All seamlessly integrated. Go to Squarespace.com slash dispatch for a free trial. And when you're ready to launch, use offer code dispatch to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. Another major issue domestically is the big, beautiful bill that the president calls that he's trying to get through Congress. His goal remains, according to the White House, to get it passed by the Senate by July 4th. Is that a realistic possibility? It's hard.

I'll just tell you, it's hard. We're here on a federal holiday that Congress. the House is out, the Senate is out, we're not back in until Monday, it basically gives us one week, one week to execute this. I think I would not be revealing any confidential negotiations in saying that there is so much that is still in process before we are able to get to the point of being able to take this bill to the floor, whether it is, it's committee language that is still being worked, matters that are being debated, argued before the parliamentarian. Until all that happens, we don't even have a bill. People keep asking me, well, how are you going

to vote on the bill? That bill is still being defined, as you and I are discussing. And so your question is a fair one. Leader Thune has been very committed to the goal. The president has made clear, this is what he is seeking. In fairness, I would much rather have better policy come out of the Congress rather than trying to adhere to an arbitrary timeline. And so if it takes us beyond the 4th of July to get better policy that works for more Americans, that's what I think we need to be focusing on, not what's it going to take to get enough votes so that we can move this thing out before the 4th of July to keep that commitment. I'd rather keep the commitment to the American people that says, we're going to deliver to you a tax policy that you can rely on count on,

whether you're an individual, a small business. We're going to make sure that as a Medicaid beneficiary, you're not going to bear the burden of being pushed of necessary health care. I want to make sure that we're trying to do right by our policies and the investments that we've made, whether it's on the energy side, whether it's what we need to do in defense or border or elsewhere. So can it be done by the fourth? You know, enough political muscle and things happen. I think it's a little harder on the Senate side than it is on the House. You mentioned Medicare, and I know that's been one of your concerns about the bill. Sorry, Medicaid. My question is, given the debt problem, do you see that as a concern? And if it is, how would you cut it other than

either reforms or cuts to entitlement programs, given that they are by far the major and largest source of the long-term debt problem that we have. And do we need to, we keep talking about what it means to bend the curve on some of the entitlement programs. Medicaid, perfect example. We are seeing the numbers escalate and in a trajectory that,

that does really jeopardize compromise us when we're looking at debt and deficit issues. So is it something that we have an obligation to be reviewing, exercising the oversight, waste, fraud, and abuse is not just a catchy phrase. It's a congressional responsibility that we have. And so let's try to understand if there are areas where we can not only eliminate some of that. But again, to the point about being able to bend that curve a little bit. But how do you do it in a way, in a way that doesn't harm the most vulnerable? In many of our states, certainly Alaska, and we've got about 40% of our kids in Alaska that are Medicaid beneficiaries. We have so many of

our seniors are our most vulnerable are on Medicaid. Do I want to see them cut from Medicaid when their options, their ability to gain access to coverage is the only alternative for them is the emergency room? No, I don't want to do that. So I want to make sure that what we're doing and how we're doing it is smart and makes sense. But I also recognize that we have a lot of discussion about what goes on the discretionary side of the budget and spending there. But the real cost drivers, the real cost drivers, are on the entitlement side. So is it legitimate? Is it right that we should be looking and evaluating the programs? Absolutely. Let's follow up on that. I mean, you mentioned waste, fraud, and abuse. Obviously, Elon Musk went into Doge saying

just through waste, waste, fraud, and abuse of all the programs in government, I'm going to cut $2 trillion a year, then one trillion a year. Then it's unclear if he's maybe cut anything at all or if it's $10 billion, which would suggest to me that there's not enough waste, fraud, and abuse to make a significant debt. So is there, do we need to raise the age of certain eligibility with Medicare? I mean, what are some of the things that we can do to actually cut the debt and reform entitlements that would allow us to do that? Okay, well, to use a specific example when it comes to Medicaid, when we moved towards

Medicaid expansions some years ago, you brought in a different population to the Medicaid, to the existing Medicaid population. children, pregnant women, disabled population. All right, now we're adding in an expanded population that brought in basically able-bodied men. All right. So you now have an add-on in many, not all states, but in many states with your expanded Medicaid population. What we are talking about now or what is being discussed within both the House bill and the Senate bill is work requirements for the able-bodied population. So we're not talking about disabled. We're not talking about the pregnant woman. We're talking about the able-bodied. Is that reasonable to expect that you have to meet

certain work requirements in order to gain those Medicaid benefits? I think if the opportunity is there, I think it is not unreasonable that we should expect those to be able to meet certain work requirements. Now, in the same time I'm saying that, I'm sharing with those that are working through the contours of this bill that we've got some challenges in Alaska because we have areas of the state where we don't really have jobs to speak of in the cash economy definition. The jobs that are out in a rural native village may be providing for the sustenance of people in the community. You go out and you're the hunter, you're the fisherman, you're the gatherer. And so I can't have a program that is going to put everybody in the same box and say,

you've got to have, quote, a real job in order to be at Medicaid beneficiary. So are there accommodations that acknowledge that in certain areas where you do not have employment opportunities that you don't have to move to the city in order to do that? A city that may be, you know, 300 miles away and only accessible by an airplane. And so some of the things that we're talking about are the barriers to being able to comply with requirements that could work to bend that curve, if you will. Does it get us all the way home? No. And this is why you're looking at many different proposals. Provider taxes have been a real hot button in areas. For many states, this has been, this has been a significant boon and help to the hospitals.

Alaska is the one state out of the 50 that doesn't have provider taxes. But if you were to completely eliminate provider taxes, you wouldn't be necessarily cutting Medicaid to that Medicaid beneficiary, but you would save a lot of money. But what does that do in those states where they have come to rely on these payments. So there are many areas where I think we can look to how we can address or how we can put in place reforms that won't impact the benefits that the beneficiary receives. But what we have to be very cognizant of, and certainly in my state we are, is when you push things to the states, if the states are not in a position to provide for, to be able to pick up the cost share, what they may do is make the decision to push that

individual off of Medicaid. Then you have to ask the question, well, isn't that cutting benefits for a beneficiary? These are the real, the real live considerations that we're wrestling with right now because that individual doesn't get any less sick just because they're not on Medicaid. It means that they're probably going to end up delaying their care and then ultimately going to the emergency room and then costing everybody that much more. So there are no easy answers to this and particularly when you're talking about a program

that has been so important, again, to the most vulnerable. Senator, you've been one of the few members of the Republican caucus willing to speak up against the president when you think it's necessary. I wonder, what is the mood within the caucus? You recently mentioned how people do get threats when they speak up against the president. Have you talked to colleagues that have been unwilling

to stand up for the president under certain issues because they are worried about the type of threats that they might get, threats that you have gotten for speaking up against the president? Well, I want to make clear, because I don't think it's accurate to say that President Trump has, has threatened me in a sense where I have felt violated.

Have there been some times where he's called me names? You know, she doesn't really know her state. She's a loser. I don't find that threatening. I don't find it necessary, but I don't find it threatening. Right behind here, I have a frame tweet of when the president tweeted that I was a loser. So I don't find that threatening right there, but I'm wondering what that stirs up amongst maybe some of his supporters, where they,

they take that. And is that the threats that you're talking about? Maybe some of the supporters take it in a different way. Well, and again, we don't know how the supporters may take it. I'm very cautious right now, given the political environment that we are in, just what we saw in Minnesota this past week, where you're talking about real threats that led to political, to political violence, basically to an assassination of elected leaders. I want to try to make a distinction about some of the back and forth that goes on when trying to get somebody to either come over to your side or do something your way. And, you know, maybe you call them things like losers. Maybe you have private conversations with them that are pretty direct. That's not unusual.

That's not unexpected in just the rough and tumble of politics. It's when when there is that fear of not political retribution in the sense of I'm going to primary you. That's, you know, quite honestly, that's something that you pretty much live with every day as a politician anymore. You're saying something that's like, well, okay, now I'm going to field a primary opponent. That should not be what guides everything that comes out of your mouth or every decision. I certainly hope not. If you can't have more fidelity to what's in front of you rather than, am I going to bring out opposition to my views and thus have a hard or election. That's the process here. What I worry about is I think what you're kind of hinting to

Jamie, and that is that through words, it incites actions by others. In fairness, that was one of the reasons that I voted to impeach President Trump because I felt his words incited the actions of others, which led to, I call it an insurrection on our capital. We saw deaths from that day. And I didn't feel that the president upheld his oath to the Constitution by attempting to stop that when his words could have stopped it. And so we're at that point in a political environment where our words have to be carefully chosen. I'm glad you mentioned January 6th in your vote against that. I wonder what is the mood in – how do the members of the Republican caucus view that date now? And I asked that because you voted against Cash Patel.

He seemed almost comically unqualified for the job. He was a producer of the January 6th choir that President Trump opened his song with. I mean, it almost makes light of what occurred on January 6th. And yet he got enough votes, most votes in the Republican caucus. Do people within the caucus no longer view January 6 as a major issue now that President Trump was reelected, something that we should look back with a regret on or a minor incident. How do members of your caucus, obviously you view it very seriously, but how do other members of your caucus now view that day? It's hard for me to speak of what other members think about it. I can just tell you

that we were all there. We were all there together at the same time in the same chamber. You cannot unsee what we saw. And so for those who choose not to speak about it now, I suppose that is their choice. But when I see comments that, you know, January 6th just really wasn't that big of a deal, it causes me to kind of wind back in my own head to that day when I don't think there was a single member, Republican or Democrat, who was saying, oh, this is, this is not a big deal. This is not, this is not okay. Let me ask you a Senate question. I don't really have a few minutes left. You're still young and vibrant, but there's always been a question of whether we've seen some examples in the recent years of some senators get to an age where they don't

seem necessarily capable of doing the job. The Senate has been accused of allowing people to stay too long, not that Senator Grassley is not capable, but he is over 90 now. He's chairing the committee looking into the fitness of the last president, whether he was capable of doing the job. Do you believe there should be an age limit to how long you can serve in the Senate? Do I think there should be an age limit? You know, I've watched some of my colleagues that have gotten older in their 80s who are as sharp as the first time I met them. What I see is that physically it's harder. Your body just, your body kind of wears down, slows down when you're in your late 80s and your 90s. And this is a very physically demanding job. I know how much it physically

takes out of me. It's not just the day-to-day schedule. It's the amount of travel. It's the amount of travel. that goes on that is just physically taxing. And when your body's tired, your mind, my mind anyway, is not as sharp. And so I look at it. Everyone needs to recognize the value that you bring to the table. And if you feel like you can't be giving 100% physically, mentally, then I think we need to make those decisions for the right reasons

to move aside and let, Others step in. And I think that that decision needs to be left to them, but I will tell you what happens. And I have seen this with far too many of my colleagues. They knew that physically, maybe mentally, the wear was accumulating. And they sought to leave.

And it was their parties that said, oh, you cannot leave. You can't step down because then we're going to have open seat, we're going to have to spend way too much money to defend it. You have to stay in because you're seniority, you're going to be able, you've got money in the bank, you will be able to get reelected and we will keep power. We will keep control. And they do it at the expense of good people who deserve to have the dignity and respect to leave on their own terms. And instead, we squeeze them until there is nothing left.

And when I say we, it is our process, this process that says it's more important to have the majority. It's more important to have that control. We don't care if we're wheeling you around in a wheelchair or if the late night votes just completely knock you out. that is not right. It's not right to them as human beings. And in fairness, it's not right to their constituents either because they're not able to give and be the best that they can be. So you've asked a fair question if there should be an age limit. And I am suggesting to you that we don't necessarily need to name that age. We should let, we should let the member determine when it is best. But then when they make that decision, respect it. And don't apply that level of

pressure to just stay in because we need that body. Respect them. Let me close with this question, Senator. We've had two professors on the podcast in the last few months. One, Harvey Mansfield, the famous conservative professor who is 90-some years old now. He is concerned about the direction of Trump and what he's doing to democracy, but he, I think, ultimately believes that America will get through it and I guess he's not,

the threat level is not the highest it could be. We also had Professor Larry Diamond from Stanford who's an expert in democracy who probably couldn't see the threat level as higher in terms of what he's seeing the president due to law firms to kind of quellish journalism and the threats that he made.

Where do you stand on the concerns about democracy, in the president's actions. Are you closer to Larry Diamond where the threat levels as high as it could be or are you closer to Harvey Manfred who sees it as a threat but believes that ultimately

America will muddle through? Well, I definitely see it as a threat and I believe that it is as high as I have seen it. I don't think it's as high as it could be and we want to keep it from being as high as it could be. I am like

the eternal optimist. It's no joke. Even my blood type is be positive and I and I just I'm I'm that type of a person and so I just inherently believe that we're going to make we're going to muddle through this we're going to come out on the other side of this okay because we are the United States of America we are the greatest country out there we are being tested in a way that I surely have never seen and I never anticipated that I would see but I believe that we will have the wisdom and the strength to correct our direction.

I have to believe that. Otherwise, I wouldn't want to get up in the morning, go to work. But we are at a place that I've never seen. Senator Lisa Murkowski, thank you for joining the Dispatch Podcast. Thank you. Good to be with you. Thank you.