The Rest Is Politics: Leading - 182. Culture Wars, Identity, and What Needs To Change In Congress (Sarah McBride)

Episode Date: March 29, 2026

How are rights for trans people in the US improving or worsening under the Republican administration? What fundamentally needs to change in Congress to improve the state of politics? Are the Democrats doing enough to win back the American public? Rory and Alastair are joined by US Congresswoman, Sarah McBride, to answer all this and more. Search IG.com to find out more and/or Look for IG in your app store. Join The Rest Is Politics Plus: Start your free trial at therestispolitics.com to unlock exclusive bonus content – including Rory and Alastair’s miniseries – plus ad-free listening, early access to episodes and live show tickets, an exclusive members’ newsletter, discounted book prices, and a private chatroom on Discord. Social Producer: Celine Charles Video Editor: Josh Smith Producer: Alice Horrell Senior Producer: Nicole Maslen Head of Politics: Tom Whiter Exec Producers: Tony Pastor + Jack Davenport Advertise with us: [e-mail] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Thanks for listening to The Restis Politics. Sign up to the Restis Politics Plus. To enjoy ad-free listening, receive a weekly newsletter, join our members chat room and gain early access to live show tickets. Just go to therestispolities.com. That's the restispolics.com. Welcome to the rest is politics leading with me, Rory Stewart. And with me, Alistair, and we are absolutely thrilled to be with somebody who's probably going to get really irritated when I interview her as the first transgender congresswoman in the United States. States for Erica because that is how she gets introduced wherever she goes and eventually the will get fed up with that and move on but that is a fact that Sarah McBride is still in the mid-30s she's a Democrat from Delaware she's somebody who has been a state senator she's now in Congress and she's absolutely perfect for this podcast one because she's an avid listener she keeps telling us but secondly because she lives her politics by trying to disagree agreeably, even on an issue so close to her heart, which is transgender in the way that it's been weaponized by, particularly by many on the right. So thank you for

being here. It's lovely to see you in person. So tell us a little bit about your, give us your sort of 15 year old self. If we'd met you age 15, what would we have thought? Would we have liked the 15-year-old version? I feel like you and I might have gotten along. I'm not sure if Alistair and I would have gotten along. You might not have liked me. I was pretty nerdy, pretty consumed with books about history and politics. What am I hearing here? I think that you're pretty cool. But first of all, it's just wonderful to be here.

Both of you are very cool. I didn't mean to insult Rory right away. He's getting really happy. Because the thing is, you see, I really want to be cool. He really wants to read books. So you've managed to insult both of us. Exactly. Well, that's a great way to start because it is an honor to be with you both.

I am a long time listener. You know, my 15-year-old self was incredibly lucky in so many ways. I was lucky in the community that I was born and raised in in Wilmington, Delaware. I was lucky to be born into an amazing family. I lucked out in the parent lottery. I went to an amazing school, an arts school, actually. And at that point, at 15, I had started getting involved in politics. I was pretty insufferable, is the, the,

long and short of it. But I was involved in politics because the sort of first rule in politics is you're supposed to pretend like you wake up one morning, fall out of bed and find yourself an elected office. You're not supposed to share that you had an interest in politics before you got into it. But I lay it all out on the table. I was really involved in politics. I didn't know whether I'd run for office or not, but that interest in politics for me was really rooted in a crisis of hope. I, at 15, was very aware of the fact that there was, was something about me that other people didn't approve of. I was very aware of the fact that there was something about me that while it was buried deep in the closet would mean that I might not

be able to find love, do work that I love, live in a community that I loved. And the reason why I got involved in politics was because I found hope in it. I found hope in politics as a means to make this world kinder and more just and more inclusive. And we said, you're saying, you're 15-year-old, but what age were you when those feelings started and you start to feel something that you felt you couldn't communicate to other people? For as long as I can remember. My earliest memories are of knowing who I am and knowing that the world didn't see me as that. I don't know what makes me trans. I don't know why I am trans. There is a lot of research out there that really does show. It's something that might happen when you're still a fetus in you.

utero. I don't know why I am the way I am, but I know it's who I've been all my life. And I think that the challenge I will just say in this conversation is that unlike sexual orientation, where most people know what it feels like to love and to lust, straight people are able to enter into conversations around gay rights with an analogous experience. And the challenge for people who aren't trans is that they don't have an analogous experience to what it feels like to be trans and in the closet. this episode is brought to you by IG. If you're listening to Leading, the chances are that you're someone who thinks seriously about politics, about economics and your own financial future. So here's

something genuinely worth knowing. IG's flexible stocks and shares, ISA, lets you withdraw and top up money within the same tax year without losing your tax-free allowance. And that is all on top of charging zero commission and zero account fees. This ISA season, they're giving away up to £3,000 cashback when you transfer your existing ISA over to IG. Use the code, ISA, LEADING. That's ISA-L-E-A-D-I-N-G. Search IG.com to find that more. IG. Trade, invest, progress.

Your capital is at risk. ISA rules, tax rules and TNC supply. Cashback offer is for new customers only and cannot be used in conjunction with other promotions. Offer ends 5th April, 2026. Other fees may apply. Will you begin with a very sort of naive thing, which is how would you explain in simple language to somebody who wasn't familiar with what it means to be trans in very simple terms, what you're saying about yourself? Do you mean what it means to be trans or what it feels like to be trans? I think that, I mean, maybe this is just me, but I think a lot of people are profoundly confused. I mean, I think a lot of people

hadn't really heard much about trans people. Certainly in Britain, people confused about gender identities. They don't know whether what you're saying is that you were biologically originally a man and then became a woman. So could you explain sort of simply to lessen this what it was? For me, when I was born based on my exterior body, the doctors, my parents, everyone said you're a side male at birth, you're a boy. And for 99% of people, if not more, those things do align. We do know, as trans people have existed throughout time, throughout cultures, that there are a small number of people for whom that inner sense of their gender differs from that sex

assigned at birth. And that discordance between gender identity and sex causes what is called gender dysphoria. And I think the biggest challenge for folks, yes, sort of, understanding that there is something that is different from our sex that we feel as gender. When those things match up, you don't feel something. It's only when there is conflict between the two that you really feel that inner pain. And it's hard to explain what it feels like, but the closest thing that I can compare being trans and in the closet to was this constant feeling of homesickness. Not below where you were.

Exactly. Just this unwavering ache in the pit of my stomach that only would go away when I could be seen and affirmed as myself. And unlike homesickness, which dissipates with time and as you get used to your new surroundings, it only increased to the point where I remember when I first came out, I realized that everyone else doesn't have their mind cluttered with gender. Everyone else is able to think, clearly in ways that I wasn't able to when I was in the closet. It was something I thought about every single waking hour of every single day. And only when I came out, did that clutter in my mind, did that pain, did that homesickness dissipate? And you said you were lucky to be in a very loving, caring family. But how did your parents sort of deal with that process as you went through? Did they see your pain? Did they think you were in pain? I think I hit it really well. I didn't want to disappoint people. I think I hit it well because I knew how lucky I was.

But as it grew, that pain started to become more visible to the point where on Christmas Day in 2011, my mom just could tell that there was something that was plaguing me and she asked me what was wrong. and in a fit of courage and ruining Christmas, I told her that I was trans in that moment. And how did your mom react? It was really hard for them. I mean, they are loving progressive people,

but they really struggled. They struggled with, I think, two things primarily. The first was fear for my future. The second was confusion, exactly what we were talking about. a challenge in understanding what it felt like to be me and sort of being consumed and caught up with that inability to understand. We obviously touch on this issue occasionally in the podcast, and there's a very, very large number of people who reach out to us who feel that we don't understand this issue. There's a particular some feminists in the UK who can be very angry with our stance, of whom JK Rowling is the kind of famous example.

What do you understand of their position and how you talk to them and explain your position and where you differ? Well, my understanding of their position is, one, that they reject the sort of distinction between gender identity and sex, and that these two things can be in conflict. And two, that they are then concerned with, from their perspective, the safety and integrity of spaces. that are typically reserved for women. And I can't tell someone that they don't feel uncomfortable. I can't tell someone that they should just get over it. What I can say is a couple of things.

The first is that trans people are concerned with safety and privacy in private spaces. Trans people are seeking to go about their business, do their business, and mind their business. We have had inclusive policies in many times. states and cities across the United States, you have had, up until recently, fairly inclusive policies. And there was not a spate of people pretending to be trans, going into spaces, and abusing anyone. Discomfort alone is not grounds to exclude people. If it were, then we'd have a long list of people who feel uncomfortable with other kinds of people in spaces where they feel

a little bit more vulnerable, right? Everyone feels a little bit vulnerable in a restroom. But discomfort alone cannot be grounds to exclude people. And at the end of the day, trans people exist. And so the question is, even if you have academic or intellectual disagreements about gender identity and sex and even if you have questions or concerns, at the end of the day, we have to decide, how do we treat people who exist? How do we guarantee that that? they too can fully participate in life because the reality is bathrooms have actually been at the center of every single battle for civil and human rights, certainly in our country, probably in your country, in part because if you can't use restrooms with ease and safety, then it becomes very difficult

to leave your home, to go to work, to get goods and services. It becomes very difficult to participate in public life. And so trans people are here. There might be some people who are uncomfortable if they know when I'm in a restroom, but they're also who are women and there also might be men who would be uncomfortable if ours in the restroom with them as well.

There's going to be discomfort for some people. The question is, does that mean that we essentially create an environment where trans people can't use one restroom and, quite frankly, are put at very legitimate risk of not only being outed because if you're a trans person in a men's restroom, it pretty much outs you.

A trans woman in a men's restroom, it pretty much outs you. But it can also put you as well at very legitimate real risk of assault. And we actually know that that happens. And then finally, stepping back, do we want an environment where we are playing gender police with restrooms? I'll give you one example. I got into Congress. We'll probably talk more about this. They banned me trans people from restrooms.

From the restrooms in Congress. In Congress. Just enough, because in their eyes, you're at this stage, neither a man nor a woman. What's the intellectual justification? I think they would say I should go to the men's room. I do have a private restroom in my office a ways away from the Capitol. Right. In the Capitol, the only public restrooms that are available are multi-stalled, gender-specific

restrooms unless you have a private office and I'm not senior enough to have a private office in the Capitol. But the concept of the, these are Trump Republicans who've passed this? Yes, yes, yeah. I came in. And their concept is that you're a man and you should use the male restroom, despite the fact you are a woman and you dress like a woman and all this kind of stuff. You're going to... I would cause a lot of...

Much more disruption in the men's restroom than I would in the women's restroom, which I use without incident for my entire adult life. But they have banned me. There was an incident in February of last year where a MAGA member of Congress named Lauren Beaubert went into the women's restroom right off the floor of the House of Representatives and she saw a freshman Democrat with shoulder-length hair and glasses in the rest of, restroom and she started to harass her and started to scream at her. You don't belong in here. Thinking it was you. Well, the freshman Democrat was bewildered, continued to go about her business.

Lauren Bobert went on to the floor of the House of Representatives to secure the backup of Congress's top bathroom sheriff, a woman named Nancy Mace. They come off the floor of the House of Representatives march into the bathroom and sheepishly walk out a couple of minutes later, realizing indeed that this freshman Democrat with shoulder-length pair was not me. The people who are most often victims of gender policing in restrooms are non-transgender women who are non-gender conforming, women who have short hair, women who are taller, women who have a more muscular build, women who don't wear makeup, women who dress in a more gender non-conforming way. Those are typically the victims of gender policing. And so we just have to grapple with this diversity and maybe

just allow one another to live and express. And if someone does something wrong in the restroom, punish them for that behavior. Now, Sarah, I said at the start, you probably get fed up being introduced as the first transgender woman in Congress, and you may be getting fed up already about the fact that we're still talking about it. Well, that's why I insulted you both at the start. Yeah, that was really right way to get the right way. But it is so interesting, because it's so much about the way that politics has developed.

Because as you said earlier, there have been trans people through time. I was with Tony Blair earlier today, and I said we were coming to see you and we were talking about you. and I was recording, I think the first trans person that I worked with was a woman, Christine, who worked for Tony in Sedgefield when he was a young MP. Sedgefield, working class area, mining community, and it was just not a deal. So what has happened that has made it such a deal? And is it, do you see it as something that has been deliberately politically weaponised?

And how thereby do you manage to retain your... disagree agreeably, don't fight too hard, be reasonable, try to understand the other point of view. Sorry, there's a lot in that question. Yeah, so there's no question that this is being weaponized. There is a big difference between people with genuine questions or genuine concerns that are coming to this conversation in good faith and those who are acting in bad faith, those who are very clearly trying to take a vulnerable community, regardless of whether you think they're gender identity is valid or not.

Trans people have been, when I was growing up, the only examples I had were punchlines in a comedy or dead bodies in a drama, right? And they are trying to take that community and score political points on their backs. One, I think that when gay rights hit a certain level of public support and legal momentum, the movement against gay rights shifted to trans people. one, two, I think that there was a very clear, concerted and well-funded effort, especially in the United States, to target trans people, to make us the center of political discourse and debate, to run $200 million in ads featuring trans issues.

Three, I think it is genuinely hard for some people to understand. And four, I think that there is a larger regression in. gender equality that is happening across liberal democracies right now. I think right-wing nationalism has successfully first exploited immigration and has shifted to also exploit progress for women writ large in our society, any kind of gender progress. I think they are telling a lot of young men who, I think, rightfully feel like there is not opportunity before them, that the immigrants are to blame or women are to blame. And I think trans people are at sort of the tip of the spear of conversations around gender that are actually much larger. The bigger iceberg under that

is the cultural regression around women's rights period and gender equality period where we now see young men at historic lows in support of the proposition that women deserve equal, will pay for equal work and women deserve the same opportunities as men. We will obviously transition on to the many, many other interests. No unintended. Exactly. No pun intended. But I just wanted to sort of wrap up by saying, is it something that you find a little bit

irritating that people spend the first 20 minutes of an interview talking about? Or is it something that actually you think you have a very unique role in doing? And does that change through your political career? I mean, what is your sense on how much you're an advocate for this issue and how much your other things. I think it will inevitably change over the course of my political career. I didn't run for office to be known for my election. I ran for office to be known for what I do for my constituents. I ran for office to focus on the issues that I ran on and that I know my constituents are concerned with, the issues that I am spending my time in Congress working on

issues from health care to paid family and medical leave to child care to foreign policy. And so I believe over time that this conversation will evolve, that the way people talk about me will evolve. But I also understand I'm not naive to the moment that I have entered Congress in. I'm not naive to the curiosity that people have. I'm not naive to the fact that when you are a first, that will be at the start, something that people want to talk about. And you play a leadership role in that? And I think there is actually a lot we can learn about some of the larger problems that we've faced. in our democracy, in coalition building with this issue as a case study.

Because I do think, and you touched on this, like I said, I think we have to be able to make a distinction between people who are entering in good faith and people who are not entering in good faith. And I do think we have to figure out if we want to, one, affirm that people are more than just what we believe to be their worst position or action. And two, if we want to actually be effective in changing people's hearts and minds, we have to be willing to engage in a dialogue with those folks who enter in good faith who have questions in a way that doesn't immediately call them bigots in a way that doesn't dismiss their concerns or questions as completely irrational or hateful in a place that allows us to have a dialogue because at the end of the day, that is the only way for us to move the ball forward on this. And it's the only way for us to make progress on any issue is if we maintain our capacity to engage across disagreement. Which kind of defines the way you do politics.

I want to come on to that. But maybe my final point in this area and actually leads us into the way you do your politics. I listened to an interview you did on POD Save America. And you have this really interesting observation. And I'm going to really, really simplify this. But you basically said Democrat Party is female in our politics. Republican Party is male. I mean, I'm really taking about 10 minutes of your time and putting it into one sort of little soundbite.

What did you mean by that? So there are two different standards that our parties are held to. 100%. And I think those double standards make a lot more sense when you understand that more or less, the Democratic Party has become the avatar of womanhood, of really all of the different sort of marginalized identity. it's been fighting for, and the Republican Party has become the avatar of sort of white straight men. And because of that, Republicans can be loud and yell and get angry and they're seen as strong. And when Democrats do that, they're seen as shrill and hysterical. When Republican politicians insult and dismiss and write off half the country, people tolerate

that because we tolerate deadbeat dads. But if a Democrat says that one half of Donald Trump's supporters are deplorable, which I disagree with, but if they say that, that is a crossing of the red line because a mother has to love all of her children equally. And I think that if we are to be effective as a party, we have to recognize the reality that we are engaging in and the double standards that exist because, you know, I think at this point, one of the challenges my party has faced, and we'll probably talk more about this, is that people, when they go to the voting booth, ask two questions. The first is, what does this party think of me?

What does this candidate think of me? Do they like me? Not just do they care for me, do they respect me? Do they like me? The second question is, what does this candidate? What does this party think? If you can't answer that first question to a voter's satisfaction, it becomes very difficult to get them to that next question.

And I think that there are also a lot of people, unfortunately, in our society right now that feel like my party doesn't like them. And by extension, we don't respect them or care for them. And that's true of the Republican Party, right, for trans people, LGBTQ people, many women, people of color, immigrants. The list goes on. It doesn't matter for them. But it doesn't matter because there's a double standard.

So let's look at foreign affairs. You have begun to specialize in foreign affairs. You're on the committee. you took a very supportive position towards Europe on Greenland, but you took a position on Israel, Gaza, which from a European perspective, felt as though it was more aligned with Israel, unless the other side.

Can you, I mean, talk us through that. Maybe I've misunderstood your positions on these differences. Well, I wouldn't say that my position dramatically differs from many in Europe on this. I believe that October 7th was indeed a horrific terrorist attack, that Israel did indeed have the ability as any nation does to defend itself. And what they have done in Gaza went far beyond self-defense. That what we have seen in Gaza is horrific. It was and is a humanitarian crisis that was at minimum worsened with intentionality.

and disregard for human life by the Netanyahu government. I believe that right now we have to do all we can to maintain the ceasefire that exists. I'm glad as tenuous as it is that there is something in place, but I firmly believe that Palestinians have a right to self-determination. I fundamentally believe that there should be a Palestinian state where there's dignity and safety and individual rights for Palestinians. And I believe that that can coexist next to a safe and secure Israel as well. So we interviewed a man called Rob Malley recently, who was very central to both Bill Clinton's Middle East peace process, but also to Joe Biden on Iran.

And he made a couple of observations. I'd love you to respond to. One is that he feels that something's changed in American politics, that there was a moment where, it could be taken as read that on almost any question U.S. politicians would be completely aligned with Israel, and something was beginning to shift there. And his second, maybe more challenging observation is that no young Palestinian and no young Israeli believes in a two-state solution anymore. Or believes that there will be one. Believes that will be one. And that actually this is just something that politicians say,

and they've been saying it for 10 years too long, and they'll keep saying it for another 10 years, and there's literally no young person in the region who thinks that it's anything other than the talking point. Yeah. On the first part of the question, yes, things have fundamentally changed. Public opinion has fundamentally changed. And it is understandable that when people see the carnage

and the death and the destruction in Gaza, that they would be outraged by it and want things to change. And that includes, the way that the United States engages with the Israeli government. And so I do believe that things have significantly shifted. And I believe that Netanyahu and his government and their actions have dramatically precipitated that public opinion change.

I think it was occurring before October 7th and before Gaza, but I think their actions, and I think many American Jews feel this way, that their actions have responsibility for that change, that it's not propaganda, that it's not anti-Semitic for people to be outraged by what they see, and that criticisms of the Israeli government are not in and of themselves anti-Semitic. On the second point, first of all, I think there's a difference between young Palestinians and young Israelis wanting a two-state solution or believing that it's possible. I personally believe that it's the best, if not imperfect solution, if imperfect solution, to guarantee individual rights for both Israelis and Palestinians as hard as it will be to achieve. I also believe it has been a talking

point for a while. I do believe that people have not done enough to see that through, but we cannot give up on that possibility. I mean, the alternative is just unacceptable to me. And people can be pessimistic that there is a realistic path forward. I understand that. I'm not particularly optimistic that it's something we'll see in due course. But I don't believe that we can eliminate that as an option and close off that as a path forward because it is, again, imperfect, but probably the best way to minimize loss of life. And Rory mentioned Greenland.

You went to Greenland? I went to Denmark. Oh, you went to Denmark? He didn't go to Greenland. So you went there presumably because you're concerned about what Trump was doing in relation to Greenland. Yes. And we're talking in Munich at the security conference where there is still a lot of talk. I mean, the impact of what Trump's intentions as he signaled them in relation to Denmark and Greenland have really had a huge impact upon European politics, transatlantic relationship.

trying to be your fair self, who unlike Roy and I, doesn't constantly just say that Donald Trump's an absolute monster. What do you think, if you had to say there is some positive in his motivation, what do you think it could be? I don't think that there's a positive in his motivation. I think it's fundamentally selfish. I think a couple of things. One, I think he sees it as an opportunity to seize land dramatically expand the size of the United States, and that's part of his legacy. I think he sees Greenland as a opportunity, perhaps the weakest link in the chain, although not a weak link in the chain, but the weakest link in the chain within North America to really assert his sphere of influence philosophy of a global order, which is a might makes right in my neighborhood global order. And I think he sees this as an opportunity as one of the proving grounds to make that a reality, to normalize that philosophy and to create precedent.

for that philosophy. I think Venezuela is part of that as well. I think his engagement with Russia on Ukraine is also an example of him trying to normalize and make reality a new global order where great powers get to dictate what happens in their neighborhood, regardless of the territorial integrity or sovereignty of a neighbor. Lindsay Graham's just given a slightly controversial speech just a few hours ago here. And we, and if you were Mike Pompeo. And their message both of them is, is you're basically being too sensitive. You know, Europe, Britain, you need to grow up, stop grumbling all the time. It's all fine.

You know, we can do all this stuff. And we're all going to be friends again. And nobody's going to remember because you need us. I am sick and tired of Republican politicians. Yes. Telling us not to believe our lying eyes. I'm sick of Republican politicians telling us that we should take him figuratively, not literally. I'm sick of Republican politicians telling us.

telling us just to suck it up and get over it every single time this president does something that is unprecedented, harmful, insulting, and dangerous. But it says standard line on almost everything, isn't it? Exactly. That's why I'm so tired of it. Why do they do it? Because they don't want to have to actually engage with the substance and the merits or lack thereof of what he's doing and what he's saying.

They want the easy way out. It was in the first Trump administration. I didn't read the tweet. Now it's, oh, he doesn't mean it. It's fine. He'll, you know, he'll backtrack. It's rhetoric. I think the thing that was most profound for me in Denmark,

we had people come up to us on the street. And you were both parties together, yeah? It was bipartisan, bicameral, both members from the House and the Senate, although the Republicans were just from the Senate. I think if we had some more time to organize it, we would have gotten some Republicans in the House. I mean, it's hard to overstate just how unpopular, both in Congress and with the public, the president's attempt to either by force or intimidation

seized Greenland was. But people would come up to, they knew we were there. It was getting wall-to-wall coverage because of how scared Greenlanders are and were because of how bewildered, insulted, painful this was for the Danes. And people would come up to us with tears in their eyes, almost begging us, what do you need from us for us to wake up from this nightmare? What can we do? we are willing to essentially do everything short of what no country would be willing to do, which is to give up our own territory. What can we do? And I think one of the things that we tried to convey to both our colleagues and the American people

was the fact that this conversation was even happening. Insulting is not strong enough a word. I mean, it's dehumanizing. It's the indignity of having to plead for all that they've done. for the Danes lost more people per capita in Afghanistan any other country. The only time Article 5 was invoked was after 9-11. To see that sacrifice not only explicitly denied by the president, but to have it just completely, completely insulted by, again, not strong enough word, by threatening to

take another country's territory. The pain, the dehumanization, the indignity, you can't just say, suck it up. It's profound, and it has real, tangible, and lasting consequences. How did Lindsay Graham go down? It was pretty feisty, actually. I mean, it actually ended early, I think. It looked like they were trying to have to manage it towards the end as things kicked off. I mean, I think we're struggling in Europe and in Britain, with the sense that what it brought

to light for us was how vulnerable we are. and how dependent on the US in all these different ways, including in the future cloud computing AI, defense and security. And of course, it's made us suddenly look at what the US has been doing around the world to other people, but never did to us. We grew up thinking, you know, thinking, you know, might be normal for the US to get involved in telling the Iraqi government who they can and can't have in their cabinet

or putting the sanctioned pressure on Cuba and saying that any European who travels to Cuba can't have a visa to go to the United States. And so long as it wasn't happening to us, we sort of felt, well, this is, you know, the rules-based international order. And suddenly now we're having to stare down the barrel of it. And of course, a lot of people developing world are saying, well, you know, wake up. And I think that was part of the theme of Mark Carney's speech in Davos was not only do we have to grapple with this reality, but for many, this was a reality long before Trump.

Look, I believe that the U.S. and the global order that we have benefited from for the last 80 years, indeed it was imperfect. Indeed, we were not perfect, fair, even arbiters of those rules. And yet, it was still a much better aspiration than what we are seeing this current administration seek to create now, which is essentially not a much better aspiration. than what we are seeing this current administration seek to create now, which is essentially not an imperfectly executed moral order, but an amoral world order where might makes right, where there will be kinetic conflict between great powers and middle powers. And then eventually, once you've dominated your neighborhood as a great power,

you want to expand your neighborhood, and then eventually there could be very easily conflict, kinetic conflict between great powers. Okay, sir, we'll be quick. breaking them back for more. Hey, this is Michael and Hannah from Gollhangers. The Rest is Science. This episode is brought to you by Cancer Research, UK. We often think of beating cancer as treatment, but imagine stopping it before it begins.

After years of work, Cancer Research UK scientists are launching a clinical trial of lung Vax, the first vaccine designed to prevent lung cancer. It builds on TracerX, the world's largest cancer evolution study, which tracked lung cancer cells over many years to uncover the disease's earliest warning signs. Lung Vax is designed to train the immune system to spot these signs early on, destroying 40 cells before cancer develops. So it's not treatment, but preventative with the potential to stop lung cancer before it starts. The first stage of the trial starts this year, focusing on people at higher risk.

It shows what long-term research makes possible. For more information about cancer research, UK, their research breakthroughs and how you can support them, visit cancer research UK.org forward slash the rest is science. Hi everybody, it's Dominic Samaruk here from The Rest is History. Now, some of you may have heard me on your show, The Rest is Politics, when Rory was away and I was filling in and enjoying Alistair Campbell's tremendous banter. And I'm back to tell you about our new series on The Rest is History, which is all about

Britain in the 1970s, a period with a lot of uncanny resemblances to our own. So right now we're living through a moment when oil shocks generated by war in the Middle East are rippling through the world economy, when Britain feels like it's sunk in a bit of a malaise, people are arguing about Europe, the government has got a few issues with the trade unions, and we have a kind of, I suppose you'd say governing elite, a kind of political class that is really struggling to come to terms with all of these issues. And people are asking if Britain is governable at all. So there are a lot of parallels between that Britain that I'm describing,

which is our Britain, and the Britain of the mid-1970s. So in this series that's coming out on the rest is history, we'll be looking at these and other issues. We'll be talking about the rise of Margaret Thatcher, obviously a colossal figure in our political life even now, whether you love her or loathe her. And we'll be talking about the very first Brexit referendum of 1970s. a subject that I'm sure Rory and Alistair will have strong opinions about.

We'll be talking about the fall of the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson and we'll be talking about one of the grimmest moments in Britain's economic history, the moment in 1976 when we had to go cap in hand, as people said at the time, to the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, for a then record bailout. Now, if that sounds good to you, how could it not sound good to you? Of course it sounds good to you. We have a clip for you to listen to at the end of this episode. And if you want to hear more, just search for The Rest is History wherever you get your podcasts.

It's interesting. You said that you felt the American people were very, very strongly opposed to what Trump was saying and doing on Greenland. Is it the same in relation to Ukraine? Because I think a lot of Europeans are really profoundly shocked that an American president seems to be much, much closer to an aggressive expansion. Russian worldview than a European country that's been invaded by him. I think that to us has been as bewildering as anything. I just wonder what American, where you think American public opinion is over. I think public opinion overwhelmingly in the United States favors Ukraine.

I think it gets a little bit more complicated when you start talking about aid, as is always the case in most countries. But the American people overwhelmingly support Ukraine, not quite as overwhelmingly as they oppose taking Greenland. I mean, the polling on seizing Greenland, I mean, the opposition to that was like, was like Putin numbers in an election in Russia. I mean, it was like.

Why was the average American against taking Greenland? Because Trump obviously didn't think that would be the case. He obviously thought it's going to be lovely. I'll add a lovely bit of color to the map and I'll hand this as a 250th birthday gift. Why did most Americans think it was a bad idea? I think they thought it was stupid, one, because I don't think they bought that there was something that we needed that required that new territory. But I also think even more than that. And I think

sometimes it works in our favor. Sometimes it doesn't. But I think the American people are very much of the mind that we have serious problems at home that we should be focusing on and prioritizing. and they certainly didn't think that this large island that they really only know because they see it on a map in school, that that needed to be, seizing that needed to be the priority of our government at the expense of lowering costs for working people, at the expense of restoring funding for Medicaid that the Republicans cut. I think that's what they want our priorities to be, and I think they see it as a misplacement of priorities. Now, let's get back to your party and American domestic. politics. Roy and I were both in the states for the election. Rory famously was absolutely

convinced that Camel Harris was going to be president. Where were you during the election? I'm going to recommit to this to you. I think that Kamala Harris is going to be president. Yeah, well, the whole thing was rigged against her. Maybe she won. Who knows? We'll send Tulsi Gabbard to finger it out. But if you had to give me three reasons, not why Trump won, but why the Democrats lost, and three things that you think the Democrats need to do between now and the next election to be in a winning position, what would they be?

The first I already mentioned, which is I think many people feel like our party, our coalition looks down upon them. And so you never get to that second question around policy. It's personal, it's visceral. But Clinton didn't, Obama didn't. No, but I think... So what changed?

Well, I think... Biden probably didn't. No, but I think they transcended that. I think there's... Parties are not defined just by their leaders. Parties are not just defined by their elected representatives. Parties are now sort of this amorphous blob of things that are defined by a mix of groups and politicians and people on social media.

And I think that the sort of democratic... ecosystem left that impression in people's minds. The second is I think that talk about misplaced priorities, I think that they felt like our priorities did not match theirs. When you asked an American voter, certainly into last year, what are the top five priorities for the Democratic Party? What are the top five priorities of the Republican Party? And what are the top five priorities for you as a voter? And they averaged all those answers out. Three out of the top five issues for the American voter appeared in their perception of the priorities of the Republican Party, one of their own priorities appeared in their list of their perceived priorities of the Democratic Party. It was health care

and it's five out of five. The top two were abortion and LGBTQ issues. And that's what the public thought were the priorities of the Democratic Party. Despite the fact, we sat through a Chicago conference where Kamah Harris and the team talked about almost nothing except cost of living and economic performance and getting back to Main Street. That just wasn't cutting through. I think it wasn't cutting. Because that conference. It's you presumably out the conference. Yeah, I was at the convention. Yeah.

That convention was not about abortion. It was not about LGBT. I mean, it wasn't much about that. It was mostly somebody had clearly said, we're going to make this about. Well, I will tell you a lot of, I will say, in 2022 and in 2024, there was a lot of paid media from Democrats about abortion. It did play a pretty prominent role. Because people believed it was going to be critical in the election. I mean, a lot of my friends were like women are so furious about it.

It helped, especially in 2020. 2022 to avoid that red wave. But I think then it left people thinking this is your priority. I think we had seen a lot on LGBTQ issues. So I think in some ways sort of the being a victim of our own success, perhaps the amount of progress left people thinking that that was a priority. And it goes back to what we talked about earlier. There was a massive right wing well-funded effort to define us that way.

He's for you there for them. Exactly. Exactly. So I think that was... That was their most effective ad. That, and it wasn't about the substance of those issues. Most Americans are pro-choice. While there are differences of opinion and polling on things like sports don't look great for the trans rights argument.

Broadly speaking, the public supports non-discrimination for trans people. It's not that the public opposes those things. It's that they want the priorities of the party to be their ability to present. pursue the American dream and making it a reality for them. Okay, so number three? I think that people, and I don't know that this is necessarily something that we could have done better, but I think a big part of the last election did boil down to people going. Democrats have been talking about democracy and the threat that Trump poses.

We survived his first term and prices were lower. Hmm. And that feeling was so. discordant with what we were saying, the stakes were, I think people just dismissed it. I think that in the last election in November 2025, we saw Democratic victories in Virginia, New Jersey, Georgia. Obviously, there was a victory unsurprising in New York. But I think all of the successful candidates in those races executed three things well. The first is they ran on the politics of prosperity, on affordability, on a laser-like focus on lowering the cost of

living, and with tangible, discrete solutions, right? Zoranam Dani had solutions that felt big and bold to people in New York. Mikey Cheryl in New Jersey was rightfully talking about throwing out the, you know, Blue Ribbon Commission, we're going to have executive action on day one on freezing energy bills. They focused on the politics of prosperity. The second is a politics of pluralism. I like Ted Lasso a lot. One of my favorite lines in Ted Lasso, which is actually a quote from Walt Whitman, be curious, not judgmental. We need to embody a liberal democratic pluralism that creates space for disagreement that doesn't automatically presume people who disagree with me

are bad people. We can tap people's better angels. but you can only do that if you authentically genuinely see them yourselves. And then the third thing is a politics of place, a hyper focus on the place that they were running in, that transcended their partisan identity. Zara and Mamdani was New York first. Mikey Cheryl and Abigail Spanberger were New Jersey and Virginia first. And that politics of place, I think, is really powerful

to make connections with people who may disagree with you and may even identify as a different party than you. Sounds very lip-dem in our politics. That's not a ringing endorsement. There could not be a bigger criticism coming from a Tory. Yeah, I was going to say, that's not a ringing endorsement of my. They have turned around their electoral fortunes by going very radically local and making it all very radically local. And I feel they're dangerous there.

But anyway, we've interviewed Seth Moulton and Jim Hines and Rose DeLora and you, a number of congresspeople. And what we're picking up, I guess, and it would be lovely if you could explain this to a sort of bigger non-American audience is that there is a bit of a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. And you're wonderfully articulate and honest. Some people tend to fudge it because they don't want to talk about divisions with that very own party. But broadly speaking, could you explain, admitting it's simplifying, what are the two different strategic parts that people are debating? Well, I think the longer-standing divide in the Democratic Party has been between people who consider themselves progressive and those who consider themselves more moderate.

In the Labor Party, you know, new labor, soft left, hard left, right? I think every single party has that challenge. And the dynamism, presumably from the progressives, is no, no, no, the reason we're losing is we weren't radical enough. We should have gone more Bernie Sanders and if we'd done that, we would have won. And then presumably if you're Jim Himes or Seth Moulton, you're trying to say, no, we have to recapture the center ground, right? Is that roughly right?

I think that that's broadly speaking correct. I do, I personally am of the mind. Look, I'm a member, this might sound politiciany, but I'm a member of both the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the New Dem Caucus, which is the center left. No, so CPC is AOC, New Dances. You're AOC and you're also. I'm a member of both caucuses.

Do you believe in both? I do. I do. And if your life depended on it and you had to choose only one, where would you go? I reject false dichotomies, false choices. Yeah, of course you do. No, look, I think... But you've got to get both together.

I think there's truth in what both sides are saying. Because I do think we have suffered from the fact that our economic policy has not felt bold enough. I think part of the reason why people don't think we prioritize... economic issues is because they can't point to clear digestible economic policies from us. Whether it's as simple and straightforward and classic as raising the minimum wage or we're prioritizing paid family and medical leave, that's what I passed in Delaware as a byproduct of my experience as a caregiver. That's what really actually led me to run for office. Childcare, Zahar and Mom Doni ran on. I think the progressive movement is right

we need bold. We don't say radical as a negative connotation in our politics, but bold economic solutions, both because the times and the need demand it, but also because I think if we want to prove to people that it is our priority, they need concrete, digestible policies. But then I think on the other side, look, I am socially progressive. But one of my favorite analogies that the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus uses is a former union organizer is when you're organizing a union, you're going to have people who are black, white, Hispanic.

You're going to have people who are pro-LGBQ rights and maybe not so pro. You're going to have pro-choice, pro-life people, and everyone's united around the shared goal of better wages and better benefits. But if you think ahead, three years, with another, whatever we've got left of Trump's second term, the inequality is going to be off the scale.

Yes. It's already off the scale. Yes. But it's going to be a level. I get the sense that corruption is going to be off the scale. With the scale of things that you're going to be facing, how do you not actually go down and maybe a more radical road? Yeah, I think that's what I say is.

I think that I think it's not just what we need because people are demanding it, but because the times and the need demand it. I mean, economic inequality, wealth disparity, globally and particularly in the United States, is out of control and it potentially is going to get worse both because of the corruption of the administration and because of AI. Talk to us about AI. I'd love to go to them because that seems to me the thing that in the next two and a half

years could change everything by the next election. People are barely talking about it. And in fact, some Congress people say to me that you're not talking about enough in Congress party because it's a weird subject and difficult to communicate. But when you're talking about possible mass unemployment in sectors, collapse of whole bits, the economy, making public services, national security, everything dependent on AI. Talk us about what you do about AI. How would you talk public about AI?

What would your AI policies be? How do you respond? So you are 100% right that AI presents to us certainly the biggest change for society since the Industrial Revolution. And I would argue that there is a possibility based on its impact on our economy, on relationships, on health, that this could be the biggest change for humanity since we stopped being nomadic creatures and started being stationary agricultural communities. And I agree with the critique that we're not talking about enough or doing enough about it in Congress. And I think it's hard because it is esoteric. It is hard to comprehend even for, you know, a young digital native. It is challenging to really wrap your mind around the technology and the full breadth of possibilities that it could unlock and the full range of risks that it could present.

I have started, I'm on the science base and technology committee, and I'm proud that I've actually already introduced bipartisan legislation on AI in an effort, actually a small way, but to address the potential wealth disparities that we will see, advanced AI technologies, not only are they going to increase productivity in a way that workers will likely not benefit from, but it will also increase the divide between large and small businesses as these large employers are able to adopt AI on a mass, fast scale, the best models, whereas smaller businesses are going to really struggle with adopting it, understanding it. I have a bipartisan bill that would essentially create nutrition labels for small business IT folks to be able to actually navigate AI products

in a more effective, competent way. That's a small, but an important way to level the playing field between large and small businesses. But I think we need larger scale regulation on things like we, I believe we should have sector-specific regulations because I think AI presents different opportunities and different challenges sector-by-sector. But in all of those areas, we should have human-centric regulations. We don't want China to lead. We don't want regulation.

We can't put our heads in the sand and hope AI never exists. It's going to happen. The question is, where does it happen? I want it to happen in the United States. So we do need smart regulation. but it should be as often as possible human-centric. So that means if there's a need based on workforce or consumer protection for human redundancy in certain sectors, we should guarantee that there's human redundancy as a matter of

consumer protection or even workforce protection. I believe that in places where we are seeing AI produce content based on copyrighted material that people are producing, we should. protect that copyright and make sure that, for instance, artists aren't being put out of a job because this AI model is taking their work and creating art on its own. So I do think that there are human-centric regulations that we should be adopting. We need standards. We need safety protocol. I do think that there should be liability if an AI business creates a model and they become aware of the impact that that model is having on people's mental health, I think they should

be held accountable for that. So I think those are a handful of things that we should be doing. And I think we can learn. One of the benefits of the EU is that on AI, on social media, it's further ahead than we are. Some of it's good. You're not worried that we're heading to civilizational erasure. With AI? No.

Your government's national security strategy, JD, yeah. Yeah, J.D.'s speech here last, no. Look, I'm not saying that I'm not saying that the regulations in the EU, which obviously you all are not a part of much, much to, I think, all of our chagrin. I don't think the regulations are perfect, but I think there's a lot we can learn from those laboratories of democracy that have been a bit ahead of us. We could take the best bits from both. And I think that we have to be clear-eyed that there is possibility,

there is significant positive possibility, and there is quite literally existential risk here. And it's going to be impossible to put the toothpaste pack in the tube. And so we need to start doing this bit by bit right now as fast as possible because if we don't, it could be too late. My final question, you've always said, you said on POTSave America, we mustn't keep making Trump the main story.

You're very good at talking positively about the things you believe in your own agenda. but I sense that you've been more riled up. I would find it impossible to be an American right now. Yeah. Which is why I'm not going to the World Cup, despite Scotland, probably going to win it. Ha! Sorry. This is a prediction, a bit like my...

But what is your... It has an even less plausible. How do you kind of not have him living in your head the whole time? I am scared, quite frankly. I think any American would be naive not to be scared and to worry that this could be an existential moment for our democracy, for our country. I try to center myself in two ways. One is I think Trump and everything he represents is also compounded by this information environment that we live in right now, where everything, everything, feels so cruel and toxic and where everyone either completely agrees with me or completely disagrees with me,

where we see the worst because the algorithm privilege is the worst. And Trump is both a byproduct of that and a contributor to that. And one of the things that I find a lot of gratitude in as an elected official is I'm forced offline. I'm forced to touch grass. I'm forced to engage with people who think and vote differently than I do, not just about any topics, but about the things we disagree on in the real world. And I take a lot of comfort in the fact that we are not as divided as the algorithms make it seem. And that helps to re-center me in an environment where Trump feels so loud and everything feels so existential because I see that he doesn't represent where most people are,

even if most people who voted in the last election voted for him, that the worst that we see from him is not what most people are. And I see the goodness, I see the grace that exists. I see that even with people who I disagree with because I get to interact with them. Right now we are just happy.

It used to be, you didn't talk about religion and politics, at the dinner table. You never talked with people about those topics. And that was fine while it lasted. But we talk about politics now. We just talk about it in the worst place possible online. I actually, I'm encouraging, let's have conversation about politics in real life. Let's be proximate to one another and have those conversations because it will instill a sense of hope in you. And then the second thing that I think helps me to be a bit calmer in this moment with the Trump of it all, is I try to take stock in the history that I get to exist in as a member of Congress. Every single time I go on the floor of the House of Representatives,

I know it sounds hokey and cliche and trite, but you cannot tell me that the reasons for hopelessness now are greater than the reasons for hopelessness at almost any other point in our country's history. It has felt in the post-1960s world like we are on this, unending cultural wave of momentum, that everything will work out if we simply work for it and fight for it. But that's not been the reality for most of human history and certainly not most of American history. And you cannot tell me that the reasons for hopelessness now are greater than the reasons for hopelessness for an unemployed worker in the early days of the Great Depression who had never heard of

the New Deal. You cannot tell me that the reasons for a hopelessness now are greater than the reasons for a hopelessness for a closeted LGBTQ person in the 1950s who never knew of an America where they could live openly and authentically as themselves. Yes, things are challenging, but we have faced greater odds. We couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel in previous generations. And that's what feels scary now is because for the first time and perhaps all of our memories, we can't see the light at the end of the tunnel. That's new for us, but that's not new in history. Sarah, thank you. I mean, it's a wonderful, wonderful, for you. We've come to the end, but it's been a great, great privilege to have you on.

We've come to it. It says wrap up. Wrap up. Thank you. We now, we now do two quick minutes before we get thrown out where we talk about you behind your back, but we're very, very grateful. You know that. You said you listened. I didn't know it was behind my back. So you're kicking me out. We're very happy to talk about you here. You might get a bit more subconscious. Thank you so much, Brian. It's been an hour. Really appreciate you.

Thank you again, Sarah. And we'll see you, I hope you at the conference. Great. See you. See you. Bye. Thank you. What did you think of Sarah?

Oh, she's great. I sometimes think American politicians can be pretty impressive, right? There's a sort of fluency and confidence there, which you wouldn't get from every backbench, British, aren't Pete, would you? No. Look, I think there are quite a lot of American politicians who you wouldn't necessarily write home about. I would definitely write home about her. And it's not to do that we probably, you know,

some listeners may think we spent too much time talking about the trans thing, but it's so fundamental to her story. And it's also kind of, I think, what has given, she's a leader. She's, you can see the sort of leadership. It's an incredibly important voice, too. I mean, it was interesting. I mean, she obviously, you were right, didn't want to talk about it too much. But equally, she's got a huge burden there, which is that she will be the main voice telling a lot of people about that as you. And she's also, and for our listeners, she's the first voice we said. And if you go back to what she said at the end of the interview,

That is in large part the reason why she said she's not online. Why should she sit and look at all the abuse that comes away all the time? Now, and I thought what she said about the Democrats is really interesting and insightful. And I think she does frame her entire politics as a means to try genuinely to engage people in debate, even when you disagree with them. Which, you know, let's be honest, I'm not always very good at that. Yeah, well, I mean, I also thought that she's quite interesting because often with a politician, you get a sense of this is the, party line, this is what's polling well, maybe even this is what different groups are trying to influence me to do.

She had an ability to at least sound, so she was thinking quite freshly about foreign policy, about Trump, about AI. So actually these were things she believed rather than things that she was trolling out. Yeah, and also, you know, she's a very experienced, skilled communicator, but she didn't make any effort to find out what we're going to ask her. When you say to her, give me three things that went wrong and three things to put them right. She thought about it for 30 seconds and then gave, you know, very, very clear and I thought, pretty thought through answers. So, you know, I think she's very, very impressive.

And it's important as well, I think that I don't know what the stat is these days about how many American politicians don't even have a passport. It's still quite high, I think. But I think it's important that we don't all just think that when you think America right now, you just think Trump and Vance and Rubio and Wickoff and all the people we hear about all the time. I think encouraged people to listen to the four Congresspeople we've interviewed. on leading, all of whom I think are very impressive in different ways. And actually, just as everyone's writing off the Democratic Party and saying it's hopeless because Kamala Harris lost and all this kind of stuff, that there's such strength and energy and ideas there. But still it's difficult. I mean,

my final thought, which is maybe a bit unfair to her, is I don't think she's fully resolved this question around the progressive, non-progressive thing. And I think that's a difficult two horses to ride. And it was interesting when you challenged her. around Trump, despite the fact that what she wants to say is my message is about cost of living and money. That final speech was very much about civil rights. It was about LGBTQ. It was about civil rights for African Americans.

I was expecting her to finish again on a narrative coming back to what she said is let's be relevant to what people care about, which is, I guess. Yeah, but I'm unlikely to get the hairs stand up on my neck when I hear an American apologies to talk about affordability in Delaware. but I did feel a slight prickling on the neck when she went to do that big historical stuff. You kind of need both. You need both.

Anyway, I thought she was great. I'm really glad we did that. I thought she was super cool, really cool. And also, I thought she's got a wonderful sort of natural style and ability. She carries herself very well. Yeah, I thought I really enjoyed that. I think she could be extraordinary. I know we thought South Malta might have a big future.

I think she could have a great future. And we're her favorite podcast as well, Roy, so, you know, What's not to like about her? Exactly. Sorry she said anyway. See you, sir. Yeah, bye. Take it.