Up First from NPR - Rahm Emanuel on 2026 Midterms and Politics in the Trump Era

Episode Date: January 22, 2026

Rahm Emanuel has held many political jobs, and he's considering a run for President. In a wide-ranging interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep, he critiques democrats and offers advice for the upcoming midterms.Want more comprehensive analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.This bonus episode of Up First was edited by Reena Advani. It was produced by Barry Gordemer and Kaity Kline. We get engineering support from Robert Rodriguez. Our Deputy Executive Producer is Kelley Dickens and our Executive Producer is Jay Shaylor.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Democrat Rom Emanuel has seen many elections and has advice for this year's. This is a referendum election. Keep it focused on the rubber stamp Republican Congress to President Trump. What does he think Democrats are doing right and wrong? It's a special edition of Up First from NPR News. Emmanuel is a Democratic Party insider with a critique of the Democratic Party. Republicans have walked away from public education, abandoned it, and Democrats have abandoned accountability and standard.

What did he learn about education from a Republican-dominated state? Also, how did Democrats lose corporate America, even though many executives worried about Trump? You're watching from the sideline, a nation being destroyed and walking away from the rule of law. Stay with us for a talk with Rahm Emanuel. Rom Emanuel has been involved at every level of government. He was a Democratic leader in Congress, President Obama's chief of staff, mayor of Chicago, and President Biden's ambassador to Japan. Now he's thinking about a run for president, which gives him a platform to promote a particular idea of the Democratic Party. We sat down to talk to him about everything.

Welcome to our studios. Thanks for coming by. Thank you. I want to begin with the Prime Minister of Canada. Good. Which is a sentence that has never been said at the beginning of an interesting podcast before. That's where the Prime Minister wants to begin. I think so. Mark Carney, just before we sat down here, gave a speech at the World Economic Forum in which he effectively said,

the U.S.-led rules-based economic order is over, that it's always been partly a lie, but that people benefited. Now it's been exposed as a total lie, and it's done. Did he use the word lie? He talked about things being false, falsehoods, yes. Yeah, well, I mean, it probably is a proper follow-up to we chased him into the arms of President Xi of China, which was totally unnecessary. Days ago, trade deal with China.

Also shows the inconsistency if you wanted to talk about President Trump's policy of having this region, be our region, you take the country with the largest, longest, border with the United States, and you were shoving them away when they wanted to actually run closer and be more aligned. So there's consequences and also an inherent contradiction to the president's own stated policy. I do think there's two things that I would say that I think are getting lost in all the news, and I'll respond to it, and the speech fits in that. Okay. America today is exporting its political dysfunction, and China under President Xi is exporting their economic dysfunction.

Let me unravel that. Sure. China has a, is now 40% of the world, or nearly 40% of the world's manufacturing, more than the United States, Europe and Japan combined. And because their economy is imbalanced, massive overhang of public debt, massive overhang of public debt, massive overhangs. massive overhang of housing, deflation. The President Xi's decided they're going to export their way out of this, and they're destroying even not just us, but other allies of theirs, not us, industrial base.

They're exporting their problems onto the world economy, which is why Europe is trying to protect itself, as an example, Chile. The only reason the EU has an anti-coercion plank in their economic toolbox, which they referred to as the bazooka. It was designed to protect Europe post-Lithuania getting attacked by China.

It's being only deployed or talked about in defense of the United States, but it was originally conceived of because of China. Oh, meaning that they were preparing for a trade war with China, instead they have one with the United States. When Lithuania did something with Taiwan and China did a three-year economic coercion,

they came up with this tool, an attack on one economically. you could use an anti-coercion tool, et cetera. Now they're talking about, and the only time they would ever think of deploying it, not the saying they're going to, was because of the United States. And mainly because of what the United States is doing, threatening tariffs on EU countries, mainly EU as a whole, because of the way we're approaching Greenland.

And I don't think Carney's take is totally wrong. I'm not sure it's totally right because of the size of the economy. But the order in which we have been a beneficiary is now fundamentally broken and cannot be repaired. So it has to be thought anew. I want to talk that through. Carney is essentially saying the U.S. set up these rules for the global economy and also for human rights and conduct among nations. It was always partly a fiction. He says, I believe he uses the word fiction, but it kind of worked.

But now he says the U.S. has stripped the fiction away. it's a naked power grab, or great powers, he says, are making a naked power grab. So it's done and smaller nations have to defend themselves. You expanded the point. I thought he said only economic. Now I'm hearing also political. I think it's all in there.

Everything is in there. Freedom of the seas, all manner of things. So let me say that the United States, well, maybe never totally lived up to its idealistic claims, it was more consistent with it, even when it did things in violation of that. I think him saying is, okay, the game is off, the mask has been ripped off. There's actually no even head faking these aspirational goals.

Yeah, you guys aren't even pretending anymore, so smaller nations have to fend for themselves. Yeah, I mean, this is, there is going to be a damage, a legacy of damage and collateral damage from the United States walking away from, not just that it constructed this. It constructed an international, economic, political, and strategic, that's what I would call NATO and other. their allies in Europe. Sure. A whole set of systems that we benefited from. Let me give one example

of having been ambassador to Japan for the United States. Yeah. When we deployed export controls against the semiconductor industry of China, we had Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Dutch,

and the European standing with us. So we didn't have to do it alone as we saw the president tried to do something against China alone and folded. Like that's where the phrase taco comes from. Yeah.

But because we had allies, who were invested with the United States, China used to say we're being isolated, and the answer was, ding, you're right. But it was isolated because allies stood shoulder to shoulder with us. So we were a direct beneficiary

when we wanted a strategic objective. We had an army that came, and it wasn't just U.S., and I mean that metaphorically, economic, etc. But that was an example of having people work with us. And Carney's not wrong.

We decided that is a burden on us, and we're going to see the price for that. And that price will be more than the American people and a host of issues, economic, political, strategic, defense-wise, that the American people aren't ready to bear alone. Here's the next question, though. You're talking about that system in the past tense, which may well be appropriate, and Carney talked about it in the past tense. Do you believe the next president, after President Trump, could put that system back again? I think the biggest damage will be the trust level, which is, we could do it with you, but what's the guarantee it will stand the test at

time. That's what's being tested in Ukraine. That's what's being tested in Greenland. That's what's being tested on the tariffs. That's what's being tested when the United States, you know, as somebody who was part of this, creating the trilateral between the United States, Japan and Korea, which was the worst nightmare for China. The Korean president and the Japanese prime minister just had a two-day state visit. Yeah. And the United States was AWOL. Wasn't even invited. That tells you the cost of going alone. And so I don't think it's thrown out, meaning it's over. I understand why the Prime Minister of Canada would feel that way, having just been in Montreal

last week. I think being forthright with our traditional allies, here's the trust we have to build. Both of us have a role to play. I think that's the most important thing you can do, how we construct NATO, how we construct our economic relationships or political coordination in the G7, et cetera, roll those out. that you can do and kind of reform them, not just hit a reset button, but reformed them to better serve the future.

Reform, meaning you would not want everything to go back to just the way it was in 2016. First of all, you can't wish these four years away no matter how much I want or maybe your audience wants. You can't.

So the question is, and the biggest damage is going to be to the trust of the American word. You have a president of the United States, and let's deal with Greenland. It's in the news. Sure. You know, why would you,

I set this the other day, Why would you pay full price for something you can get for free? Denmark and Europe are saying, we will do all of that. In terms of national security for greenland. Everything you want. Minerals and everything else. Let me say this goes back to Truman set up a defense treaty. Why would you want to pay full price for something you can get for free?

You're asking the American taxpayers to bill this. Second, is this a geostrategic or is this ego strategic? Because he says, well, I need it psychologically. Well, that may not be true for America. This is the thing the president said we should know. He said it's psychologically important to me to own it. Now, because of the way the stock market but also the bond market's reacting, American homeowners who want to get a mortgage for the first time home

are going to have to pay more on a mortgage because of the president and the way he's behaving. Pause. Is his strategic vision about Greenland correct? Not wrong. How he's going about doing it is massively dangerous. dangerous and damaging to America's short, medium and long term. And to me, so you just can't say, okay, I'm back. Let's hit reset. You're going to have to make fundamental reforms, and I would do it

together that serve us collectively. So reset, no, reform, yes. I want to move domestically. There's so much to talk about with you because you've had such a range of experiences in your life. Immigration. There's a lot of focus on Minnesota right now. And the other day on television, you said you wanted to, quote, ICE as you know it today. As we know it. As we know it today. Some people hear that and think you meant abolish ICE. Did you mean that?

No, as we know it today. Go on. That couldn't have been, I think, clear. I'm inviting you to be clear now. That will be a test. We'll see if I could pass it. Okay. No, but ICE has become a lawless mob

rather than a law enforcement agency. It serves a role, but not trying to be an occupying force in our cities. taking a U.S. citizen out of a school, grabbing people who are filing their immigration papers at the courthouse, which means they understand that the rules and this is the law, is lawless.

Wearing masks without identity, no body cams. There's a lot of reforms, and I'll tell you, not just for immigration. As a former mayor of a big city, you have a national crisis one day, a terrorist act. I've seen it both as the mayor and also as the chief of staff to a president. Yeah. The trust between a national security entity, whether it's ICE and any other entity, local law enforcement, and the public is essential to responding to a crisis.

You're destroying that trust. And so I say, and ICE as we know it, because it's not become, it's not a law enforcement entity anymore. It's become a lawless mob, and you can see the action, and the American people agree with this conclusion, what they're doing is creating lawlessness and disorder. So how it's functioning and the way it's lacking both oversight is ended as that is. Congress is going to improve the appropriation with some changes here. But another point in illustrating of this example, no police chief of any city of size would ever allow a young man who, six months ago, got 33 stitches having served, back on the street, given all the other both physical, mental,

emotional scars. You're referring to the agent who shot Renee Maclin Good. Yes. And so to me, it has lacks supervision. It lacks purpose, less focus, and it is serving for a political goal, not a law enforcement goal. Well, let's talk about... So that's what I said. Yeah. And that's what I meant by, end it, as we know it, not end it. That leads to another question. Do you think that, in your view, a more competent, better trained ICE with better guidance could accomplish the goal the president has in mind, which is deporting millions of people as quickly as possible. I don't think, well, that's, I think you're cleaning up. The president had consensus in the country and what he claimed, we were going to deport,

and is deport undocumented immigrants with criminal records. Sure, he said many things, and that was one of the things. Yeah. Well, that was primary. He said everything at once. Yes. Yeah. And it was like a salibar.

You can pick which one you want it. I think that's actually accurate, yeah. what this is morphed to is not what the American people bargain for. And you can see it. If you don't trust me, listen to Joe Rogan, referring to them as Gestapo. Okay, so this is not a political, I'm making a political, not a partisan, but a political observation. He has lost the American people. And for good reason, because he is overextended way beyond, he never had a mandate,

but way beyond what you could have said was the support of the American people. and I think it's more than just a tweak of management and reform. I don't think any city, and I'm talking about this as having lived through this in Chicago, should have the federal government come in as an occupying force. It's just wrong. That leads to another question, though. You talked about coordination. I think all of these lead to another question.

That's absolutely true. Between federal, state, and local authorities here, we're just going to continue on. It's going to be a flow of conversation, as things often are. But the next question has to do with that collaboration between federal authorities. and local authorities. In many cases, of course, as in Chicago, the governor of Illinois, Pritzker, has said, well, they're not even communicating with us.

But there's still a question, should local authorities be cooperating with the feds, even when they're committing a mission they don't like? First, you know, I believe in community policing. Okay. And community policing means, you know, the first word is community. It's working with the community.

when you have a wall of distrust that breaks down. Every police chief, every head of any law enforcement, federal, local state, we'll tell you that's a massive problem. One anecdote if I can. Sure. A mayor of Chicago,

President Obama decides we're going to have the largest NATO meeting in the history of NATO at that time in Chicago. I'm doing this by memory, so I could be off, but 63 countries come. Not only NATO, but participating countries, etc.

Sure. We're going to have clearly demonstrations. There was a, the federal government loved our OEMC, which is an emergency management department, modern technology. They take it. We coordinate with them. There's heads of state, foreign ministers, defense ministers from 60 plus countries. There are 25,000 protesters each night for four nights. Nothing bad happens, meaning from either property damage or otherwise.

That's the type of coordination you want. That's the type of trust you want. And that's the ability of this, when you have a major event, you have other types of things that are crises that happen. But here was a major international event held in what I consider the most American of American cities, city of Chicago. Sure. And the federal government, and I'm not talking about one single entity. There's national security. There's FBI.

There's Homeland Security. Have a lot of entities. Chicago Police Department, state troopers. There were protesters. exercising their First Amendment rights, all went off without a hitch. And everybody high-fived at the end because people were able to express their protests,

their First Amendment right. There was an agreement in NATO that was historic as related to Afghanistan. And you had more countries as a state and defense ministers ever in the state. So you're asking me, so I'm saying that's what you want. And when Governor Proctor says...

But let's talk about that. There's two sides to the cooperation. I mean, there's a federal government informing the locals what they're doing. But the other question is, should local governments be assisting immigration authorities in finding people who are in the country illegally?

Should they, for example, be allowing access to jails where people who may have an immigration record are also in jail on charge. If we have to go through every location, let's go through it. One, a school down the block from where Amy and I live,

there were ice agents and I'm Mark Harr waiting from parents to pick up their kids from school. No. that's a parent doing exactly what you'd want a parent to do. And that is not the crisis we're seeing of. Somebody who's doing their small business and picking up resources at Home Depot is not where you want it. Somebody filing their papers at the court following the laws we have established as a country based on the law,

following the rules for their immigration papers, is not where you want to go. Now, I don't want to go through every location, but I think you get the general gist of what I'm saying. The consensus on the country was, and Democrat, Republican, governors and elected officials at many levels, you had an undocumented immigrant with a criminal record. We don't want them in the country. That was the basis of what we have done. But there's a particular question.

Under President Obama, we deported. I'm doing this by memory. I think it was like a little. Over two million, two and a half, enough that people decided to protest his event, call him deporter in chief. Sure. But you did not have the federal government,

using tear gas. You did not have the federal government being masked security people without names, et cetera, showing up taking kids out of schools or people out of places of worship. So there's a, there is a difference here. Yeah, but there's one specific question I have here. Alejandro Mayorkas, who you know very well, who served in the Obama administration, was Secretary of Homeland Security under President Biden, has said the same thing that Tom Homan, who works for President Trump, has said, essentially, we would like to be able to go into jail. locally and bring out people who have a criminal record and also have an immigration problem, and not every city will allow that.

Should that be allowed? No, a particular thing, I would say no. It should not be allowed. Well, hold on. I think, let me draw the distinction. Prison, yes. Jail, I'm not sure what they're charged with and whether they're convicted. If they're in jail.

If they've been convicted, take it off. They're in jail, I mean, rather in prison, 100%. Yeah, they're undocumented and they're serving time because they've been found guilty. Yes. If you're in jail, we don't know whether you're guilty yet, and we don't know whether it's a misdemeanor or a felony yet. There's a lot of unanswered questions. So there's a distinction there. So I don't want, like, I don't want you to say you send end welfare.

That's not what I said. End it as we know it. I quoted you and invited you to explain. I have a feeling with NPR. I want to make sure the whole answer was there. That's good. We're going to make sure the whole answer is. there.

So prison is not jail and prison is what I said yes. Got it, got it. Prison is what you said yes. Because they're convicted. That's how this longtime Democrat views immigration right now. Rahm Emanuel is one of three prominent brothers, and in a moment we'll hear how they're experiencing this time in history. I want people to know if they don't that you are one of three very successful brothers

in wildly different fields. The other two never think that, but I'm glad you are. I never think that you're successful? Is that, or what, are they being humble about themselves? Ari Emanuel is... Humble does not fit with the manual. Ari Emanuel is an entertainment executive, which is really not a large enough phrase for everything that he does.

Zeke Emanuel is a doctor, very instrumental with Obamacare, and also as a bookout and other things. I'm just curious, being in such wildly different fields, how are the three of you experiencing this moment in history? So, So, this is not to get teary-eyed, but I will. It's allowed. So in our family room growing up,

mom and dad had my grandmother on my maternal side purse in the center of the wall. It was framed. Her purse. Above it was Grandma Sophie and gave her. and Aida's passports. That was the purse that carried their passport when they came in 1914 to America. Oh, wow.

On either side of that purse was the black and white photos of mom and dad's family that neither in the pogroms or the Holocaust made it to America or whatever. And all 28 eyeballs were on you

when you were in the family room. Grandpa Herman and Grandma Sophie, who were my mother's parents, lived with us growing up for part of our childhood. And he, grandpa, comes to America 1914 by himself, 13, 14 years old. Goes to Maxwell Street, steel worker, meat cutter, truck driver. They meet in Douglas Park and Lawndale on the west side of Chicago at a dance for Eastern European Jews. We knew growing up that America was a very special place. Those pictures were a reminder to the three Ari Zeke and I, you're not to mess this up because you got something that nobody else got.

This was a special place. And I think America's pull is a special place. There's a gravitational pull towards freedom. And America has been that place. that the and I don't mean this soapy I don't want to be because this story is told in many different languages and different cultures but the idea that my grandfather at 15 his two his three grandsons one is an oncologist has made a name for himself another in entertainment has achieved riches and capabilities unimaginable from a stettel in Moldova and that his grandson can be the both the mayor of the city he called home and the chief staff to approve president is not the Emmanuel story, it's America's story. And the idea that you have ICE agents chasing people, firing to your gas, unnamed, a president attacking people, both religion, gender, or faith. And using that is unimaginable in a country that opened its arm to him.

And so when we talk and we text him, I saw Ari this weekend, I saw Zeeq. on Thursday when he was in Chicago. We all went to see my mother. It's hard to put into words how we're living through this because this is such a violation of every value in principle from about four days old to where we are today. And I'll close on one thought. My mother is, you know, ran core in Chicago

in their late 50s early civil rights and doing open housing, open beaches, in Chicago. And her and grandpa used to fight about politics all the time. Mom was a much more progressive. Grandpa was a Franklin Roosevelt, Terry Truman, Democrat, et cetera. And so my mother said the other day,

she goes, I have to live another three years. She's 93. I have to live another three years just to make sure that that bastard's out of the office. So she has an opinion is what you're telling me. Whether you ask for it, she'll give it to you. Got it. At the same time, you're all trying to continue to succeed in this changing world, in a rapidly changing world.

Do you talk about that? Like, you know, Ari is in an entertainment world that is roiled by constant change. You're in a political world that's roiled by constant change. Yeah, but I think the change we're trying to see is just change not for ourselves, but for other people. And of course you do. I mean, that's what those eyeballs on you are about. You have something that's a gift. This is not to be careless or reckless with.

And so there's a responsibility that comes with us, and that is self-evident. And so, yes, are we continuing to kind of move forward? Yeah, because you have a responsibility. It's easy to kind of turn your back on it and be – my three kids are doing fine. Amy and I are doing great. So at one level, you could just say that. I feel guilty saying my family's well when I look at everything else going on for everybody else's family.

And that's the responsibility that comes with being here. And you're thinking about running for president. If you ran, what would your cause be? Cosby to make sure that the American dream stays alive for another generation. I think that we have broken faith with it. It's unaffordable. It's inaccessible. And that's totally unacceptable.

I'm a product of the American dream. When you said, and Steve, you said this, you know, we're going to get ahead. Who are you getting ahead with? Our parents. You can't do that today. Kids are making three times with their parents made when they got out of college, yet they're in the basement and their parents could afford a home. In the 1950s, 50% of our young adults at the age of 30 were married and owned a home.

Today is down to 14%. The first-time homebuyer is now 40. This is crushing. We have pulled up the ladder, double-locked the door. The bridge is closed, rock-solid, and a few kids are able to make it. And 97 of the other kids out of 100 can't. They can't own home. They can't afford it.

They're one sickness away from a health care. They're fighting with the insurance company to get what the doctor prescribed. Their 401K has become a backstop to their paycheck. And education has become unaffordable and force them into the basement. And to me, the cause would be restoring both the American dream. And I do think in both the accessibility and the affordability of the American dream, and it's from something if you want stability in democracy, get stability in the economy to work for people.

you used to strive to get to the American middle class dream. Today you struggle to stay in it and more likely you're falling behind on it. And so to me, that would be now I've also put at the center of that because it's what makes it accessible. You live in a period of time where you earn what you learned. As you know, because we've talked about this many times, sure. Today, 50% of our kids are not reading at grade level and doing math at grade level. It's the lowest it's been in 30 years. those kids will be fighting and playing with one hand tie behind their back.

If you can't do third grade reading, fourth grade is not easier. That's the answer to the pop quiz. It doesn't get easier. Now, I just came back from Mississippi where they have what is referred to as the Mississippi miracle, but I would refer to it as Mr. Barksdale, to me, who funded this. It's the Mississippi Marathon. I just want to underline for people, Mississippi traditionally right near the bottom in education. And in 20 years, they've gone from 49th on reading to 9th.

And it's a very conservative state. Let's note that as well. So what are they doing right? What are they doing right? But also, two points. One is every other state, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Alabama that have replicated are all seeing similar growth in their reading scores. They've returned to the fundamentals. One, back to phonics, get away from all the hooey that's taught out of Columbia that's ruined kids.

Phonics, the science are reading. Retrain the teachers around it. support the teachers with constant coaching around phonics. Give kids the additional time needed on reading. Give them the additional support if they may need a tutor and then hold them accountable. No going to fourth grade if you can't hit third grade. That is it.

It's the fundamentals. And they have succeeded and every state that is replicated has seen similar growth. They've gone from 49th to 9th. Every challenge we face can be answered by what's working. in America. Now, I happen to think on the latter years, and we'll get to this as you want, what we did in Chicago in the high school years were the kind of fundamentals, if that needs fundamental reforming, the K through 8, or what we did in Chicago, pre-K through 8, is about returning to the fundamentals, giving the time, giving the teachers to training, giving the kids

to support, and you will get gains on reading and math, which are essential for the rest of the education to work. I just want to note you're a Democrat, you went to an overwhelmingly Republican state. Not only overwhelming, I went to a county, did a town hall, a standing room only, and a county that Donald Trump won by 21%. Is there anything partisan about what you're saying? Anything at all?

No, I think actually if I had to say a, as my mother would say, a foe-y on both of you, is one. I don't know if that gets translated in the radio, but it's an old Jewish phrase. Got it. I'll ask you to spell that later. No, it's like a spit-up. doing phonics. Never mind.

All right. Republicans have walked away from public education, abandon it. You mean national Republicans, I assume, since you're praising Mississippi. But go on. And Democrats have abandoned accountability and standards. And both parties are wrong. And it is unacceptable that 50% of our kids are not reading a grade level. I grew up, and I believe in the politics were Governor Clinton, Governor Winter from Mississippi,

Governor Riley from South Carolina, Governor Hunt from North Carolina, Governor Zell Miller from Georgia, Governor Lawton Childs from Florida. They answered Mr. Bloom's A Nation at Risk Report. And they came up with major, famous report that got us on a 25-year, slow, steady progress in reading and mass scores. Some fits and starts. That's how this is. You ain't going to have a linear line. Find somewhere else if you want instant gratification. It ain't happening here. It's hard work. But we, as a country, answer. that challenge. Today, you know more about the president's position on windmills than you do about the fact that we've had a 30-year low in reading scores.

He's never commented on it. No governor of either party has called for a national emergency meeting. And this is not a pop quiz. The answer is with four states who have all adopted something totally fundamental. And they showed you not once, not twice, not three times, four times how to succeed. And to me, that is what's essential to getting this country right and getting those kids future right. And one of the things I'll say, and I'll shut up, Stephen, I know you want to get one of the 925,000 questions. I got a few more to go.

And this gets back to when you talk to me about us and my family. Our responsibility is when you walk through the door of opportunity is not to reach back, as Ms. Obama said, and grab a door handle and shut the door, but to grab a hand and pull somebody through that, you can't get from here to there. You can't believe in equity if you're complacent with 50% of the kids not reading at great level. To Rahm Emanuel, reading is far more important

than divisive social issues, which he says Democrats have focused on too much in the past. This was the subject of a much debated comment that he had when appearing on Megan Kelly's podcast last year. Can a man become a woman? Can a man become a woman? Not, no. Thank you.

No. After a break, we discussed that quote and ask Emanuel what he meant. You have argued that your party was missing its priorities on education, arguing, and I'm paraphrase here, that Democrats were spending too much time on who goes into what school bathroom

and not enough time on the kinds of issues that you have raised. Too much time on trans issues to be blunt. You a few months ago were on a Megan Kelly podcast, and she asked you a yes-no question, and as I recall, the question was, can a man become a woman? You said no, then said you were heading for the witness protection program. Yeah. I want to ask about that because with that remark, it seemed to me you were going beyond the question of trans kids where there's all kinds of debate, or trans kids in sport where there's a very nuanced debate. And you're saying,

there aren't trans people. Is that what you meant? No, first of all, it's not what I said, Steve. Okay. So what I said, so let's dial up since what you said. Okay. What I believe, way too much time on bathroom access and not enough time on classroom excellence. And you could see it in a whole debate. As a former ambassador of Japan, 8,000 miles away, I was watching this country,

and you got 50% of your kids can't read at grade level. You tell me the amount of coverage of that versus the amount of coverage on a bathroom, a locker room, or a sport, as your question indicated. Got it. also say number two to you. I've been in Iowa at a front yard, 400 people. Two hours of questions. I was in Waterbury, Mississippi, standing room only, about an hour and a half. So I've taken about 40 questions. Nobody has ever asked me a single question about bathroom, locker room, or sports. Every time I get within 202 area code, it's the second or third question. So that's number one.

Okay. It's not a priority. And American people actually feel in their bones. What's a in education. Now, I'm a mayor in 2016, a full decade ago, I passed an ordinance on bathroom access, but I never allowed it to distract me from high school graduation rates, reading scores, and math scores. I was the ambassador, led one of the largest embassies in the United States across the world. We were a very welcoming community, inclusive, but I never allowed it to be a digression from our mission of serving the U.S. Japan Alliance and building it stronger

and better for the 21st century. Never. Now, did I go from acceptance to advocacy? No. That wasn't the job. That wasn't the mission. You accept.

I created accepting culture, but I said, here's who we're serving, the United States of America. So, to me, that's what I think is a focus. I never took my eye off a ball. We had eight years of graduation growth.

did in 2016 mid-cycle in my eight years as mayor, we changed laws and the ordinance and passed one on bathroom access? Yeah, but I never took the eye off the ball. And unlike what has happened in the debate here. And I just say this because you can see the amount of energy and oxygen on a set of issues. We should be frank, Republicans are going to raise it if you don't. They just did in the campaign and walking around in the campaign and saying, I said that in 2020.

Well, campaigns are not about what you said yesterday. They're about what you said in your career. Okay, so that said, you've got to deal with that. And I believe the American people are an culture of acceptance, but not one that becomes advocacy. And that's what across the line. Now, I've made my position clear. It's not the biggest issue. And I think when you have, and I've said this in tongue-in-cheek, but I mean this,

one child is discussing their pronoun. and the rest of the class doesn't know what a pronoun is. If I want to be frank, I don't know if I'll run, but if I run and the issues on trans are the most important, I'm not your guy. And I'm okay with that. If getting us off of a 30-year low on reading or math scores and somebody that's willing to make that core

to what we have to do as a country, then you may think my answers are right, and you may think my answers are wrong, and I'm okay with that. But I'll tell you one thing I know from history end of World War, a civil war, turn of the century,

end of the GI, and hit meeting the Sputnik challenge, the four greatest periods of economic growth and prosperity in American history are underpinned by one constant. Land-grant colleges under the Civil War,

universal high school education, the GI Bill, and the science and technology challenges of the Sputnik challenge. We are fighting, and we're letting people in America fight with one hand tied behind their back. And so to me, that is what I said I would do.

Now, I again, believe in a culture of acceptance. I have no problem with that. But he will not distract or digress from raising graduation rates, post-high school education, and reading a math course. It's something that should be done, but it's not the thing we send kids to school with. And I also think arguing about the name of a school after Abraham Lincoln and not worrying about the fact that the kids don't know why Abraham Lincoln is an icon, is also messed up. This was a debate in California over a school called the Lincoln School. And I think we engaged, and I say we meaning Democrats,

engaged in bringing cultural wars to schools, and then found out we were on the losing side of those cultural debates. Not exactly, and politics is about picking where you want to have a battle. And I think we made a big strategic mistake. We took our eye off of educational excellence, went into a cultural landscape, and found out we didn't have the public with us. I want to find out if you think there was another strategic mistake.

I'm thinking about... Yes. The answer is yes. Many strategic mistakes. Now you figure out the question that works with that. Let's be a little more specific. I'm thinking about corporate America, which is thought of as a traditional Republican constituency. But I think that during the Obama administration,

you believed that you had some support in corporate America. There were prominent executives like the head of General Electric who were more or less with you. And I think a lot of corporate America was on board with a lot of the democratic agenda. It seems clear that in 2024, corporate America made their peace with whatever qualms they had with President Trump and got on board with President Trump. Why do you think Democrats lost corporate America? We're going to have to come back for a whole other hour.

I'm here for you. Is that H-E-R-E-A-R? Either one. Either one. So, you know, one thing is that when I said yes before the question, you know, Henry Kirst. has a great quote. Does anybody have questions for my answers? We just describes it a manual perfectly. Okay. So here's what I, one is, this is of infamous March 2009, or spring 2009, I shouldn't say

March. We passed the president's recovery at the extension of health care for children of working parents without health care. Lily Ledbetter, pay equity, series of other things about teen and tobacco national service. We have this big Saturday media. of the president's three children, as he called it, health care reform, financial banking reform, and cap and trade. And we have this big debate. Now, I would, you know, and I point at the other end of the Roosevelt table is domestic policy, every day that you're not doing health care as a day,

you're not going to get it done. And if you look at the history of health care, going all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt, pretty good analysis, especially with Hillary Care being kind of front and center. In the 90s, yeah. The economic team did not, uh, want to do anything, but they also thought specifically financial reform would prevent banks from lending that was important for getting the economy moving again.

Representing the political group around the table, myself and David Axelor, as a vocal, I was for doing first financial and banking reform. One is, if the history, as I told the president, if you want to pass health care reform, the industry, insurance, pharmacists have to be on your side of the table. That's a lesson from Hillary's fail. In financial reform, the banks and the insurance executives

are going to be on the other side. In America, after the Recovery Act, after the TARP, need to see you fighting for them against the people that they think have wreaked havoc on their lives, making them lose homes. Obviously, you know, history. His first child, he said,

was health care reform. You went for that, didn't do financial... That's why you get, no, and that's, you know, look, I kind of argue you got universal health care reform, but you also got the Tea Party. Not everything's 100%. That's life. But that's why he gets paid the big bucks, and you have to have judgment in the Oval Office, which is something that's thoroughly lacking right now.

So to me, that's kind of the choices. Now, why corporate America goes from kind of okay with President Obama's policy, and I think this is a little shortchanged. Not all of corporate America was there. Understood. Yeah. That's kind of a. But you had some.

in this traditionally Republican area. Yeah, I wouldn't say you did. I mean, I could give you, Steve Schwartzman yelled at the president for, called him, you know, I think his policies. I mean, I don't want to get into language about Nazis and stuff like that. And they had images of, you know, I mean, things that were said about the president out from voices in corporate America. They were also violently against him doing health care.

And they said, just talk about the economy and et cetera. So it was not like they were always applauding. So, unless my memory is slightly different than your memory. No, I understand. I understand. But there was a consensus around when we were first coming up with the Recovery Act. I mean, Jamie Diamond says in the East Wing in a big meeting with financial and business leaders, and this is when you're facing close to a small D depression.

Whatever it is, it's got to be big, it's got to be bold, and it's got to be harsh, and just get the thing moving and do it at all across the whole waterfront. That became pretty much what we did. from the Recovery Act, etc. So there was some consensus there. I think corporate America here, just I'll say it here is, I think they've sold out America

and America is loyal to them. And what I mean by that is you benefit from a nation built on laws and you're watching from the sideline a nation being destroyed and walking away from the rule of law. Everything you have is built on the premise of the rule of law.

Number two, The president's declared war on the greatest research system in the world it's ever seen. And your company is a direct beneficiary of that. And you're like the three monkeys. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. You are timid souls. And if you don't want to speak of individually, what is these business groups for but collective voice with a singular message?

The core crux of the world economy and the U.S. great economy. economy is built on the rule of law, great education, great research at our great universities, and the capacity to both find the talent, the kind of level playing field that the rule law gives, and the certainty it gives, and also the ideas that are coming out of the golden goose called our university system. And every one of you, but one or two, to the person, have been incredibly timid souls, to quote Teddy Roosevelt. I have lost, and I know that this in respect. So they've decided for their short-term stock,

I suppose, and I don't want to say all corporate America, but for a whole host of reasons, and I've heard them say things in private to me, but for a whole host of reasons, they've decided to bite their tongue, and I will tell you this will come home to roost. Did Democrats also do something, as on other issues,

to drive people away that might have been... People or corporate America? Corporate America. You said people there, and I wasn't sure what you were saying. Thank you for... No, no, I don't mean that. I'm serious. I wasn't sure what you were talking about because that's a different... You've said that Democrats were driving people away with the wrong focus on education. Is there something having to do with corporate America where Democrats, something about your approach to social issues or taxes or business or regulation, drove corporate America away?

I think one of the things is my analysis is both parties got around. I kind of... I'm saying this shorthand. But the Republican parties are dominated by a monopolist mindset, and our party started to get dominated by a bunch of Marxist. and both Marxism and monopolists don't serve the economy well. I think generically, this is generic at 10,000 feet without a name to it, Democrats don't talk about growth and should be the party that talks and actually executes growth versus redistribution. I happen to think education is core to growth. Investing in our energy capacity is core to our growth as is modernizing our infrastructure.

is core to our growth. Our university systems and college systems and higher and community college systems are essential for our growth. A country based not only the rural law is also essential for our growth. And I think making sure that more people, not only there's growth, but more people are participating in beneficiary, to me, I take this whole issue of affordability. People are talking about housing, they're talking about groceries, are talking about gas. I want to talk about incomes. You have a situation where incomes, you have one man getting a trillion dollar income from a company, and other people haven't seen the minimum wage or their incomes grow.

And this is insane to me. So if you want to deal with affordability, maybe you can drive grocery prices down. I think it's better you have chart to grow people's incomes up. I want to ask separately about a real- In corporate America to get to this point. Their profits have never been better. Their stock has never been higher until today when the president decided to have war on green. and they have done nothing to share that income growth and the growth of the company with all their workers.

Final question. Yes, Steve. What's one piece of advice you would give to Democrats running in this year's election? My advice is that this is a referendum election. Keep it focused on the rubber stamp Republican Congress to President Trump. He's unpopular. Midterms that have one party in power have the law of physics, massive energy by party out of power.

We're seeing that in every special anywhere in the country for the last year. Massive downturned by the party out of power. You're seeing that with Republican votes all over the place. You have to win independence,

two to one, to win the House. They are uncomfortable with Donald Trump. And they're uncomfortable that nobody's, from the Roberts court to the press and media to the Republicans in Congress

are putting a checkmate on him. What do you have to do with the Senate where you, You will have to win rural states, Republican states. This is my, look, the fit, nearly 50% of the electorate identifies as independent. In every house, every U.S. Senate, where you have a chance of building a majority and also, which is lost, if I may say this, Steve, what's also happening in the state races. School, this election, there shouldn't be a school board seat all the way up to the governor in the seven most important.

important swing states empty. It should always have a D next to it. But make this a referendum on what the Republicans have been enabling Donald Trump to do because he is going to drive this election. He's driving down turnout among Republicans and driving turnout among Republicans win the hearts and minds of the unaffiliated and you got yourself a majority. You think that you could even win in Iowa where Democrats haven't won for years with that formula. Yeah, you have a so let's go over with the real estate. Not everybody's a weirdo like me. You have a governor's race, a Senate race, four congressional races, not counting also the capital. You won five months ago in an area of Donald Trump won a state Senate seat that he won by 22 percent. It flipped to the Democrats. It was the

canary in the coal line. This thing is coming. And there is a potential for a wave. But to win in Iowa, yet you are going to have Democratic turnout. Here's how I look at the electorate. Democrats are mad at what Donald Trump's doing and mad that he's getting away with it. Independent voters are uncomfortable. They made a Faustian bargain. They didn't like Donald Trump personally. They were uncomfortable with them, but they thought they were going to get economics out of it.

They've gotten neither the economics, and they've gotten all the personality. And so they're furious. They're uncomfortable with a rubber stamp Republican Congress. I happen to think Republican MAGA voters, as seen by Marjorie Taylor Green, seen by Joan Rogan, feel betrayed, a different emotion. There are three distinct emotions in the electorate. Anger, among Democrats, uncomfortable and disquieted and discomforted among independents, betrayal among MAGA voters.

And Democrats' focus is on their base, which will turn out because they want to send a message, win the hearts and minds of the unaffiliated voters, and that's your ticket to a majority. You said also you don't even want a school board seat to be empty. You want Democrats running for every office. Why does that matter in swing states? Just explain it for me. Well, one, the closer you get to where people live or lives, the more energized they are. Nothing's more energizing school boards.

Number two, not just school boards, but I'm saying anything that gets close to the, I used to have a rule when I was mayor, you better be very smart and strategic about it. It gets to the front door or the back door of the house. So my thing is, I happen to think, like 1994, like 2006, like 2010, and like 2018, this is going to be a wave election. If you want to set up 2028, make sure in Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, that you have every office from top to bottom, have a person registered as a Democrat or an Indist. running under the Democratic. Even if they got no chance to win, they need to be running, you say.

When you have a wave election, the rule I've always had in politics. Oh, in a way, maybe they do. Okay. The rule I've had in politics, when you think it's bad, it's worse. When you think it's good, it's better. Where I'm sitting today, good is going to look like better. Could change, 10 months to go. But let's just take the news today.

Here's how I would see this. He's all focused on Greenland. I want to focus on groceries. You want to focus on Venezuela? I want to focus on Virginia. Number two, there's a consequence him focused not on groceries and him focused on Greenland.

And drive that home. He's not looking at your paycheck. He's looking at his checkbook every time. Take a look at what he is doing and may entie the fact that the Republicans are not constraining him, not refocusing him, But it's going to come to you in an electric bill.

It's going to come to you in a health care bill. It's going to come to the fact that your child who did everything right is now living in the basement and can't find a job. Rahm Emanuel, thanks so much. Yeah. Enjoyed the conversation. Yeah. We got a thousand more questions to go. We do.

We do those afterward. Or the next time you come by. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. This has been a special edition of Up First from NPR News. It's one of our all-platform interviews. It's a podcast. It's video and it's on the radio.

at NPR's Morning Edition. This episode was edited by Rina Advani. It was produced by Barry Gordimer and Katie Klein. We get engineering support from Robert Rodriguez, and our deputy executive producer is Kelly Dickens. Our executive producer is Jay Shaler. I'm Steve Inskeep. Join us again.