Senator Hawley’s Interview at Semafor Architects of the New Economy | 12.10.25

[00:00:00] I'm Burgess Everett. I'm a congressional [00:00:02] bureau chief at Semaphore. I've been [00:00:04] covering Senator Holly since he was a [00:00:06] candidate back in Missouri. So, we've [00:00:08] known each other a long time. Thanks so [00:00:09] much for coming here. We appreciate [00:00:10] >> you for having me. [00:00:11] >> Um, kind of what we're trying to figure [00:00:13] out here is [00:00:14] >> how has the realignment of your party, [00:00:17] which we've talked about a bunch, how is [00:00:18] that playing out now that Trump is [00:00:21] president again? You've seen in Trump [00:00:23] 1.0, then you saw Biden, now it's Trump [00:00:25] 2.0. What how do you feel like the [00:00:28] economy is working under President Trump [00:00:29] and what defines his economic policies? [00:00:33] >> Well, I mean I think what what defines [00:00:34] his economic policies is what he ran on [00:00:36] successfully both in 2016 and again in [00:00:39] 2024. I mean he talked I think what made [00:00:41] him an attractive candidate both of [00:00:42] those times is he talked about departing [00:00:45] from the usual leftright axis and being [00:00:48] a proworker candidate transforming the [00:00:50] Republican party into what I would call [00:00:52] a proworker party. uh his tariff policy [00:00:55] which is really a re-industrialization [00:00:57] policy I think is part of that. His [00:00:58] effort to get up blue collar wages is [00:01:00] part of that. Uh you know this is a guy [00:01:02] who proposed in his first term and then [00:01:05] did it again now this last year proposed [00:01:07] a a cap on prescription drug prices [00:01:10] nationwide which I support but you know [00:01:12] I mean the idea that a Republican [00:01:14] president would be proposing a uh a [00:01:17] global index for prescription drug [00:01:18] prices in America and I think I I don't [00:01:21] think before Donald Trump that would [00:01:22] have been even thinkable. So I think [00:01:24] that that's the the overall vision and [00:01:26] getting Congress to go along with that I [00:01:29] think is different story. [00:01:30] >> Well, why hasn't Congress gone along [00:01:32] with something like that? [00:01:33] >> Well, on that in particular, because I [00:01:36] think you've got a lot of folks, most of [00:01:38] the I think it's I wouldn't offend any [00:01:40] of my colleagues in saying it's just the [00:01:41] truth. Most of the elected party in [00:01:43] Congress don't share the president's [00:01:46] populist sort of blue collar focus. That [00:01:47] that's not their overall ideology. still [00:01:50] even seven years later after. [00:01:52] >> Yeah, I think so. I mean, just I mean, [00:01:53] you cover these folks. I mean, I think [00:01:55] that uh they don't like the tariffs. Um [00:01:58] they don't like uh the drug pricing [00:01:59] plan. Um they don't like uh the antirust [00:02:02] agenda. Um it, you know, Congress is [00:02:05] still full of uh very traditional [00:02:06] Republicans and some of those issues are [00:02:07] great, but uh I think by and large it's [00:02:10] not what the president ran on. And I [00:02:12] would just say if we're going to be a [00:02:13] true majority party, we've got to get to [00:02:15] a place where we are truly a bluecollar [00:02:17] proworker party. put you on the spot for [00:02:20] a second. If you could give a grade to [00:02:22] the Republican Congress as a partner to [00:02:24] President Trump right now, what would [00:02:25] you give it? [00:02:26] >> Well, you know, the incompletes. [00:02:29] >> Okay. [00:02:29] >> The uh the cop out. Yeah. Right. [00:02:31] Exactly. Um I would say at at this [00:02:34] point, um we'd be not not very strong [00:02:37] grade at this point. I mean, I think [00:02:39] listen, I've been saying all week long [00:02:40] if I were President Trump, what I would [00:02:42] want for Christmas is a Congress that [00:02:44] would actually implement my agenda. You [00:02:45] know, I mean, you look at you talk about [00:02:47] affordability, cost of living issues. I [00:02:49] think the president has has done all he [00:02:51] can with an executive order. I mean, he [00:02:53] has used that ability to the best of his [00:02:55] ability. But listen, at the end of the [00:02:57] day, only Congress can write law. And [00:02:59] we're seeing on issue after issue, [00:03:00] whether it's healthcare prices, whether [00:03:02] it's prescription drug prices, um [00:03:04] whether it's wages, Congress really has [00:03:06] to act. I mean, if you're going to get [00:03:08] real results, Congress has to act. And I [00:03:09] think you've seen a Congress that has [00:03:11] not been enthusiastic about his agenda [00:03:14] as I would like. [00:03:15] >> You came in kind of with a head of steam [00:03:17] on Monday. You you were saying our [00:03:19] leadership needs to have a plan for [00:03:20] these healthcare subsidies. [00:03:22] >> Uh yesterday they decided they're going [00:03:24] to put up this crapo cassidy plan which [00:03:26] creates health savings accounts to kind [00:03:28] of replace the subsidies. [00:03:30] Is that a good enough result? I mean [00:03:33] this bill is going to fail tomorrow. [00:03:34] What do you think about that? [00:03:36] >> Well, I mean I I think it's progress. I [00:03:37] mean, here's where I'm on this purchase. [00:03:39] I I am for trying everything that will [00:03:42] get the cost of healthcare down across [00:03:43] the board. So, I would love to cap the [00:03:46] cost of prescription drugs. We should do [00:03:47] that. I think that we should say no [00:03:49] taxes on healthcare. I think we ought to [00:03:50] exempt all healthcare spending by [00:03:52] consumers from taxes just like we did [00:03:53] with no taxes on tips, no taxes on [00:03:55] overtime. We ought to do no taxes on [00:03:57] healthcare. First dollar that you spend [00:03:59] ought to be taxfree, including premiums, [00:04:00] deductibles, out of pocket, everything. [00:04:03] But I am willing to consider and vote [00:04:04] for just about anything that will bring [00:04:06] down prices. So I think that uh Senator [00:04:09] Cassy's plan, Senator Crapo's plan, [00:04:10] that'll be a big help with deductibles. [00:04:12] >> Yeah. [00:04:13] >> Um it will help with other out-ofpocket [00:04:15] costs and that's good. Uh it does not do [00:04:18] much for premiums, but listen, I I think [00:04:20] at this point rather than sitting back [00:04:21] and fly specking saying, "Well, I don't [00:04:23] really like that and I don't really like [00:04:24] that, so therefore I just can't support [00:04:26] it." I think we're at the point where [00:04:27] the American people need all the help we [00:04:28] can give them. So I'm an all of the [00:04:30] above. So, could you vote for both of [00:04:32] these proposals tomorrow? [00:04:33] >> Well, you know, I think we need to do so [00:04:34] >> because there's a just for everybody in [00:04:36] the audience, there's a three-year [00:04:37] Democratic proposal to extend the [00:04:40] enhanced premium subsidy tax credits [00:04:43] tomorrow, [00:04:43] >> right? [00:04:44] >> And could you support that? [00:04:45] >> You know, I think we do need to do [00:04:46] something on the cost of premiums. I've [00:04:48] been saying I am not in the do nothing [00:04:50] camp. Several of my colleagues have [00:04:51] proposed plans that will do something on [00:04:54] premiums. Uh Senator Sullivan, Senator [00:04:56] Marshall, Senator Husted. So, let's see [00:04:59] where they get to. understand we may [00:05:00] have the opportunity to do something on [00:05:02] some of those plans. I do think we need [00:05:03] to I think we need to do something on [00:05:05] premium cost and premium cost is just [00:05:06] out of control. It's one component of [00:05:09] healthcare cost, but it's a big one. And [00:05:10] in my state, I was just looking at the [00:05:12] numbers on the way over here this [00:05:14] afternoon. You know, for a family of [00:05:16] four in my state who buys their [00:05:18] insurance on our state exchange, if [00:05:20] these premiums are allowed to expire [00:05:22] cold turkey, we're looking at increases [00:05:25] of between 200 and 300%. Um, for some [00:05:28] families it'll be 400%. I mean these are [00:05:30] right. I mean these are just that is not [00:05:33] sustainable. The premiums are too high [00:05:34] now. I mean what people tell me when I [00:05:36] go home now is I cannot afford my [00:05:39] premium. Wait till it goes up by 300%. I [00:05:42] mean we we have to do something. [00:05:43] >> So I think you said today you were [00:05:44] deliberately leaving the door open on [00:05:47] the Democratic plan. Is that is that [00:05:49] right? Voting for it potentially. [00:05:50] >> Yeah. Well I mean here's the deal. Like [00:05:51] I said, I'm I'm in the all of the above [00:05:53] camp and I want to see what the options [00:05:55] are going to be for bringing down [00:05:56] premiums. I've said to my leadership, [00:05:58] I've said it publicly many times, we [00:06:00] need to do something on premiums. I [00:06:01] think that that Senator Crapo, Senator [00:06:03] Cassid's plan is a great step forward on [00:06:05] deductibles. Um I I think that's [00:06:07] tremendous. You know, the president said [00:06:09] he would rather see premium support come [00:06:11] in the form of direct payment to [00:06:12] taxpayers rather than insurance [00:06:14] companies. That's great by me. I don't [00:06:15] really care what the vehicle is. [00:06:16] >> Yeah. [00:06:17] >> But Burgess, I just am in the I'm in the [00:06:19] all of the above. consider all of it, [00:06:21] but I'm not willing to sit back and do [00:06:22] nothing. So, I think we've just we've [00:06:24] got to keep taking the shots here that [00:06:26] we can and get the American people all [00:06:28] the help we can give them. [00:06:29] >> I mean, you're somebody who has kind of [00:06:31] defined themselves as being willing to [00:06:32] take out positions in your party and [00:06:35] take the heat on that. Why not get in [00:06:37] there and negotiate a deal with Bernie [00:06:39] Sanders or something like that? Like, [00:06:40] can why why not do that? Well, I mean, I [00:06:42] hope there will be an opportunity to try [00:06:44] to reach some consensus and believe me, [00:06:45] I've been trying um over the last not [00:06:47] just the last few days, but over the [00:06:48] last few months on this issue and uh you [00:06:52] know, I mean, this has been an issue [00:06:53] that's been um very fraught for a number [00:06:55] of reasons. I mean, our leadership has [00:06:57] not been interested in negotiating with [00:06:58] Democrats on this. I think it's no uh [00:07:00] >> I mean, they say they say publicly there [00:07:02] could be an opportunity. Senator Thunel [00:07:04] says, "Yeah, we could negotiate." [00:07:06] >> That's great. I hope there will be and I [00:07:07] hope I hope that [00:07:08] >> you seem skeptical that they wouldn't do [00:07:10] anything to prop up Obamacare. the best [00:07:12] uh the best predictor of future [00:07:13] performance is past performance. And [00:07:15] what I've noticed in the last few months [00:07:16] is that at the leadership level, there [00:07:18] has been zero appetite [00:07:20] >> to reach any kind of compromise, [00:07:22] particularly on these premiums. And [00:07:23] listen, I understand that people, you [00:07:25] just use the word Obamacare. For a lot [00:07:26] of people, you know, that that word is [00:07:28] is, you know, that word is a is a [00:07:30] talisman. I mean, it has huge [00:07:32] significance. And there are so many [00:07:34] people who have been here a lot longer [00:07:35] than me and they say, "Well, 15 years [00:07:37] ago, I voted for this or I didn't vote [00:07:39] for that. I will never vote for [00:07:40] whatever. I just have to say as somebody [00:07:42] who hasn't been here that long, I I just [00:07:44] those fights all predate me and I guess [00:07:46] my sights are a little bit more [00:07:48] practical and that I just want to I want [00:07:49] to do something that will help people [00:07:51] now get their healthare cost. [00:07:52] >> You're kind of saying put that past [00:07:55] partisan [00:07:57] that's for me that's what I have to do [00:07:58] is I'm like I wasn't here for that. I [00:08:00] get it. Listen, as attorney general of [00:08:01] the state of Missouri, I filed a lawsuit [00:08:03] against Obamacare. You know, if you told [00:08:05] me Josh, you get to take an up or down [00:08:06] vote on Obamacare, I'd vote no. I I [00:08:08] think it's pretty clear the ACA [00:08:09] exchanges are not working well for [00:08:11] anybody. But that's really not the [00:08:12] question in front of us right now. The [00:08:13] question in front of us now is [00:08:15] >> what do you do about this immediate [00:08:16] cliff and you're saying do something [00:08:18] >> do something do something that helps [00:08:20] people and then you know then let's take [00:08:21] the next step. What are we going to do [00:08:22] after that [00:08:23] >> to help get healthcare costs down [00:08:25] whether it's prescription drugs, [00:08:26] deductibles, premiums, you know, we just [00:08:28] we've got to keep I think working at [00:08:31] this and we can't let the perfect be the [00:08:33] enemy of the good. you know, I mean, the [00:08:35] the comprehensive healthcare plan I said [00:08:36] to somebody the other day that the [00:08:38] comprehensive healthcare solution, it's [00:08:40] kind of like the the white stag, you [00:08:42] know, that is rumored to be out there, [00:08:43] but no one's actually ever seen, you [00:08:44] know, so let's let's make sure that we [00:08:47] actually get something that is real and [00:08:49] even if it's not perfect, let's take [00:08:51] some steps forward. [00:08:52] >> What you talked to the president [00:08:53] probably as much as any individual [00:08:55] senator, maybe other than Senator Thun, [00:08:58] what is your impression on what he wants [00:09:00] on this issue? Well, listen, I don't I I [00:09:02] will never never speak for the [00:09:04] president. Um, so and I certainly don't [00:09:06] want to do that on this issue. I mean, I [00:09:07] think what he has said on this is that [00:09:09] he wants costs to come down. I mean, he [00:09:10] said that uh let's, you know, think [00:09:12] about what he said that he wants cost to [00:09:14] come down. He wants to cap the cost of [00:09:15] prescription drugs. He would prefer that [00:09:17] relief go directly to individuals rather [00:09:19] rather than insurance companies. So, he [00:09:21] wants to change the delivery vehicle. [00:09:23] That all sounds fine to me. In fact, [00:09:24] that sounds great. The prescription drug [00:09:26] piece, I think, is wonderful. I mean, [00:09:28] imagine if Congress adopted Trump's [00:09:31] policy and codified it. And I have a [00:09:32] bill with Senator Welch that would do [00:09:34] essentially just this and put a price [00:09:37] cap on all prescription drugs in this [00:09:39] country index to the price that they are [00:09:41] in Europe and Canada. I mean, that would [00:09:44] change the game for every single [00:09:46] American. [00:09:46] >> And you saw how hard it was just for [00:09:48] Democrats on their own to to do that. [00:09:50] They ended up with a pretty limited [00:09:52] solution to that problem. So, would you [00:09:54] would need to go the bipartisan route, [00:09:56] do you think, to do that? I think that [00:09:57] on issue after issue, just to be honest [00:09:59] with you, I think that there is a [00:10:00] bipartisan majority to be had on so many [00:10:02] of these issues. The minimum wage, I [00:10:04] think we ought to raise the minimum [00:10:05] wage. I think we could do that with [00:10:06] Democrat support and some Republican [00:10:08] support. I think we ought to cap [00:10:09] prescription drugs, uh, their prices. We [00:10:12] could do that with Democrat support and [00:10:14] Republican support. I think we ought to [00:10:15] pass new labor legislation. We could do [00:10:17] that with Democrat support and [00:10:18] Republican support. I think there's a [00:10:19] wide open lane right down the middle [00:10:21] there. And I don't mean so much the [00:10:23] middle ideologically as the middle of [00:10:25] the country where the country is in [00:10:28] terms of wanting results that will work [00:10:30] for working families. I think that there [00:10:32] is there are deals to be had and boy, [00:10:34] I'd love to see us get into that. [00:10:36] >> You're saying like get rid of this [00:10:38] partisan paradigm on these issues. I [00:10:40] think we'll blow it up. [00:10:41] >> Is that just you saying that or do you [00:10:43] think there are others in your party and [00:10:44] the Democrats who would be willing to do [00:10:45] that? Cuz I think the Democrats probably [00:10:47] think, hey, they got their [00:10:48] reconciliation bill. we're gonna sit [00:10:51] back and maybe watch them struggle with [00:10:53] this premium issue, for example, which [00:10:55] is right front and center, but maybe [00:10:57] other issues as well. I mean, are are [00:10:58] you concerned right now about Democrats [00:11:00] thinking they have an advantage and and [00:11:01] you all are kind of plotting towards [00:11:03] losing control of Congress? [00:11:06] >> I I am. I I think that it's if you're [00:11:07] the Dems, I think it's very tempting to [00:11:09] to think, you know, well, the [00:11:10] Republicans have gotten themselves [00:11:12] wrapped around the axle, the [00:11:14] congressional Republicans at least, and [00:11:15] so, you know, whether it's healthcare, [00:11:17] whether it's wages, let's just sit back [00:11:18] and see what happens. But I think there [00:11:21] are I just think there's so many of my [00:11:22] colleagues on the Democrat side of the [00:11:23] aisle who want to get things done um who [00:11:26] are problem solvers and who are really [00:11:28] committed to helping people. And I think [00:11:30] if you said to those folks, "We got a [00:11:31] chance to pass something that the [00:11:32] president would sign." [00:11:33] >> Yeah. [00:11:34] >> A minimum wage increase, prescription [00:11:36] drugs, I think they'd take it. I think [00:11:38] they would take it. They'd say, [00:11:39] "Absolutely. You give me a chance to do [00:11:41] something like that, I will absolutely [00:11:43] do it." So, [00:11:43] >> I'm not hearing you say we should as [00:11:46] Republicans should do another [00:11:47] reconciliation. [00:11:49] >> I'm I'm all for that. I think that's [00:11:50] fine. I think that's great. Um I just [00:11:52] think when it comes to some of these [00:11:53] issues you and I have been talking about [00:11:55] just now, particularly healthcare, you [00:11:57] know, we tried certain healthcare [00:11:58] reforms. We tried to tee those up in the [00:12:00] first package and a lot of those frankly [00:12:02] just can't survive the bird bath, you [00:12:04] know, which is so technical. Listen, I [00:12:06] learned a lot about bird this last go [00:12:07] around, more than I ever wanted to know. [00:12:09] I mean, it's really technical. What I [00:12:10] learned is that even the so-called [00:12:12] experts on bird don't understand bird [00:12:13] >> and there's like three of them. [00:12:15] >> Correct. Exactly. And and uh there's [00:12:17] three experts in like the world and and [00:12:19] even they don't agree among themselves. [00:12:21] Their views change. So all that to say [00:12:22] that I just think on some of some of [00:12:24] these things that are so fundamental [00:12:25] like healthcare reform, we're going to [00:12:27] have to do that at 60 in the Senate. [00:12:29] >> Yeah. [00:12:29] >> And to do that, we're going to have to [00:12:31] find something that uh we can get buy in [00:12:33] on buy in on from the other side. [00:12:35] >> So this idea that big beautiful bill is [00:12:38] going to kick in next year. people are [00:12:39] going to start noticing it. Um, we [00:12:42] should just talk about that as a [00:12:43] Republican party. That doesn't sound [00:12:45] like it would sit. [00:12:45] >> Well, that's not what that's not what [00:12:47] the president has said. I mean, you [00:12:48] know, what did the president say to [00:12:49] Republican senators the other day? It [00:12:51] was during the shutdown when he had us [00:12:52] over for breakfast. I think the cameras [00:12:53] were still on when he said this. He [00:12:55] said, "If you if you guys," and believe [00:12:56] the words were, "If you guys don't start [00:12:58] doing something, you know, we're going [00:12:59] to get killed in the midterms." I I [00:13:01] think he's sending the message that [00:13:02] listen, it's the the big beautiful bill, [00:13:05] you know, the no taxes on tips, no taxes [00:13:07] on overtime, no taxes on social [00:13:08] security, the child tax credit, that [00:13:10] stuff is great. People will will feel [00:13:12] that, but we need to do more. I mean, I [00:13:15] I would be very hesitant to sit back and [00:13:17] say, "Yeah, this is great. We passed one [00:13:19] big piece of legislation. Let's just [00:13:21] coast to the midterms." I mean, A, I [00:13:24] don't think that's what we were sent [00:13:24] here to do. [00:13:26] >> B, just politically, I think that's I [00:13:28] think that's awfully perilous. Well, [00:13:30] also with the prospect of potentially [00:13:31] losing the majority, time is of the [00:13:34] essence. [00:13:34] >> I mean, you can look at the Senate [00:13:36] calendar next year. There's a bunch of [00:13:37] recesses that weren't there this year. [00:13:39] >> Floor time is going to be at a premium [00:13:41] if it's not already, is it not? [00:13:42] >> Yes, it is. It is going to be at a [00:13:44] premium. But I just say this, Burgess, I [00:13:45] mean, even setting aside the politics [00:13:47] was hard to do in this town. You just [00:13:49] think about what the right thing to do [00:13:50] is and and I just think that when you [00:13:52] when you have the opportunity to [00:13:53] accomplish things that can matter for [00:13:55] the American people, you should do it. [00:13:57] And I think we have a real window here. [00:13:59] here. I mean, I think that's part of [00:14:00] what President Trump, what this moment [00:14:02] really is for the country is that, you [00:14:04] know, what was so attractive about [00:14:05] Donald Trump in in 16 and 24, the [00:14:07] American people vote for him. It's that [00:14:10] he is not a traditional orthodox [00:14:12] Republican. And even more than that, [00:14:14] he's the guy who can shake up the [00:14:17] traditional left-right spectrum. And I [00:14:18] think the American people have been [00:14:20] trying to send a message really for a [00:14:21] long time now because Bernie in many [00:14:23] ways was a similar outsider candidate [00:14:26] who didn't quite really fit on that [00:14:27] spectrum. Right. [00:14:28] >> I think people are trying to say we're [00:14:30] tired of the leftright divide as we've [00:14:33] known it for 30, 40 years. We're not [00:14:35] interested in that. We the American [00:14:37] people, we want results. We want [00:14:39] somebody who's going to focus on working [00:14:40] people. Uh we want bluecollar families [00:14:42] to to get the lion share of attention. [00:14:44] That's that's what we want and I think [00:14:46] it's time to deliver on that. [00:14:47] >> And you mentioned Bernie Sanders and I [00:14:49] asked you about him before cuz you guys [00:14:50] worked together. You tried to get direct [00:14:51] payments in uh in one of those co bills [00:14:53] back in 2012. We didn't just try, we [00:14:55] did. Succeeded. So, well, you wanted [00:14:57] more, right? Didn't you? I did want [00:14:58] more. [00:14:59] >> You wanted more. You always want more. [00:15:00] >> Always. How are you still have a working [00:15:03] relationship with him at this point? [00:15:04] >> Oh, yeah. Absolutely. He and I've [00:15:05] co-sponsored several things together. [00:15:07] >> Um, we were just talking about a minimum [00:15:09] wage increase the other day. So, um, [00:15:11] yeah, I you know, I listen, I've I loved [00:15:13] working with Bernie and we disagree on a [00:15:14] lot of things obviously, [00:15:16] >> uh, but we have a lot of areas of [00:15:17] commonality. [00:15:18] >> You subscribe to this sort of horseshoe [00:15:19] theory of politics where some of the [00:15:21] more maybe more liberal members of the [00:15:23] Senate could get something done with [00:15:24] somebody like you. Well, I mean it is [00:15:26] interesting. You look at at some of my [00:15:27] co-sponsors on this legislation. I mean, [00:15:29] a lot of a lot of work with Bernie [00:15:31] Sanders, a lot of work with Elizabeth [00:15:32] Warren. Now, you know, a lot of work [00:15:34] with with centrist, too. Sure. Um like [00:15:36] Gary Peters, but you know, um Peter [00:15:38] Welch, who I think would probably [00:15:39] describe himself as a progressive, you [00:15:41] know, has been a frequent partner of [00:15:43] mine. Ben Ray Luhan and I uh worked [00:15:45] together for two plus years to get [00:15:47] exactly to get payments for folks who [00:15:49] are victims of nuclear radiation. I [00:15:50] think Ben Ray would proudly describe [00:15:52] himself as a progressive. and that [00:15:54] legislation we were able to accomplish [00:15:55] is is generational for his state and for [00:15:58] mine. [00:15:58] >> Is populist the right way to describe [00:16:02] your form of politics and the [00:16:03] presidents? Or is there not like a great [00:16:06] word for it? You know, we we in [00:16:07] journalism always kind of try to speak [00:16:08] in this shorthand, progressive, liberal, [00:16:10] conservative, etc. You know, I would [00:16:12] describe you as not I would describe you [00:16:14] as phys uh uh socially conservative, but [00:16:16] maybe not economically conservative. How [00:16:18] would you describe yourself? Well, I [00:16:19] think populace is probably fine or, you [00:16:21] know, I I just think of myself as a as a [00:16:24] workingclass focused guy. I mean, I [00:16:26] think the working-class Republicanism is [00:16:28] where I believe the middle of the [00:16:30] country is. It's what my state is. I [00:16:31] mean, I just I reflect I hope I reflect [00:16:33] my state. My state is a working-class [00:16:35] state. It is a socially conservative [00:16:37] workingass state. [00:16:38] >> Yeah. [00:16:39] >> And I do my best to represent that state [00:16:41] to the best of my ability. Um, so and [00:16:43] then listen, you know, if I'm going to [00:16:44] be perfectly honest with you, the other [00:16:46] piece of this for me is uh I'm a [00:16:48] religious believer as a Christian. Uh, [00:16:50] the concern for working people, the [00:16:53] concern for the needy, the concern for [00:16:54] the poor plays a large role in my [00:16:57] worldview. And I just I I can't screen [00:16:59] that out of my political commitments. [00:17:01] And I think you are probably one of the [00:17:04] strongest defenders of the president's [00:17:06] tariffs, which on the Republican side, I [00:17:09] think a lot of folks have been biting [00:17:10] their tongue for the past 10 months [00:17:12] because they don't want to criticize the [00:17:13] president, but they don't love the [00:17:14] tariffs. Um, are you reflecting your [00:17:16] state when you when you defend the [00:17:18] tariffs and and I mean, is that what [00:17:20] people in Missouri want or are people [00:17:21] concerned about high prices, too? Like, [00:17:23] how do you balance those two things? [00:17:24] >> Well, you know, I mean, I think the [00:17:25] president is trying to balance them. [00:17:26] Listen, it it is a balancing act. On the [00:17:28] one hand, we've got my view is I'm [00:17:30] willing to kind of like with healthcare, [00:17:31] I'm willing to try just about anything [00:17:33] to try to bring jobs back, good [00:17:35] manufacturing and other working-class [00:17:37] jobs back to this country and to get [00:17:38] wages up. It's one of the reasons I've [00:17:40] been I've been pro- union. I mean, I've [00:17:41] been a supporter of unions. I've [00:17:43] introduced labor legislation. Uh I got [00:17:45] to be the most pro-UN Republican in the [00:17:47] Senate. Not that that's a really high [00:17:48] bar, but um [00:17:49] >> it's changing though. I mean, I I feel [00:17:50] like there is more union support. [00:17:52] >> I think I think in your party. [00:17:54] >> I think so. Looking at the Ohio Senate [00:17:56] race, uh Hughstead's gotten a couple [00:17:58] endorsements from unions in Ohio that [00:18:00] typically would have gone to Sherid [00:18:01] Brown. Do you feel like that's changing? [00:18:03] >> I I think it is changing. And you know, [00:18:05] my my point on that with regard to the [00:18:07] tariffs is just that listen, I I think [00:18:09] we are due for a change in our approach [00:18:12] to try to ask ourselves what can we do [00:18:13] to get more and better jobs back and get [00:18:15] wages up. Tariffs can be part of that. I [00:18:18] think private sector unions are [00:18:20] absolutely a part of that. We need an [00:18:21] update to our labor laws to strengthen [00:18:23] them. I also say to my my friends on the [00:18:25] right who are very concerned with woke [00:18:27] corporations and wokeism generally as I [00:18:29] am. Hey, you know what the best antidote [00:18:31] to a woke corporation is is an American [00:18:33] workforce. If you make these big [00:18:36] corporations accountable to American [00:18:38] workers, you see a lot different focus. [00:18:40] They won't be focused on on this or [00:18:43] that, you know, DEI thing. They'll be [00:18:44] focused on jobs, health care, take-home [00:18:48] pay, right? And I think one of the [00:18:49] reasons we've seen uh the American [00:18:51] corporate sector get so far left is [00:18:53] increasingly they're not they're not [00:18:56] accountable to American workers at all. [00:18:57] They have fewer and fewer American [00:18:58] workers. Uh they're accountable to their [00:19:00] shareholders kind of. But we need [00:19:02] stronger workers. We need more American [00:19:04] workers. And part of that is stronger [00:19:06] unions. [00:19:06] >> There's limits to that though what we [00:19:07] could conceivably build here and pay [00:19:09] people a good wage. Right. [00:19:11] >> Well, I mean there's limits to what we [00:19:13] can build but on any one thing. But [00:19:16] listen, I am not willing to give [00:19:17] >> like there's a difference between [00:19:18] building trucks and build and creating [00:19:20] t-shirts or something like that. Use [00:19:22] that as an examp ought to I think that [00:19:24] conservatives, for those of us who [00:19:26] consider ourselves pro-f family [00:19:27] conservatives, I think we ought to make [00:19:28] it our stated goal to say we want to get [00:19:31] an economy where a working-class family [00:19:33] can support their family on a [00:19:35] working-class wage. Yeah. [00:19:36] >> And that is not possible right now. And [00:19:38] actually the best book on this was [00:19:39] written by Elizabeth Warren, the two [00:19:41] income trap. She was right about that. [00:19:43] And what the the basic premise is, you [00:19:45] know, the 1950s,60s into the early 70s, [00:19:47] you could support a working family [00:19:49] really on on one wage um you know, or [00:19:53] the the parents could sort of, you know, [00:19:54] juggle it. Now you can't. Now you got to [00:19:56] have two wages. Um you got to work [00:19:58] full-time. Uh then you got to pay for [00:20:00] child care for your kids. I mean, it it [00:20:02] is an impossible trap that many many [00:20:04] many people in this country are in. I [00:20:05] think as conservatives, we should say, [00:20:07] listen, our goal is simple. We want [00:20:08] working-class wages in this country to [00:20:11] be strong. We want you to be able to [00:20:12] raise a family on your wage. We want you [00:20:14] to be able to participate in your [00:20:15] community on your wage. We want you to [00:20:17] be able to get good health care with [00:20:18] that wage. So, taking all of that, that [00:20:21] tells me I better be for just about [00:20:23] anything that will get wages up for [00:20:24] working people. [00:20:25] >> Yeah. And you tried [00:20:26] >> to get the tax credit, for example, for [00:20:29] for families much larger in the uh uh [00:20:32] big beautiful bill that then happened. [00:20:34] >> You also tried to get rid of the future [00:20:36] Medicaid cuts in there too, at least at [00:20:38] least to the provider provider tax. I [00:20:41] mean, what what does that say about your [00:20:42] party that you make this point and then [00:20:44] you kind of are forced to swallow a [00:20:47] package that doesn't have those things [00:20:49] in it? Well, I think it means that we've [00:20:50] got some soularching to do as a party [00:20:52] yet. I mean, uh, if we're going to be a [00:20:55] pro- family party, then we've got to be [00:20:56] a party that says we're going to help [00:20:58] you buy healthcare that can support your [00:20:59] family. If we're going to be a pro [00:21:00] family party, we need to give tax cuts [00:21:02] to people who are struggling to make it, [00:21:04] you know, and and listen, I I'm sure [00:21:07] that um the Wall Street guys and the [00:21:09] tech guys who got a lot of stuff in that [00:21:10] package, they all love that. That's [00:21:11] fine. But we need to ask ourselves, what [00:21:14] are we doing for working people that's [00:21:16] going to help them get their job, raise [00:21:20] their family, be part of their [00:21:22] community, and pursue their dreams? And [00:21:24] I think we'd have a we've got a lot more [00:21:25] to do on that. Do you think the 2028 [00:21:29] nominee of your party is going to be in [00:21:31] the same mold as President Trump at this [00:21:34] point? [00:21:34] >> I have no idea. I But I'll tell you [00:21:36] this. I think that if we're going to be [00:21:38] if we Republicans are going to be a true [00:21:40] majority party, you can see the outline [00:21:42] of of the president's coalition here. If [00:21:44] that's going to become permanent and [00:21:45] become a true lasting majority, it's [00:21:48] going to be have it's going to have to [00:21:49] be built around working-class Americans. [00:21:51] We will become a workingclass party or [00:21:53] we will not be a majority party. That's [00:21:55] my view. I don't see any other path. You [00:21:57] know, if we go back to we we listen, [00:21:58] we've tried the the party of the 1990s, [00:22:02] uh the George uh the George Bush's party [00:22:04] and uh the Mitt Romney party, that's not [00:22:06] a majority party. We know cuz we we ran [00:22:09] the experiment. [00:22:10] >> Can that coalition even be reassembled [00:22:12] at this point for Republicans? [00:22:14] >> Probably not. And even if it could, [00:22:16] that's not a majority coalition. Uh a [00:22:19] majority coalition is going to have [00:22:21] workingclass bluecollar folks at the [00:22:23] center of it. Has to. And it should [00:22:25] anyway because that's the majority of [00:22:27] the country. So if we're focused on [00:22:28] them, we're focused on the heart of the [00:22:30] country, which is what we should be [00:22:31] doing. And by the way, that's where the [00:22:33] greatest need is in the country. I mean, [00:22:35] who is it who this economy has largely [00:22:37] left behind? Those folks. It's [00:22:39] workingass bluecollar folks who are [00:22:41] having the most family struggles. Those [00:22:43] folks who got hit hardest by the o [00:22:44] opioid epidemic. Those folks. We should [00:22:47] be focused on them anyway just because [00:22:49] it's the right thing to do. It's also [00:22:50] the key, I think, electorally. [00:22:52] >> Um, you mentioned being a pro- family [00:22:54] party. You and I both have young [00:22:55] children. Um, one thing that you've been [00:22:57] working on that I'm surprised hasn't had [00:22:59] more action is [00:23:01] >> reigning in social media for kids or [00:23:05] >> letting that you have this chat bots [00:23:06] bill like you don't want kids using this [00:23:08] talking to talking to AI chatbots. What [00:23:10] why has that not happened yet? Or do you [00:23:12] feel like this is something that [00:23:13] actually could kind of shoot that left [00:23:15] right paradigm? I I do think well I [00:23:17] think for sure that the leftright [00:23:19] paradigm can be bridged by the [00:23:20] challenges we're seeing from tech in [00:23:22] particular issues that affect kids. I [00:23:24] think chat bots I mean banning chatbot [00:23:26] companions for minor kids is absolutely [00:23:28] something that could pass Congress. I [00:23:30] mean listen Chris Murphy and I you know [00:23:32] Chris and I talking about being on the I [00:23:34] mean I I have a lot of respect for [00:23:35] Chris. He's a smart guy, serious guy. He [00:23:37] and I don't agree on a whole lot but we [00:23:39] really agree on this you know. You've [00:23:41] got Chris Murphy and me and Katie Brid [00:23:43] and Dick Blumenthal and Dick Durban and [00:23:45] um you know it's a broad coalition and I [00:23:48] think what that speaks to is our kids [00:23:49] are not safe online and there is no [00:23:51] amount of corporate profiteering that [00:23:53] can justify that. You know Meta doesn't [00:23:56] need to make another buck by allowing [00:23:58] some chatbot to introduce a kid to the [00:24:00] idea of self harm. They don't need to [00:24:01] make that money. They shouldn't. It's [00:24:03] the wrong thing to do. So I think that [00:24:05] this is something that can pass. But [00:24:06] let's just be honest. Why hasn't more [00:24:08] social media legislation passed [00:24:09] Congress? money. [00:24:10] >> Yeah, [00:24:11] >> money. The influence of the tech [00:24:13] companies. And this is a great [00:24:14] opportunity for Congress to stand up and [00:24:16] say, you know, we're going to reflect [00:24:17] the will of the people, not the will of [00:24:18] the corporations. I often say it says we [00:24:21] the people in the Constitution, not we [00:24:23] the corporations. This would be a good [00:24:24] chance to prove it. [00:24:25] >> Senator Holly, thanks so much for [00:24:27] talking to us about your party's [00:24:28] economic agenda and its future. [00:24:30] >> Thank you so much. [00:24:30] >> Thanks.