Recent weeks have seen a surge of political developments as President Trump and his billionaire supporter Elon Musk attempt to reshape America’s government. Their actions range from dismantling federal agencies to dismissing federal employees, challenging both the legal system and constitutional norms. This situation has also put pressure on Democrats, who are finding it difficult to formulate an appropriate response.
The Democratic Party is undergoing a significant period of introspection. They need to not only craft a strategy to counter Trump’s agenda but also to regain the voters who shifted toward him in the last election. In the coming month, I plan to engage in discussions with influential Democrats to explore their internal deliberations about future directions. My first conversation is with Arizona’s junior senator, Ruben Gallego. Gallego’s victory over Kari Lake was one of the few highlights for Democrats last November. As a former House member, Gallego secured his seat in a competitive race by outperforming Kamala Harris among key demographics that Democrats have struggled with, particularly men and Latino voters.
Gallego, raised in a low-income household by a single mother and the son of Colombian and Mexican immigrants, has a compelling story. He attended Harvard, served as a Marine in Iraq, and ultimately transitioned into politics, leveraging his experience of overcoming hardship to connect with voters. He had insightful feedback for the Democratic Party, as I learned during our meeting this week in Washington.
It’s overwhelming to consider everything that’s transpired in such a brief span. As a first-term senator who was in the House during Trump’s first term, do you feel this situation is different? It is indeed different. Much of Trump’s current behavior mirrors what he attempted previously, but this time we lack Republican allies. We’re essentially going it alone.
Have you noticed a shift in how the party perceives this moment? Yes, my discussions with colleagues indicate a growing realization that this poses an existential threat if we continue down this path. If we can’t trust the judiciary to provide necessary checks and balances, then what remains? Many are still somewhat paralyzed. When things deviate from the norm, people often try to normalize the abnormal, as accepting the harsh reality can be daunting.
A crucial issue for Democrats is determining what it means to be an effective opposition party. There are two key aspects: what actions to take against Trump and how to communicate those actions. Discussions are underway about leveraging government spending, which must be negotiated by March 14. However, the concern is that if a government shutdown occurs, Democrats may be blamed during a crucial time when they’re trying to engage voters and demonstrate their worthiness. Is the risk too significant? Risks are inherent. We shouldn’t shy away from potential failure. That’s a significant flaw I’ve observed among Democrats—we tend to be overly concerned about failing, which prevents us from taking risks. It’s important to acknowledge the possibility of setbacks while simultaneously working to mitigate them. This involves aligning our strategy with the genuine concerns of the American public, showing that we are here to protect the Constitution and fight for them. Amidst the current turmoil, the cost of living remains an issue—prices for essentials like eggs are still high, and homeownership is out of reach for many. We need to refocus our message, as this is where Republicans are weakest. They now own this economy, and they have done little to benefit everyday Americans.
I could sense you processing your words. My wife reminded me before I left for work today to watch my language. [Laughs.] The challenge is separating what we hear from the D.C. crowd and what is actually discussed on the ground. Back in Arizona, conversations aren’t centered around topics like USAID or the judicial system; instead, people are worried about the rising cost of living. The key is to ensure that we’re in sync with the concerns of the American public. When there’s a disconnect, we risk significant missteps. The current situation highlights how we failed to grasp the sentiments of the electorate leading up to the 2024 elections.
You surpassed Harris in your state, attracting some Trump supporters. What do you attribute that to? I believe it’s essential to recognize that not all Trump supporters are unwavering in their allegiance. Many voted for him out of frustration with the current state of affairs, and we weren’t hesitant to engage with them directly. We ventured into some of the toughest areas in the state and initiated conversations with Trump supporters.
Do you think Democrats shy away from engaging with Trump supporters? Yes. There’s a palpable fear among Democrats about engaging with Trump voters and facing criticism. In Arizona, there are 300,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats. It was crucial for me to connect with them; the alternative would have been to fail.
Why do you think that hesitation exists among Democrats? I’m not entirely sure. Why aren’t we venturing into the reddest parts of the country? For instance, Donald Trump visits Harlem. Do we engage with the equivalent of Harlem for red voters? Not at all.
Let’s discuss specific demographic groups that Democrats need to recapture to remain competitive. Everyone?
Let’s start with men. Exactly.
People have described you as a bro, and I mean that positively. [Laughs.]
You managed to win over Latino men by 30 points in an election where Trump was favored by that group. Though this is a broad demographic, what do you believe Democrats have misunderstood about men? They need to understand that we can improve men’s circumstances without undermining women’s status. We often overlook the need for male votes because winning elections necessitates their support. Yet, we seldom address how we can improve men’s lives, ensuring they can provide for their families. I also think there’s a psychological aspect to this—something we struggle to articulate. During my campaign, discussing themes of pride, providing for one’s family, and security resonated deeply with Latino men. We need to show understanding of these needs. Sometimes, we’re scared to express that because we worry it will belittle women’s positions. This apprehension could backfire. Moreover, our reluctance to engage men in these discussions leads them to believe we don’t care, even though the Democratic Party generally champions the interests of working-class men. During discussions with Latino men, I would often joke: “I’ll help you move out of your mom’s house and get your troquita, ” referring to their trucks. Every Latino man aspires to have a solid truck, which is perfectly fine. “You’ll start your own business and become wealthy, right?” These are the conversations we should be focusing on, but we shy away from directly promising help for job opportunities that could lead to wealth. Instead, we resort to the vague “economic stability,” but they don’t want that. They desire the tangible pursuit of the American dream.
One challenge for Democrats is that what you’re discussing involves more traditional values. But voters are motivated by values!
Are you suggesting that Democrats should recognize that some voters might prefer traditional gender roles? Should they be less hesitant about that? It’s more about Democrats acknowledging that everyone’s voice matters. It doesn’t mean we diminish the importance of single mothers compared to fathers. Our message should simply affirm, “You matter too.” As Democrats, we should advocate for everyone.
After the unexpectedly favorable results for Democrats in the 2022 midterms, many, including yourself, felt this indicated a lack of rightward shift among Latino voters. You famously stated, “There’s no effing realignment.” You chose a different word.
You indeed said “effing.” Why did you misjudge that? I was accurate at that time. In 2022, when I led the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, our polling indicated no significant slippage because Latino men felt optimistic despite frustrations. Many understood that the Democrats were a better fit for them. With the ongoing, worsening economic conditions—especially the personal recession—the situation became more dire. Initially, when Biden took office, people were hopeful due to stimulus funds. But as early 2023 rolled around, much of that support faded, primarily due to negotiations that led to cutbacks. The stagnating housing market has further pushed the American dream out of reach for many Latino families. The economic conditions weren’t favorable, and that’s when we began to see declines. We tried to sound the alarm, but it was largely ignored.
Another factor is that Trump’s way of communicating resonates more effectively with younger Latino men, as he is present in platforms where they consume information—like podcasts and U.F.C. events. I urged the Democrats to increase their presence in such spaces, recommending that President Biden attend events like Copa America or boxing matches where Latino audiences gather. We need to break into those networks.
I was surprised to learn that President Trump was the first sitting president to attend a Super Bowl. That seems like an obvious opportunity for any president. Yes, he capitalized on every opportunity available. What holds us back? I’ve encountered reluctance from politicians concerned about being booed. This fear leads to avoidance of engaging with the public. Yet, that’s precisely what we should be doing! This isn’t just specific to the president; it applies to everyone running for office last year.
I interviewed JD Vance before the election, and it struck me that despite the political differences, you both share similar backgrounds: working-class, raised by single mothers, military service in Iraq, and attended Ivy League schools. This narrative of class mobility resonates with voters. I believe many voters hold onto the belief in the American dream. Seeing it exemplified inspires hope. It’s crucial for us to highlight that. During my campaign, some advisors discouraged me from mentioning Harvard, worried it would alienate working-class voters. I counters that working-class people admire those who achieve success, particularly those who came from difficult circumstances; it embodies the American dream. They need that hope amidst hardships. Failing to acknowledge that leads to a disconnect, and the perception that improvement isn’t possible can signal impending trouble.
It bewilders me to observe: voters claim that the economy and inflation top their concerns, feeling squeezed by price increases. Yet, under Trump, we now witness a cabinet of the wealthiest individuals in modern times. The wealthiest person globally is dismantling federal structures, yet polls indicate the president is commencing his second term with better approval ratings than his first term. This sends mixed signals about the electorate’s desires. I don’t perceive it as confusing.
What makes you think it’s clear? Working-class and impoverished individuals don’t see the ultra-wealthy as their rivals. They aspire to wealth themselves. Thus, they may not fault the rich merely for their wealth. Their discontent arises when it has a direct effect on their lives. People tend to give Musk and Trump a chance until they one day feel impacted personally. The decline in Trump’s approval ratings right before the 2018 elections stemmed from his massive tax cut for the rich. I anticipate this administration will further implement tax cuts for the wealthy, likely at the expense of Medicaid and other support programs for low-income individuals, which will spark backlash.
Thus, the Democratic narrative of “Eat the rich” — It’s misplaced. Most people aspire to wealth. There’s nothing wrong with that. Our role must be to highlight the inequalities and abuses of power among the affluent and influential, which will attract those who dream of wealth to support Democrats.
Could it be that Musk and Trump have successfully tapped into the working-class sentiment? Absolutely. The recent election results attest to that.
What leads you to that conclusion? They genuinely comprehend the needs of the everyday consumer. They actively engage in outreach to the voter demographic.
Essentially, they’re salesmen. Precisely. The voter is viewed as the client; they know how to reach them, employing various strategies.
I want to delve into immigration, a key issue in the election that seemed to hamper Democrats. You cast your first vote as a senator in favor of the Laken Riley Act, one of two Democratic co-sponsors alongside John Fetterman from Pennsylvania. Many within immigrant advocacy groups criticized this stance, asserting it raises due-process concerns for immigrants and shifts control over immigration policy to states, undermining federal authority. What motivated your support for this legislation? My reasoning for voting in favor the second time—having also supported it in the House—was driven by my conversations with constituents who expressed a desire for more controlled immigration reform. The Laken Riley situation highlighted significant issues. While I acknowledge the legitimate concerns raised by immigration groups, their perspective doesn’t seem to reflect where the majority of voters, including those within the immigrant community, stand. I’ve received feedback directly indicating that substantial support exists for measures like this bill contrary to claims made by immigration organizations.
This bill appears intent on altering the nature of immigration policy in our nation, and the architect of this administration’s immigration approach is Stephen Miller, known for promoting hardline views often fueled by white-nationalist rhetoric according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. This suggests some ideological motives behind this administration’s immigration policies. Without question.
Do you worry that constituents’ legitimate concerns about immigration might be misused for ideological purposes? Absolutely. However, this isn’t a new issue.
Was it difficult to make that vote with this context in mind? Not at all. This issue has persisted for two decades. I’m more concerned about regaining trust from the people to enable constructive discussions surrounding immigration. The Democrats have failed to address the chaos at the border for years, leading to a profound loss of credibility regarding the immigration debate. Even though the Biden administration eventually took action, the prolonged inaction caused significant damage. Those who genuinely seek immigration reform—such as bringing undocumented families out of the shadows and securing citizenship for Dreamers—have been hindered for years as we hesitated on asylum seekers and failed to address unattractive elements within our approach, inadvertently ceding ground to Republicans.
Do you hold President Biden accountable for that? I do, but I also attribute blame to many of the advisors around him, including various groups. The effectiveness of leadership often relies on the quality of advice they receive. I believe these immigration advocacy groups, while intending to protect, may have worsened the situation significantly.
To clarify your views, should local law enforcement assist ICE in carrying out deportations? No, because local law enforcement personnel in Arizona express a lack of resources to engage in such efforts. Their priority lies in maintaining community relations, and their primary role is enforcing local regulations.
What about sending migrants to Guantánamo or to prisons in El Salvador? Not for migrants undergoing due process, particularly those who pose no threat. However, for those categorized as highly dangerous criminals who can’t legally be held here, alternative arrangements might be worth considering.
That’s surprising. Why would we want to retain gang members or criminals without a legal right to remain in the country, especially if their home countries refuse to accept them?
There are concerns around those placed into these systems experiencing legal limbo. Legal limbo has long haunted the immigrant community. Guantánamo has previously housed refugees and asylum seekers without issue.
But that was regarding individuals intercepted at sea, not those apprehended within the United States. I understand the distinction. Still, for dangerous criminals who navigate our justice system without a means of deportation, logical security measures should be contemplated. We’re not suggesting solutions for everyone but rather addressing the security implications of such cases—especially in vulnerable communities.
What have you observed about deportation actions since Trump assumed the presidency? Reports from Arizona paint a picture of fear among the community. ICE agents are expressing frustration, feeling pressure to meet quotas and broaden their focus beyond serious offenders. For example, Arizona agents are required to detain 75 individuals daily, leading to frustrations about the lack of meaningful coordination. Resources from various law enforcement agencies—like A.T.F., D.E.A., and H.S.I.—are being repurposed to showcase aggressive measures.
Do you view this approach as ineffective? If Trump were genuinely interested in targeting hard-core criminals, collaboration with undocumented families would be more effective. However, the current indiscriminate dragnet leads many to conceal themselves, ultimately allowing serious offenders to evade capture.
Do you take Trump’s administration at its word in that they prioritize deporting criminals over immigrants? No, I don’t. The real challenge is determining how we can effectively focus efforts on apprehending hard-core criminals, which will be a significant battleground going forward.
Given our earlier discussions, there are concerns about whether Democrats have become too deferential toward the more progressive factions of the party—this applies to immigration, gender issues, L.G.B.T.Q. rights, D.E.I., etc. The right has been exploiting this narrative to the Democrats’ detriment. How can Democrats advocate for their principles while still aligning with mainstream sensibilities? It becomes easier to paint us as extremists when we lack a broader identity. If we aren’t known for advocating improvements in people’s lives—be it lowering living costs or enhancing wages—we open ourselves to extreme characterization. Most Americans support L.G.B.T. rights and women’s issues, viewing them more favorably than the Republican stance. Still, if our focus remains solely on niche groups without a clear commitment to larger societal improvements, critics will assert that we prioritize specialized interests over broader concerns, which resonates negatively with the electorate.
Sure, someone will argue: “But G.D.P. growth under Biden was at a record high, and we faced the lowest unemployment levels.” Yes, that’s accurate. However, the public perception was different; they felt disconnected. We can’t afford to ignore that. If we persist in convincing ourselves that the economy was actually thriving while voters voiced their grievances, we will continue to experience worsening challenges. Ignoring the economic struggles of middle America puts fundamental rights at risk.
This interview has been edited and condensed. Listen to and follow “The Interview” on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, iHeartRadio, Amazon Music or the New York Times Audio app.
Director of photography (video): Tre Cassetta
