Trump Orders Venezuelan Boats Destroyed in the Caribbean

The President is killing suspected criminals without trials. Why isn't Congress acting?

Is the President authorized to blow up boats and kill suspected drug smugglers? Beth speaks with Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) about Trump’s use of military force to strike vessels in the Caribbean Sea without due process, trials, or congressional authorization. The Senator explains why these extrajudicial killings violate constitutional war powers and put America at greater risk internationally.

Why aren’t Republicans checking executive overreach? Senator Van Hollen describes how the GOP has become a “rubber stamp” for Trump, abandoning its constitutional duty to provide checks and balances. From dismantling congressional war powers to remaining silent on due process violations, he explores what it means when an entire party contracts out its judgment to one person.

What levers does Congress actually have right now? As the government funding deadline approaches, Van Hollen discusses the Democratic strategy of “creative confrontation” - from showing up at ICE detention centers to challenging book bans at the Naval Academy. He explains why he won’t give Trump a “blank check” even from the minority, and what safeguards against illegal withholding of funds could look like in any budget deal.

Topics Discussed

• Extrajudicial Killings in the Caribbean

• Congressional War Powers and the Failure of Checks and Balances

• Government Funding and Withholding of Funds

• Creative Confrontative from the Minority

Want more Pantsuit Politics? Subscribe to ensure you never miss an episode and get access to our premium shows and community.

Episode Resources

• Senator Chris Van Hollen

• War Powers Resolution: Expedited Procedures in the House and Senate (Congress.gov)

Show Credits

Pantsuit Politics is hosted by Sarah Stewart Holland and Beth Silvers. The show is produced by Studio D Podcast Production. Alise Napp is our Managing Director and Maggie Penton is our Director of Community Engagement.

Our theme music was composed by Xander Singh with inspiration from original work by Dante Lima.

Our show is listener-supported. The community of paid subscribers here on Substack makes everything we do possible. Special thanks to our Executive Producers, some of whose names you hear at the end of each show. To join our community of supporters, become a paid subscriber here on Substack.

To search past episodes of the main show or our premium content, check out our content archive.

This podcast and every episode of it are wholly owned by Pantsuit Politics LLC and are protected by US and international copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. We hope you'll listen to it, love it, and share it with other people, but not with large language models or machines and not for commercial purposes. Thanks for keeping it nuanced with us.

Episode Transcript

Beth Silvers [00:00:08] This is Beth Silvers; you’re listening to Pantsuit Politics. Sarah is out with Common Ground Pilgrimages; she’ll be back next week. Today I’m here to talk with you and with Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland about the president’s decision to use military force to strike boats suspected of drug smuggling in the Caribbean Sea. I’d like to start by reading a paragraph to you from the ICE website. Narcotics smuggling is a global crime with local impact. Illegal drugs such as fentanyl and synthetic opioids, cocaine and methamphetamine largely come from other countries. Cartels and other criminal organizations employ complex schemes to evade detection and smuggle these deadly drugs into the United States from their local networks, distribute and sell drugs in our cities and on our streets. They end up in our communities and in our loved ones’ hands, often with devastating effects. The criminals who commit these crimes do it for one reason, to make money.

[00:01:04] I agree with all of that. Narcotics smuggling is a massive problem. Most illegal drugs come into the United States through our border with Mexico. Local networks sell drugs and the effects are devastating. And money, pure, unabashed, morally bankrupt greed is the cause. It is awful. It is also different from terrorism. Under the United States’ code, terrorism consists of activities that involve an act dangerous to human life or potential destruction of critical infrastructure or any key resources that violates criminal laws in the U.S. or any state or subdivision and is intended to intimidate or coerce the civilian population or influence a government or affect a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Drug trafficking is a criminal economic undertaking. Terrorism is a criminal ideological undertaking. They are different and they are treated differently under the law. If a person is charged with drug trafficking in the United States and convicted, the sentence for that crime depends on a huge variety of factors. What is the drug? How much of the drug did the person traffic? What is a person’s criminal history? What other crimes has this person committed in the course of trafficking these drugs? The mindset is important.

[00:02:25] All crimes consist of two parts. The actus reus, what is the behavior of the person? And the mens rea, what was the person’s mental state? To what extent did they mean to do what they did? What harm did they intend? Our system is built to ask these questions about individual people charged with specific crimes based on concrete evidence presented to courts and jurors. Our system is built to punish drug trafficking harshly at the end of that process. We have massive fines and prolonged jail time built into our statutes. We even have a federal death penalty available for so-called drug kingpins. When people commit murders while they’re trafficking drugs, they are eligible for capital punishment. We’ve never executed someone under this law, but it’s on our books and enforceable if the government charged and convicted a specific person of specific crimes and proved the case under the law. Now all of that is way down the line and most of us would much rather prevent drugs from coming into the country in the first place than deal with their painful consequences and the expense and effort of trying and sentencing drug dealers.

[00:03:37] So how do we do that? Well, that’s the Coast Guard’s job. It is the only agency allowed under our laws to enforce national and international law at sea. The Coast Guard is responsible for detecting and intercepting illegal drugs on their way into the United States and it gets help from a lot of agencies. Combating drug smuggling on the water belongs to the Coast Guard and it’s been successful. On September 4th, the Coast Guard announced that it has seized more than 40,000 pounds of cocaine in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in about a month through an effort called Operation Pacific Viper. Drugs coming to the United States from South America have been intercepted, 36 suspected drug smugglers have been apprehended. The Coast Guard has also had recent major successes off the coast of Florida. U.S. Southern commands Joint Interagency Task Force South in Key West monitors aerial and maritime transit of drugs and then according to the current Department of Homeland Security, the law enforcement phase of the operation begins and control of the operations shifts to the U. S. Coast Guard throughout the interdiction and apprehension.

[00:04:48] The laws about boats and international waters are complicated. The United States hasn’t signed the UN’s convention on the law of the sea but our military has generally acted in a way that’s consistent with its provisions. We don’t interfere with vessels operating in international waters in general, except in self-defense, narrowly defined, immediate threat of serious injury or loss of life. But President Trump doesn’t think narrow definitions are good enough. Criminal law is an annoying suggestion. Criminal procedure is expensive and time consuming. It doesn’t matter that terrorism is about ideology and drug trafficking is about money. If he says drug trafficking is terrorism, then it must be. It doesn’t matter that we don’t kill people for even very extreme drug crimes and it doesn’t matter that he has a legal pathway to the death penalty for drug kingpins. President Trump does what he wants. And what he wants to do apparently right now is blow up boats suspected of transporting drugs to the United States. It doesn’t matter where they come from or who was on them or how they came to be or where they’re going. But these questions are important, not just as a matter of process and procedure. Sometimes our suspicions are wrong. Earlier this month, US warship personnel boarded a Venezuelan tuna boat. They detained it for eight hours and then released it. We don’t always know what’s going on.

[00:06:13] There’s reporting that the first boat we blew up got spooked and had turned around. It had turned away from the United States. We still sunk it and killed everyone on board. What exactly are we doing? In a way I have so many questions about the three boats that the US military has now blown up at the president’s direction and the 17 people who’ve been killed in the process. On the other hand, I have no questions. This is wrong. It is unlawful. It is irreversible. It is reckless. I believe it puts our country in danger. Colombia’s president has called for criminal proceedings against US officials if any Colombians have been killed on these attacks. Venezuela has called these extrajudicial killings. It’s asked its citizens to enlist in militias and go to military barracks for training sessions. I am worried. I am upset and I am dismayed at how such blatantly illegal action is essentially going unchecked. Our government was designed to ensure that one person’s power, even the president’s, would be limited in its reach and in constant tension with hundreds of other people’s power.

[00:07:23] I’m at a loss to explain why that’s not happening. And I have been searching for someone in an elected position of power to talk with about this. I’m very grateful that Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland answered that call. Senator Van Hollan was elected to the Senate in 2016 after serving in the House of Representatives since 2002. He serves on the Foreign Relations Committee, the Appropriations Committee, and the Budget Committee. So we invited him to talk with me about what levers Congress has to check this action and others. You’ll also hear what else is on the senator’s mind as the deadline for government funding approaches. Senator Van Hollen, thank you so much for joining us on Pantsuit Politics today.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen [00:08:17] Beth, it’s great to be with you.

Beth Silvers [00:08:19] We’re talking on Wednesday afternoon in a week that reminds me that your job is not only difficult, but it’s dangerous. And so I first just wanted to ask you, how are you doing with everything that’s operating in the background?

Sen. Chris Van Hollen [00:08:33] Well, thanks for asking. I really can’t believe we’re living through this period. And not just me, I mean all of us in terms of the threats to our basic freedoms, threats to free speech, President of the United States threatening ABC that if they don’t give into their government demands, they will punish them. ABC originally folding and caving. I’m glad they’re not. But this is a moment where I’m not getting that much sleep. I think probably a lot of us are not getting a lot sleep because we are trying to think of how we can fight back to protect our country and our democracy every day. So thanks for what you’re doing to sound the alarm.

Beth Silvers [00:09:21] Thank you. There are a lot of things in this administration that feel really murky to me. ABC is a good example. It’s easy for Republicans to come out and say it wasn’t pressure, it was a business decision. So many things that swirl around it. I think of it as the Trump fog. What I have not felt foggy about is the use of our military to attack boats in the Caribbean Sea based on their suspicion of criminal activity. It feels like the most obvious, direct, blatant violation of our separation of powers, our whole constitutional design. And I feel a little bit like I’m losing my mind because it’s a second page issue. So I would love to know as a member of Congress, how did you learn about this and how are you thinking about it?

Sen. Chris Van Hollen [00:10:13] I agree with you. This is one of the most disturbing things the Trump administration has done and they’ve done lots of bad things. Because when we boil this right down, it is an extrajudicial killing. And the President of the United States has no authority to tell the US military just to go shoot people up. We’re not in a state of war. This is not an act of self-defense. Yet he seems to get a big kick just out of blowing boats out of the water. All of us want to prevent drugs from coming into the United States. We want to make sure that we do what we can to address drug addiction. I would point out that the President’s budget actually cuts funding for the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Agency, that they totally dismantled one of the major organizations we have in the US government to fight drug kingpins and organized crime drug syndicates. They just eliminated. So while the President’s dismantling some of the programs that really do help stop getting drugs in here, he’s gone about engaging in these extrajudicial killings.

Beth Silvers [00:11:38] It feels very much like his campaign statement that he could shoot someone in Manhattan and it would be fine, just on a different scale. How do you assess his accountability? What mechanisms are there to step in and stop this?

Sen. Chris Van Hollen [00:11:58] That’s exactly the right question. They’re both potential avenues through the courts, but then there’s the Congress. When it comes to the courts we’ll find out whether any of the families have legal recourse here. There are two pieces to this. One is the total lack of evidence. There are reports that, for example, the first boat that was attacked where he claimed 11 of these people killed were members of a gang. That just wasn’t true. But then there’s the reality that even if that were true, you still have an opportunity to essentially put on your defense under normal circumstances. So there may be opportunities through the courts for families of those who were killed to bring cases. Our courts, as you know, have provided some line of defense. Of course, the Supreme Court has really fallen down on the job. And then I mentioned Congress. Congress could at least hold the administration, the executive branch, accountable. My colleagues and I have supported the effort, have filed a war powers resolution. Senator Kaine Senator Schiff.

[00:13:26] Because essentially the president is using the military of the United States without authorization here. But unfortunately, in this case, as in so many others, Republicans really have become a rubber stamp for Donald Trump. I mean, our constitutional design was built on the idea that these separate branches would push back and not allow the other branch to totally usurp their powers. But republicans in the Congress have given Donald Trump a blank check. They are total rubber stamps. And so, unfortunately, what had been intended to be part of the checks and balances in our system has been dismantled by themselves. This is like they neutered themselves.

Beth Silvers [00:14:17] One of the first instances that I felt really clear on with this administration was the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador. And I really admired the way that you stepped into that situation. My fear was here is an action that is irreversible. That’s what I see. He’s blowing up these boats. These people cannot be brought back. It’s irreversible. I also worry about the provocation to other countries to retaliate in some way. As you said, this feels like an unauthorized act of war. Do you share that concern? And is there anything happening maybe that we don’t see as a public to try to mitigate against that threat?

Sen. Chris Van Hollen [00:14:59] So the United States has traditionally been a country that seeks to uphold the rule of law. We’re far from perfect. I want to say we have not implemented that principle perfectly by any means, but at least it was a principle that we upheld and said this was something that we want to be a leader by example on. The Trump administration totally abandoned them. If you listen to Trump’s speech at the United Nations the other day, which was an embarrassment to our entire country, he didn’t talk about upholding human rights, rule of law, freedom, or democracy. It was a lot of how come I didn’t get the contract for the UN and I want to do all this other stuff? So you’re absolutely right. When we dismantle important guard rails that had been applied to prevent other countries from doing this, then yes, you open us up to total pandemonium and threats and greater risks to Americans. Another country could do this to a boat that had American citizens on it, for example, and they would just say, hey, too bad, I’m just following your example. So it really does, in my view, put all of us at greater risk.

Beth Silvers [00:16:33] Is the budget the mechanism to have that kind of conversation or what conversations do you think need to be in focus as we face down this deadline for government funding?

Sen. Chris Van Hollen [00:16:47] We cannot give this lawless president a blank check. In terms of the specifics of this government shutdown, which seems to be something that Donald Trump is taking us towards, in the sense that he had said that he would meet with the democratic leaders and then he decided to cancel that meeting. And his message-- and it’s important the country understand what his message is-- is it’s his way or the highway. You all give us a blank check for my lawless activities. And Republicans in the House and Senate may be willing to do that, but I certainly am not willing to do that. And so, first of all, we need some clear guardrails and safeguards against the president’s illegal withholding of funds. We have provided funds for important national purposes like funding NIH, the National Institutes of Health. I just learned of a woman the other day who’d been part of a clinical trial and because the clinical trial was delayed as a result of the Trump disruptions, she developed another symptom that made her unqualified for the clinical trail and she’s in hospice now.

[00:18:08] So this withholding of funds is blatantly illegal and has very harmful consequences. That’s just one example of many. And unless we address those issues, the budget’s not worth the paper it’s written on. Then we also do have this ticking time bomb on Americans’ healthcare because at the end of the year if we don’t extend the premium tax credits for the Affordable Care Act, not only will millions lose access to affordable healthcare, but tens of millions will see big spikes in their premiums. And so we want to turn off that ticking time bomb and Trump right now wants to keep it going. So there are lots of issues but those are some of the ones we’ve focused on at this moment.

Beth Silvers [00:18:54] And where do you see those conversations going? Are you optimistic that there is a compromise to be had here or do you think that the president’s intransigence as demonstrated by canceling that meeting is about where it is?

Sen. Chris Van Hollen [00:19:06] I think the president at least for now has signaled that he wants to shut down the government because he’s taken the position that he won’t talk. I mean, this is a guy who claims to be a great negotiator, the art of the deal, but he’s afraid to sit down and talk about it. And so he does have the country barreling toward a government shutdown because he has taken the position that it’s his way or the highway. A lot of us have decided we’re not going to be accomplices to his lawless agenda.

Beth Silvers [00:19:40] Are there any openings with your Republican colleagues on issues like using the military extrajudicially?

Sen. Chris Van Hollen [00:19:47] When it comes to that question, I’ve seen no real evidence that Republicans are willing to stand up for congressional war powers because that power clearly was invested in the Congress by the framers. But time and again, they seem willing to surrender that. We will see, with respect to the war powers resolution that has been filed, but I’ve seen nothing from Republicans who are willing to stand up for this. I mean, really they have contracted out their votes and their judgment to Donald Trump. And it is a very dangerous moment when you dismantle those checks and balances.

Beth Silvers [00:20:27] How do you think about that as a member of the minority? You’ve been in Congress quite a while. You have lots of experience. You’ve seen different parties in control. You’ve seen different administrations come and go. What do you think could be happening right now that would help if anything?

Sen. Chris Van Hollen [00:20:43] I think the most important thing is that people around the country follow very closely what’s happening both on these fundamental questions of American freedoms and values, as well as the president’s broken promises on the economy where he said he was going to look out for working people and he’s done everything but that. He provided a huge tax cut for the very wealthy at everybody else’s expense. But the reason I say that is because on the one hand, Republicans in the House and the Senate are afraid of a Donald Trump tweet. You have to make them more concerned and afraid of how their constituents are going to feel about them and respond to their actions than they are about Donald Trump’s tweet. Because for those who don’t want to stand up and do the right thing, they do want to win their re-elections. And right now they’re making the calculation that in order to win a Republican primary, they essentially have to become blank checks for Donald Trump. And so, in my view, it will only be when they fear the response from their constituents more than they fear a social media post from Donald Trump that they’ll begin to maybe grow a backbone when it comes to some of these fundamental issues.

Beth Silvers [00:22:21] During the first Trump administration, we had a constant flow of people mostly on background whispering to press like, don’t worry, I’m the adult in the room. I am constraining the worst of the ideas. A lot of Republicans would admit this is ridiculous or this is unlawful, but we figure it’ll get sorted out somewhere. We’re not seeing that this time. Do you think that is because his power is so solidified within the Republican Party or because people are true believers now? Are people with him on this? Do your Republican colleagues think that we should kill suspected drug dealers en route to the United States and international waters? I’m trying to understand where we really are.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen [00:23:08] Yeah, it’s a question I ask myself every day and I do ask Republicans in the Senate. And I’d say it’s mixed. I think there’s some who are true believers, rah, rah, they really think the president can do no wrong. Obviously, to take that position you can’t be taking a principle-based approach. You’re taking a person-based approach. And then there are those who know very well that what the president is doing is dangerous to the country, but they decided to put their own political careers over the good of the country. I think this would be a moment for people to speak out and just bear the consequences at election time, because what bullies do is they count on people caving in and capitulating. And the more people capitulate or remain silent, the more his appetite grows. And so that’s why it’s important that people not appease this lawless president because it just gives them more fuel to keep going at this time. You may have asked another question that I didn’t answer. What was that?

Beth Silvers [00:24:24] I was specifically just wondering how your Republican colleagues feel about this use of the military. This feels like an issue that is just squarely within what I understood conservative principles to look like. And I am surprised by how little regard we seem to have for human life and the power of the military.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen [00:24:45] I was surprised. Look, on the question of due process and you raised the issue of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. I think one of the important moments in that case was when a majority of Americans across the political spectrum recognized that when you threaten the rights of one person, you do threaten the rights of all of us. And you had people like Joe Rogan on his podcast really say it’s not right for the government to be able to essentially lock people up without due process of law. And I do believe that’s the majority view across the country on that question. We can debate border security. We can debate immigration. I’m actually have always been for more border security and we definitely need immigration reform, but nobody should believe that the government should get rid of due process rights. And that did have an impact at the end of the day, even though they said they would never bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back ever, ever, ever, they were forced to bring him back. Now, they’re still engaged in all sorts of judicial misconduct and abuse of power. But I’m telling you this story because not a single Republican in the Congress stood up for due process. Not once, not a peep, even though people from different parties across the country recognize the threat to our constitution.

Beth Silvers [00:26:22] There is unhappiness, as you know, among democratic primary voters about this neutering of Congress’s authority as you’ve described it. And understanding that the minority is a very difficult position to be in, that the rules committee, for example, just controls so much in the house; how would you like to see Democrats moving forward in this moment together as a strong opposition party?

Sen. Chris Van Hollen [00:26:53] There are things that we can do even when we don’t have the votes in Congress. Although you’re absolutely right, not having a majority clearly puts us at a disadvantage totally in the House and in the Senate obviously a weaker spot. I do think creative confrontation with this administration is something we need to do more of. I was part of the first effort to organize a demonstration outside of AID when they were shutting down AID because I do believe those kinds of acts help others around the country see that they have agency themselves. Now, that doesn’t mean that we’re going to stop this president from doing the lawless things, because he’s clearly continuing to do them. But what this president wants more than anything, is for people to shut up and go away. And the more people shut up and go way, the more he’s empowered. And so I do think beyond just the Senate floor, for example, all of us do need to engage more in showing up and confronting a lawless president.

[00:28:11] That’s why many of us have visited ICE detention centers and offices. And when we went to the Baltimore ICE office, the first time we went, we were shut down. They wouldn’t let us in. And then they realized that didn’t look so good, especially when we read them the statue saying that we were entitled to be there. And they called up and we went back. Bad conditions there, but my point is, we do need to continue to confront this. The Naval Academy, for example, banned a whole bunch of books. We send our soldiers in the war and we’re afraid of them reading a book in this administration. And I just got appointed to the Board of Visitors of the Naval Academy. The first meeting I went to, I brought some of those banned books, including Maya Angelou’s book, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, which is one of the books they banned. And they did end up reversing themselves for the most part. Again, beyond the floor of the Congress, I think all of us, and that’s not just members of Congress, but all of this need to find ways to stand up. Which is why, for example, when ABC was capitulating and people started canceling their subscriptions, that’s important. All of us need to do more of that.

Beth Silvers [00:29:31] I like the phrase creative confrontation. I wonder what else you think could be happening within the Congress. It is kind of hard. Sometimes I think about our listeners who are out there doing everything they can do. They go to protests. They write to their representatives. They donate to campaigns. They volunteer. And it does feel sometimes like surely folks in Congress have more power than I have sitting in my house in Kentucky. What other creative confrontation would you like to see in the Senate specifically?

Sen. Chris Van Hollen [00:30:02] Well, we’re at one of those moments right now with respect to the funding the government. And we don’t have a lot of levers and it’s not our preference to shut down the government, but as I said, I’m not going to give Donald Trump a blank check to continuous lawless actions either. And so this is one of these moments that we can at least force a conversation. If the president doesn’t want to talk, he will obviously have to deal with what he has wrought in terms of refusing to come to the table. But this is one of those moments where we do have some ability in the Senate to make it very clear that we’re not going to be collaborators in his lawless actions.

Beth Silvers [00:30:56] And I know that’s tricky because we’ve talked about a huge range of issues in 20 minutes and haven’t even scratched the surface of lawless activity from the executive branch. So how are you personally prioritizing when you have this storm of things from shooting people in the Caribbean Sea to banned books, to healthcare, how do you make decisions about what would be acceptable to keep the government funded, even though you know we still have three years of a president who has a real contempt for the rule of law?

Sen. Chris Van Hollen [00:31:29] Right, very good question. I would say one of the minimal requirements would be to put up guardrails against the president’s illegal withholding of money. Because this is a budget and it’s certainly not worth the paper it’s written on if the president can do what he’s doing now, which is just decide to say, I’ll spend funds on the things I want to, but not on those other things. Because budgets are not a la carte menus once they’re passed. Then I do believe that the focus on some of these high rising healthcare costs is important because people are struggling paycheck to paycheck, and the president has totally betrayed many of the people he claimed he was going to fight for. And I think that the healthcare fight highlights that fact. We see prices going up across the board. We see the president’s tariffs operating as a big national sales tax. We see electricity prices going out due to some of the actions the administration’s taking.

[00:32:38] But the ones that we have immediate levers that we can control are these healthcare costs. And the president is heading down a road where he’s saying I really don’t give a damn about the country, that your health premiums are going to go up. So you’re right. There are so many things happening. And I do think that we should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. I think we have to confront each of these. But if you’re asking me right now at this moment in terms of shaping the discussion over the budget, again, erecting safeguards against the illegal withholding of money, not just my view, the GAO, the General of Accountability, has said he’s doing this illegally and this ticking time bomb on Americans’ healthcare. But that doesn’t mean we don’t keep pushing back and fighting on all these other things at the same time.

Beth Silvers [00:33:33] Senator, I know that you have been vocal about the need for energy in the Democratic Party and the need for the party to unite around a variety of different candidates. I wonder if you could just tell me right now in this very precarious, difficult moment, what makes you excited about the future of the Democratic party?

Sen. Chris Van Hollen [00:33:52] So I do believe right now that there’s a growing understanding. Some people may have been late to this moment, but that we have to rally to really save our democracy and our constitution. And I think that while some may have been slow to wake up to that fact, I think most Democrats are aware of the clear and present danger and they’re fighting back. I think this is going to be very important in the 2025 elections because we have the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey. And those will be interpreted, the results will be interpreted in terms of where we are now, what’s Trump’s standing, his popularity. And as I mentioned, I think the New York mayor’s race is also important because there’s a lot of energy in young people. And if we send a message to young people that we don’t care about their views, they’ll just become even more cynical. And really, we need to engage young people at this moment. So that’s 2025. That would build to 2026. Clearly, Democrats need to win a majority, hopefully in the House and the Senate, but certainly need to one House to put some brakes on this president.

[00:35:10] But ultimately, 2028 will require the Democrats to do more than have a just say no agenda. I mean, saying no to all this [inaudible] is important. Don’t get me wrong. But I think for the American people, they need to see a clear alternative and presence. We really need to lay out very clearly, not just what we’re against, but what we are for. I’m happy to come back and have a longer discussion on all of that. I did lay out some of my views on that front out in Iowa a little while back. But I do think that well we lost the presidential election, so clearly a majority of Americans did not trust the Democrats to take on what they saw was an unacceptable status quo. And we became the party of the status quo, and Trump became somehow the disruptor and outsider. And Democrats traditionally have been the party that takes on powerful special interests. And we somehow were seen-- and I think there are understandable reasons why people thought that we’d become too cozy with some of these powers or special interests, and we do need to take them on, and we need to stand up, and we needed to do it clearly and let people know who we’re fighting for.

Beth Silvers [00:36:36] Well Senator, I’d be glad to have you back anytime. Thank you so much for your time.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen [00:36:50] Thank you.

Beth Silvers [00:36:50] I sense the Senator’s frustration in this conversation, and I know he sensed mine. It is a frustrating moment. I still really appreciate his willingness to show up and talk with me, and Sarah and I welcome the opportunity to talk with anyone in government, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, about where we are, what this government is doing, what is happening to the rule of law? What arguments are we missing? How can we better understand? What can we do? Thank you to Senator Van Hollen and his team. Thank you for listening. Thank you for talking back with us. We’ll be back with you next week. See you then.