Democrats in distress.

What's the plan this week on "Firing Line"?

>> When you stand for everything and you have a million different issues you care about, no one knows your priorities, and I think for Democrats, we need to re-center around the economy and the economic needs of the middle class.

>> Democrat Elissa Slotkin was elected to Congress from a Michigan district that voted for Donald Trump.

In spite of that, she voted twice to impeach him.

>> Article 2 is adopted.

>> I mean, I think that there are some foundational issues to democracy that are worth losing your seat over.

>> She did not lose her seat, and last year, Michigan voters gave her a promotion to the U.S. Senate.

A CIA analyst who served three tours in Iraq, she grilled Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over the deployment of National Guard troops against U.S. citizens in Los Angeles.

>> These troops are given very clear orders.

>> Then what is the order?

Then list it out for us.

Be a man.

List it out.

>> Barack Obama just told Democrats they need to toughen up in response to Trump.

So, what does Senator Elissa Slotkin say now?

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... Robert Granieri The Tepper Foundation Vanessa and Henry Cornell The Fairweather Foundation and by...

The Pritzker Military Foundation >> Senator Elissa Slotkin, welcome back to "Firing Line."

>> Thanks.

Thanks for having me.

>> Data has been released this week that showed inflation has accelerated in June, coming in higher than expected.

Economists have attributed the increase to at least in part Trump's tariffs, which you have called "chaotic" and "sloppy."

After four years, when Democrats downplayed how important inflation was, how are Democrats going to get back credibility on the issue of the economy and inflation?

>> Yeah.

Well, first of all, you have to tell people they actually care about it, and it's a priority for you.

And I think one of the big lessons for the Democratic Party was what happened in the last November election.

I don't think anyone was missing that Donald Trump ran on, you know, helping your pocketbooks.

I think we're going to see whether he's actually going to help your pocketbook.

I don't think it's going the right direction, but he ran on that, and he made it really clear, and that was his priority.

And so, when you stand for everything and you have a million different issues you care about, no one knows your priorities, and I think for Democrats, we need to re-center around the economy and the economic needs of the middle class.

>> This week, President Trump announced a new agreement for the United States to sell weapons to NATO, who will then provide them to Ukraine.

He also warned that he would impose steep tariffs on Russia if Vladimir Putin does not make peace within 50 days.

In the past, you have not hesitated to criticize President Trump for, quote, "hosing up to dictators and kicking our allies in the teeth," but you did give him credit for recognizing that Putin cannot be trusted.

>> Finally.

Finally.

>> Do you give him -- Do you believe he will follow through?

>> You know, I think this -- President Trump clearly thought that he could handle Putin, that he, as a dealmaker, could come in and solve the Ukraine crisis.

He always, I think, gave preferential sort of treatment and credit to Vladimir Putin in ways that I could never understand.

They have a bromance I just do not get.

So I think that the President is learning what many of us were real clear on, which is Putin can't be trusted, he's not an honest actor, and he's trying to apply more pressure.

Whether that works or not by giving him yet another goal post, we'll see.

I don't think Putin is looking to bend to anybody when it comes to Ukraine.

>> Are we between the bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities and a change of heart vis-a-vis Putin potentially seeing a return to U.S. deterrence?

>> You know, I don't know.

I think President Trump, he watched how quickly he wanted to stop talking about that bombing in the Middle East.

I think for most Presidents, if they have a relatively successful bombing of nuclear facilities, they're talking about that for more than two days.

>> It does send a signal to our adversaries, though, doesn't it?

>> Absolutely.

I mean, I think, for sure, I mean, when it came to that strike, to me, it was, you know, that sort of strange feeling when someone you don't like does something you think is potentially a good thing.

>> Yeah.

>> But I think the President really sort of took the strike and sent a signal to the Iranians, who, for many years, have not believed, fundamentally.

>> Not just the Iranians.

>> Right.

>> Right, right.

>> Well... >> Xi Jinping, potentially, Vladimir Putin.

I mean, I think, certainly, when we talk about deterrence in military terms, we talk about capabilities and intent.

You know, everyone knows, I think, we have the most powerful military in the world, but do we actually use it?

I think a lot of countries around the world are just not sure, and with the strike in Iran, I will say that it sent a signal, particularly in the Middle East, that if you don't engage with us productively, we will, America will act.

>> Senate Republicans this week voted to approve President Trump's request to rescind $9 billion in already appropriated funds, including $1 billion of public broadcasting.

What is your reaction to the potential impact, broadly, but also to PBS?

>> I mean, for me, first of all, I think it's hard to overstate how many rural communities around the country depend exclusively on the news, the warnings, the alerts, the weather alerts that come out of their local news station, which is an affiliate of public broadcasting.

It's hard to overstate how many of us grew up on things like Sesame Street and educational programming that was only available because of public broadcasting.

I looked across the aisle at my colleagues who were voting yes on this cut.

You know, this is part of money that they supported a year ago.

You know, Congress has the power of the purse.

That's in the Constitution.

Like, that's foundational.

And my colleagues are just willing to give away all their power and say, "You know what?

If the President tells us to cut something that we voted on a year ago, let's go ahead and cut it."

It really undercuts the leadership of this branch of government.

So I think we're gonna see more of these packages, and it's gonna have more deep impact on American citizens.

>> So even though this is a small amount of money, this has a consequence far beyond.

>> Yes.

And I think it's interesting, right, 'cause in the past 2 1/2, 3 weeks, we voted on the President's signature piece of legislation, the big, beautiful bill, which increased American U.S. debt by $3 trillion, with a "T," trillion dollars.

So then this week, when we go to change and cut back on $9 billion, I just want everyone to remember, like, trillions versus billions -- billions, in this case, is a drop in a bucket compared to the $3 trillion we just added to our debt.

>> Why would the Senate voluntarily choose to undermine their own power?

>> I think that it just comes down to pressure and fear.

I mean, it's not any more complicated than that.

>> What are they scared of?

>> They're scared of him putting the hot spotlight right on them, having all his followers go after them.

They're worried about getting a primary challenge and him paying for it.

And then, at a very base sort of level that I'm sympathetic with, they are worried about their physical security if he riles people up against them.

And I've seen that, right?

We've seen leadership climate is set at the top.

If he turns against someone, we shouldn't be surprised when people at the grassroots level are plotting against some of these people.

So I sort of feel for them, but if you are scared to cast a vote that you know is important to your constituents, this isn't the right job for you.

Find something else to do.

>> Strikes me that it's easy to say for somebody who's been on three tours in Iraq, but most people don't sign up for the Senate thinking they're putting their lives in danger.

>> I understand, but, like, this is the era we're living in, right?

So either steal your spine, accept that you're never gonna be able to make everybody happy and that's the way we are right now, and just suck it up, buttercup, like it's a tough job.

>> And that your votes might put you in physical danger, and that's -- >> I wish it weren't that way.

It's terrible, and I live that way, too, right?

But if this is -- if that's too much for you, there are a lot of other jobs for you out there.

>> Since the 2024 election, the Democratic Party has been through an intense period of soul-searching.

A poll just this week says 4 in 10 Americans think the Democratic Party's doing a good job.

You are a Democrat who won statewide in a state that Donald Trump won decisively.

Many Michiganders voted Trump's lot can, thousands.

You have said you're not waiting for anybody to figure out what the future of the Democratic Party is, so you've created your own war plan to move forward.

>> Yeah.

>> Seems to me the central premise is about savings and the economy.

Is it the economy, stupid?

>> Yeah.

I mean, this is the United States of America.

We -- people have been raised -- I was -- on the American dream, that if you work hard and you play by the rules, you will do well and your kids will do better.

That is the central sort of bargain, right?

And not that government is supposed to provide everything for you.

We don't believe that, right?

In Michigan, no one expects handouts.

They expect the government to create the conditions for their success, and then they have to get up every day and work hard to earn it, right?

That, to me, is the handshake deal we have as Americans.

And right now, people do not feel that that deal stands, right?

Whether you're my age and you can't afford to send your kids to college, you can't, you know, take your kids to Disneyland, you can't pay for summer camp, or the youngest generation that's graduating college and saying, "I'm never gonna have the life that my parents had.

I'm never gonna afford the house that they can afford."

So I think we have to treat that with the sort of power that it deserves, which is -- and I say this as a national security person by training -- the biggest threat to our country right now, the existential threat, is the shrinking of the middle class.

And it's been going on for a while, but, man, we have hit a boiling point.

And until we accept that all the pain and the anger and the polarization going on in the country is 'cause people feel like they can't get ahead, and when they can't get ahead, they blame other people.

>> Yeah.

President Obama chided Democrats saying they need to toughen up against Donald Trump.

You have said we need more alpha energy in the Democratic Party.

>> Oh, yeah.

>> Are you and former President Obama saying the same thing?

>> You know, I -- you know, that -- I don't know if we're saying the exact same thing, but it sort of smells the same, right?

And I think this idea that Democrats are so careful and they're so caveated and they're so worried about offending each other, offending other people, they're so worried about pissing off people on the Internet, they're -- they live often in a world where they constrain themselves.

>> Are they too sensitive?

>> I think some of them, sure, are too sensitive.

And this is, to me, the central point is, like, especially with Donald Trump in the White House, this is just not a moment to be careful and polite.

We need a plan.

We need to be on the same page.

We need to play as a team.

We need to call out when someone isn't helping the team, and we need to hug someone when they do something great.

>> Sounds like what you're saying is, you know, Republicans fear Trump, and Democrats fear each other's factions.

>> Sometimes it's fear Twitter, you know?

I've been shocked.

You know, I'm new to the Senate.

Six months in, how many of my peers said, "Well, Elissa, I'd love to be with you on that issue, but, you know, Twitter will be mad.

You know, the Internet, people will be mad at me."

>> They literally say that?

>> Yeah.

That there'll be a bad online response.

>> Okay.

You've drafted a war plan for Democrats.

It includes support for small businesses.

>> Yeah.

>> Deregulation and stimulating the housing market and all of the above energy plan.

Education reform, a public option for health insurance.

All of this is about the economy.

It takes on certain sacred cows, as you say.

>> Slaughters them.

>> Slaughters sacred cows.

Whose sacred cows?

>> The parties.

A lot of Democrats, you know, know that we tend to be the party of additional regulation, and each individual regulation probably comes from a very good place, right?

You want to protect the environment.

You want to protect kids.

You want -- So, each one is done with the right intentions, but the cumulative effect of all those regulations on top of each other, like a pile, means you can't build enough single-family homes, right?

And so, we have to look at the net effect and be willing to say, "Well, some of these need to come off," right?

We can't regulate ourselves into not enough middle-class housing, right, which is sort of what we've done.

So, you got to face that forward.

And people may say, "Yeah, that sounds right," but then when you go to take off that regulation that they feel attached to, they scream "bloody murder," right?

And that's the kind of alpha-energy part, where you got to say, "Hey, I get it that regulation made sense to you 10 years ago.

It doesn't make sense now.

It's holding us back, and no one gets the right to hold the whole country back like that."

We got to have those tough conversations.

>> So, you have said that the seminal sort of split in the Democratic Party isn't about progressives versus moderates.

But Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have drawn thousands of people to their fighting oligarchy rallies across the country.

In New York City, potentially the new face of the Democratic Party nationally is a Democratic socialist who is the Democratic nominee for mayor.

Are you so sure that the populist-progressive energy in the party isn't the seminal split, with the kind of vision that you're articulating should be the one for the party?

>> So, you know, I take the message coming out of, let's say the New York City elections or those rallies, as actually confirmation of two things.

The country is still laser-focused on cost of living and the economy, right?

>> Yeah.

>> And then, number two, they're looking for a new generation of leadership.

They're looking for different faces.

Like, I think it's hard to miss those themes.

Now, I have a lot of disagreements with, you know, the -- Mr. Mamdani and other people.

>> The policy solutions are totally different from what you're articulating.

>> They're very different.

>> They don't want to fix regulation like you just said.

You know, they'd rather take an approach to attack the market to make housing affordable.

>> But you know what?

If we can at least have a sit-down conversation about what the problems are, we can duke it out on policy, and I'm ready to have those conversations.

But, man, I mean, I think it's an overall positive thing that the message is being drummed into our heads.

It's the economy.

It's the economy.

It's the economy.

And we can have the argument, and we will, about the right policies.

I would offer that an election in New York City is important for New York City.

It doesn't have a lot to do with the state of Michigan and the part of the country I'm from.

But the sentiment that the economy is not working for all people, not just Republicans who voted for Trump or people in New York City, that is the headline to me, and if we are missing that, then, you know, we got bigger problems.

>> Maamdani has refused to condemn the term "globalized intifada."

He has reportedly told Jewish business leaders and business leaders in New York that he will now discourage the use of the term.

But leaders like Senator Chuck Schumer have said what "globalized the intifada" means is really wrong and should be condemned.

If this is the new face of the Democratic Party, should it be condemned?

Are you comfortable with him not being willing to condemn the term "globalized intifada"?

>> I have a problem with it because for people like me and a lot of other people, I know it's an offensive term.

It connotes violence.

Now, there's lots of other people, and I represent the largest Arab and Muslim American population in the country, and I have had long conversations with people where they will say, "That's just not how I mean it.

That's not how I interpret it."

And I said, "I get it."

But I think that, in general, especially as an elected official, if there's a term that is automatically offensive and scary to a certain group that I represent, I stop using it.

>> You mentioned that you have one of the largest Arab American populations in the country.

And in November, you won Detroit's heavily Arab American suburbs while Kamala Harris lost them.

You have said recently about the violence in Gaza and in Israel and the West Bank, "This violence has to end if President Trump and his team truly want a lasting ceasefire, not to mention a Nobel Peace Prize.

They need to extract basic humanitarian and law-and-order standards now."

Given your success navigating this issue, what is the right posture for the Democratic Party moving forward?

>> You know, I think, well, my experience working on these issues since October 7th is there's no single issue that's been harder in my state that's more personal to more people.

But I'm also heavily influenced by my time doing three tours in Iraq as a CIA officer, right?

Seeing issues of war and conflict and humanitarian aid up close.

And I think what I've tried to do, probably not perfectly, is just call balls and strikes on what's happening in the region.

And that means call balls and strikes when it comes to what Hamas has done.

It means calling balls and strikes on what the Netanyahu government has done and is doing.

And I feel, you know, after this weekend, there was a lot of violence around getting aid out to people, hungry people.

There were people attacked by settlers in the West Bank.

This is not about whether Israel has the right to defend itself, which I believe.

It's about basic humanitarian and law-and-order standards.

I felt strongly about it.

But I certainly, no matter what I say in this issue, I'm going to get blowback.

>> I noticed you made the distinction between saying Israel and the Netanyahu government.

Why is that distinction important to you?

>> Well, the distinction's important because Trump is our President, and I don't want to be judged by the world by Donald Trump, right?

I'm an American who loves my country, who doesn't agree with my President.

And there's plenty of Israelis who either privately or publicly have issues with what their government is doing, so I don't blame an entire civilian population, just like I don't want to be blamed for some of the insane things I think Donald Trump does.

We are a people, not just one person.

>> After Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, on the original firing line, Bill Buckley hosted a debate about the urgency of addressing the national debt.

Here's what Buckley had to say then.

>> Will Governor Clinton raise taxes?

I mean, other than in the purely exhibitionistic way of preying on the rich, 1% of whom, at present, are paying 27% of all taxes by taxing them all.

Good populist electioneering boob bait.

Never mind the consequences on the choke points of economic entrepreneurship.

Never mind the exiguous returns to the Treasury if you assert a tax not by 10%, which Clinton proposes, but by 100%.

All the income of those who earned $1 million or more -- and this could be done only once, of course -- you could finance the cost of the federal government for a grand total of 17 days.

>> That was more than 30 years ago.

If we collected every dollar owned by U.S. billionaires today, it would cover about a sixth of the national debt.

We are currently servicing our debt at a rate that is higher than our national defense spending.

Is this an urgent issue?

And how will a new Democratic party that can win broadly tackle this credibly?

>> Most people, like the average person, understands that when you're doing a household budget, you got to know how much is coming in and how much is going out.

And it's the same thing for the U.S. government.

And Democrats are known as the ones who spend.

Republicans are the ones who cut the income coming in, right?

Cut taxes so there's not as much money coming in.

And the actual answer is rational adults could get in a room and figure this out if both sides were willing to cut to slaughter some sacred cows.

>> But Buckley was making that argument 30 years ago.

>> Well, I can't speak for 30 years ago.

I can tell you right now, we are -- our political system is unwell.

And when we're unwell, we don't do the things that adults should be doing, right?

We don't deal with the really big issues.

Debt being a huge one of them.

I will tell you the other one I think about every day that we're not addressing -- artificial intelligence and what that's going to do to our economy, what that's going to do to jobs.

We need left and right limits on that, but we're not having that conversation because we're busy shooting, you know, bullets at each other on political issues and Jeffrey Epstein and everything else.

>> Another one that we know how to solve is immigration.

And you have said you're going to -- one of the sacred cows you'll slaughter is that you -- we don't have to do a comprehensive immigration bill.

But it could be taken in bits and pieces.

You've also co-sponsored a bill that would require immigration and customs enforcement officers to clearly display identification and not cover their faces during immigration raids.

The President referenced the people who sponsored that bill and said they wouldn't be saying this if they didn't hate our country.

How do you respond?

>> Well, between the two of us, there's one of us that served our country abroad in a war zone.

There's one of us who gets up every morning and respects the Constitution.

There's one of us who understands that governing is not about yourself and milking the cow that is America.

So I challenge him any day of the week on who's patriotic.

You can't say you're patriotic and then undercut the damn Constitution every damn day.

But I stand by the bill, right?

Again, I was a CIA officer.

But for the U.S. military and law enforcement, if you are active in the United States, you should have to display that you are military or law enforcement.

If a gang of people wearing, you know, all black came -- when masks came up to me while I'm walking down the street, you know, in Flint, Michigan, I would have no idea, "Is this a political hit?

Is this a gang?

Is this law enforcement?"

Who knows?

People have the right to know when they are being arrested.

And I think it creates this fear.

It creates a sense that we are living in authoritarian times.

It's un-American.

>> There is major upheaval in the MAGA movement at the moment and with the President.

With respect to Jeffrey Epstein, who died in prison in 2019, much of the criticism comes from Trump's own base, who have embraced conspiracy theories about Epstein for years.

Democrats, including one of your colleagues, Senator Ruben Gallego, has also begun to raise questions, and he introduced a resolution this week calling for the Department of Justice to release more documents related to the investigation, saying, "The American people deserve the truth."

Is this all politics, or are there serious issues of transparency... >> Yeah.

>> ...that are important here?

>> Yeah.

I genuinely have no idea what's in these files, right?

But the President and his allies have created so much anticipation about these files.

At this point, it's just weird that they're not releasing them, right?

The President fomented this.

And, again, I have no special knowledge, but, you know, the President has a bad breakup with Elon Musk.

Elon Musk says he's in the Epstein files.

You know, the President is defending vociferously Pam Bondi.

I'm not used to him defending, you know, people who work for him so much.

And the President's yelling at his supporters.

I'm just telling you, as an outsider to this story, it looks like there's something in there.

>> Where there's smoke, there's fire.

>> Right, so just release them, and let's get on to actual real work here.

I think that's the thing.

And so the President is certainly presenting in a way that sounds like he really doesn't want those files released.

So he's adding to this, you know, fuel to this fire.

He created this fire, right?

And I'm sorry, you can't be both the arsonist and the firefighter.

Like, you started this thing.

So just release them, and let's move on to the real work of the country.

>> One final question.

What is your bottom-line advice to the Democratic Party?

>> For me, let's start from a place that the economy, the cost of living, and the American dream is the unifying theme, and let's have some serious sit-down conversations about policy and how to move forward.

But let's start from the place where we have unity, 'cause in this environment, if we don't have unity, we're not really putting a serious foot forward.

>> Do you have more confidence that Democrats can do that than the Republicans?

>> I think that the real work of the Democratic Party, particularly for those who are leading in elected office, is to have the tough conversations that we haven't had in a long time about the future of the party and get our act together, even if those conversations are hard.

>> Senator Slotkin, thank you for returning to "Firing Line."

>> Thank you.

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... Robert Granieri The Tepper Foundation Vanessa and Henry Cornell The Fairweather Foundation and by...

The Pritzker Military Foundation ♪♪ (guitar strum) You're watching PBS