In a world of constant change, business transformation is essential, and technology is the key enabler. At PwC, we have the deep industry experience to guide reinvention. This is transformation, human-led, tech-powered. This is PwC. Visit pwc. Ie to see how.

From the New York Times, this is the interview. I'm Lulu Garcia Navarro. It's been a blizzard of political news over the past few weeks as President Donald Trump and his billionaire backer Elon Musk try to remake America's government. From dismantling federal agencies to the mass fire hiring of federal workers, the duo's frenzied efforts are testing both the courts and the opposition. Democrats, having lost the Senate and the presidency, are struggling to come up with a unified strategy, not only to stop Trump's agenda, but also to win back the voters they need to move towards him in the election. It's a real moment of soul searching for the party. So over the next month, I'll be having a series of conversations with influential Democratic politicians to understand their internal debates about the way forward. My first is with Arizona's junior Democratic Senator, Ruben Gallegos. Gallegos win over Republican Kerry Lake was one of the few bright spots for Democrats in November. A former member of the House, Gallegher won in a race by overperforming Kamala Harris among key demographics that Democrats have struggled with, especially men and Latinos. Gallegos is the son of an immigrant single mother and grew up poor.

He eventually went to Harvard and then became a Marine fighting in Iraq, and ultimately ended up in politics where he says his story of struggle and success helped him connect to voters. He has a lot of advice for and criticism of Democrats right now. As I discovered when I sat down with him earlier this week in Washington, DC. Hi, how are you?

Gracias.

. Oh, man, now I'm intimidating.

You're supposed to be way better than I am. Here's my conversation with Senator Ruben Gallego.

Senator, I almost don't know where to start because so much has happened in such a short amount of time. It occurs to me you're a first-term senator, but you were in the House for about 10 years before that. You were in Congress during the first Trump administration.

I was, actually, yeah.

I guess I'm wondering, does this time feel different?

It does. Two things. Number one, a lot of what you see Trump is doing now is what he tried the first time around. But this time around, we don't have Republican allies. What that means is that we're basically fighting on our own. For me, this is more reminiscent of when I in the State House, when the Republicans had full control of the House, the Senate, and the governor's- In Arizona. Yeah, and the governor's in Arizona. There was just no way stopping them except for trying to find the best way to bring to light what problems they were causing, what they were violating, what they were going to overall just turning the state into. Right now, I think that's where you're seeing a lot of the Democratic establishment, party elected officials, trying to figure out what to do.

Do you see a shift in how seriously the party is taking this moment?

I do think that the party, and at least talking to my colleagues, are starting to see that this is an existential threat if they keep going down this road. If we can't rely on the judiciary to be part of those checks and balances, then what is left? I think what I'm seeing is a lot of people that are just frozen. It's something that happens a lot when situations come out of the norm. People want make something that's not normal, normal, because if you actually have to accept the reality, it gets very, very scary.

I guess the big question for Democrats is what it means to be an effective opposition party. I think there are two issues here. One is what Democrats should actually do to counter Trump's actions, and the other is how you should communicate what you're doing. On the first, there is talk of using government spending, which has to be negotiated by March 14th as leverage. Obviously, the risk is that if there is a shutdown, the Democrats will be blamed for that at a moment when indeed, the party is trying to reach voters, rebuild itself, communicate that it is a party worth voting for? Is the risk too high?

I mean, the risk is always there. We can't be afraid of failing. That's number one. I think that's the biggest mistake I've seen Democrats do is that we're always afraid. We're always afraid of failing, so we don't take risks. It's okay for us to recognize that that is a potential fallback, but we could also be working to mitigate that somehow. What does that look like? Making sure that we meet the moment where the American public is. Maybe that moment will happen soon. I'm not sure it's March 15th, but making sure that we're talking to them. We're showing them that we're the ones that are trying to be the people that are, number one, protecting the Constitution, number two, for you because all this BS that's happening right now, prices are still high, the cost of eggs are still high, people can't buy homes. I think that's the one thing that we still need to figure out how to pivot back because that's where the Republicans are the weakest at. They own this economy now, and they're not doing stuff for everyday Americans right now.

I could see you in your brain changing the word.

My wife warned me before I left for work today, not to swear. Okay. But the problem is, I think we have to separate what we're hearing from the DC crowd, from what we're hearing in the streets, from what we're hearing about everyday common Americans. Because I go back to Arizona, they're actually not talking about USAID, and they're not talking about the courts. They're still talking about egg prices. They're still talking about the cost of everything. So one of the things we have to be very mindful of is that we may engage in a fight, but the rest of the American public may not be with us because they don't understand this fight. And we need to make sure that we're matching our politics to what actually is happening in the world because sometimes when we have that disconnect, we miss, and then we miss really, really badly. Unfortunately, now we know we can't miss because when we do, it has political fallout. The stuff that's happening right now is because we entirely miss where the American public was during the 2024 election.

I want to take a step back because, as we've mentioned, Democrats are trying to redefine their party. And your victory in a state that Trump won has been framed as possibly offering a model for what message actually works. You outperformed Harris in your state, meaning that you won over some Trump voters. Why do you think that happened?

Because I do understand that not all Trump voters are actual straight down the line Trump voters. I think there's a lot of people that voted for Trump because they were frustrated with what was happening in this country, and we weren't afraid to reach out to them. We went to some of the hardest places in the state, some Republican counties. We sat down with Trump supporters. We weren't afraid to talk to them, and we did it repeatedly.

You think Democrats are afraid to talk to Trump voters?

I think Democrats are afraid to talk to Trump voters. I think Democrats are afraid to talk to people that are going to criticize them. I think that's... You're just... In a state like Arizona, there's 300,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats in Arizona. I had no choice. It was either do it or you're not going to make it. So we went out there. We sat down, we met with them. Our messaging also was very, very clear to the everyday Arizona, which I think is very different than from the national campaign was.

Why do you think Democrats are afraid to talk to Trump voters?

I don't know. I feel like if a lot of them had been doing it, I think they probably would have done a little better. Why aren't they going into the reddest areas of the country and talk to them? Donald Trump goes to Harlem. Do we go to the equivalent of Harlem for the red a voter? No, we don't.

I want to talk through some demographic groups that Democrats really need to win back if they want to be competitive.

Everybody?

Yeah. I mean, men, for example. You've been described to me as a bro, and not in a bad way. You won Latino men by 30 points in an election that saw Trump dominate that group. I know men are a very broad group, but what do you Democrats have misunderstood about men?

We could be working to make the status of men better without at the same time diminishing the status of women. A lot of times, we forget that we still need men to vote for us. That's how we still win elections. But we don't really talk about making the life of men better, working to make sure that they have wages so they could support their families. I also think some of this is just purely psychological that a lot of times we just can't put our finger on. But during my campaign, I noticed when I was talking to men, especially Latino men, about the feeling of pride, bringing money home, being able to support your family, the feeling of bringing security. For them, they wanted to hear that someone understood that need. A lot of times, we are so afraid, I think, of communicating that to men because we think somehow we're going to also diminish the status of women. I think that we need to understand that that's going to end up being a The fact that we don't talk this way at all to them makes them just think that we don't really care about them.

When in fact, even when we're not talking about them and we're not campaigning about them, the Democrats on par are actually very good about the status of working class men. I think Democrats need to figure out how we communicate that to guys and be like, Hey, we're going to make sure that you're going to have a good paying job so you can start a family, go out. It was a joke, but I said a lot when I was talking to Latino men, I'm going to make sure you get out your mom's house, you get your troquita. For English speakers, that means your truck. Every Latino man wants a big ass truck, which is nothing wrong with that either. You're going to go start your own job and you're going to become rich. These are the conversations that we should be having. For some reason, we have become... We're afraid of saying these types of things. We're afraid of saying, Hey, let's help you get a job so you become rich. We use terms like, Bro, bring more economic stability to you. These guys don't They don't want economic stability. They want to really live the American dream.

Honestly, the reason I think I did better than most male Democratic politicians is because I communicated that to them in a very simplistic terms, and that's it.

I think one of the difficulties maybe for Democrats is that what you're describing is more traditional values, right?

But people vote on values.

But are you saying that Democrats should recognize that people want more traditional gender roles? Be less Are you afraid of that?

No, I think Democrats should recognize that people want them to understand that they matter. But it doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to say the single mom is less important than the father. That's not what we're saying. But just saying Yes, you matter, too. You matter in this world. You are deserving of a government that's going to respond because supposedly, as Democrats, we're supposed to be fighting for everybody. But the way that these men think about things and look at the world, they don't see that. As someone that grew up on job sites, construction sites, I worked in factories. If you go to these construction sites, these factories, the type of communication you're hearing, these guys talking to each other, it's very much not at all what we think.

Tell me what that means.

Well, working class men, especially Latino men, don't really listen to political commercials. They don't watch TV news. They largely will talk amongst themselves. Sometimes other working class men will come in with their opinion, and that's the only thing they're hearing. That's it.

There's the WhatsApp groups. Come on.

Yeah. Those WhatsApp groups aren't good for Democrats either. No. We have to break I mean, so one of the things I did is I would host morning tacos at work sites, right, during the election. I would go set up knowing when the 5: 30 AM shift was coming off. I set up tacos and I'd hand out tacos to the dudes and I got to talk to them about life. We have to understand where they are. We have to understand what they're hearing, because what they're hearing is that the Democrats aren't really for them. And they're hearing it from the one dude that heard it from WhatsApp or the one dude that's listening to talk radio. And there's no one saying, well, No, actually, I heard from another guy that Democrats are actually doing this. It just doesn't happen because there's no way for us to give them that information because we're not going to where they are.

After the midterms in 2022, when Democrats did better than expected, many Democrats, and you included, seemed to take away that there wasn't this rightward shift among the Latino community. In fact, you said, and I'm quoting your reporters, we're talking about realignment. There's no effing realignment.

You said effing.

I said effing. That's not the word you used. Why did you get it wrong?

Because I was right then. In 2022, this is when I was the head of the Congressional Hispanic Cau, we had polling that showed that there was no slippage happening because men, especially Latino men, were frustrated, but they felt that things were getting better. There was also an understanding, especially from women, that Democrats were better for them. With the recession, with the personal recession, not necessarily the government recession, continuing on more and more and more. And with housing pricing not going down, that's when things just started sliding. Economically, we weren't meeting the demands they were. I think they were willing to be hopeful because Biden had just gotten in. A lot of the stimulus money still had not worn out. But starting around early 2023, a lot of the stimulus money went away because we negotiated with the Republicans for it to go away. Interest rates stayed high. For a lot of families, Latino families, owning a home, buying a home is part of the American dream, and now it has gotten even further and further away. So the economics just did not improve. As soon as some of us heard it, we started putting up the warning signs, but it just wasn't heard.

Lastly, what also is the difference is that the way that Trump communicates is actually more apt to get younger Latino men voters because where they gather their information, where they listen to politics, is where Trump is more often versus where we are. He's on podcasts all the time. He's at UFC fights. He's at all these things where they actually see him being a real, quote unquote, man. And going into the election 2023, I also warned Democrats about that we needed to get out there. I had a lot of recommendations that weren't listened to. I wanted President Biden to go to the Copa América game and sit next to some Latino celebrity. I love boxing. I'm like, let's go to some boxing matches. Let's take some Democrats to boxing matches and meet where a lot of Latinos are. The fact is when you go into a big election in 2024 and you're going to have a lot of young men coming to vote for the first time that didn't vote in 2022. All they're learning about politics is through podcasts, through UC fights. We're going to start losing that vote if we don't, and we did, and we need to figure out how to get into that world.

I was actually shocked to learn that President Trump was the first sitting President to go to a Super Bowl game.

Yeah, and he'll do everything, right? Why are we not doing it? I'll tell you why, because I have heard this before, and I'm not going to tell you which politician was worried about this, but their staff told me, I don't want my guy getting booed. It's like, well, I mean, so you don't expose yourself to anybody, but then you also don't expose yourself to anybody. And again, this isn't just the President. This is everybody really running last year. This is the thing that we have to understand is Democrats. If we're not willing to be booed, take chances, the people that really get hurt are the people that we're supposedly in office for, the people that are barely making it now. And they're going to be hurt because we didn't take chances.

I want to turn to the subject of class. I interviewed JD Vance before the election. Even though your politics are obviously very different than his, your backgrounds do share similar traits. It's working class, raised by single mothers, military service in Iraq, went to the Ivy League. That story of class transition does seem to resonate with voters.

Well, I think most voters want to believe and do believe in the American dream. I think when they see examples of that being true, that gives them some hope. I'm sure JD heard this, but I certainly heard about this on the campaign trail from single moms who brought their kids up to me and like, I want them to meet you because I want them to be like you. He's growing up in the same situation that I am or that you were. Sometimes people miss it. I remember during my campaigns, some of my advisors said, You can't talk about Harvard. I'm like, Why not? Well, you want to talk, you want working class people to like you. Tell me you went to Harvard, you're going to remind them that you're not part of that. I'm like, No, you're not getting it. Working class people appreciate kids going to college. They appreciate especially kids that came from poverty going to college because that's part of the story, a part of the American dream. I think whether it comes from left or right, the example really matters, especially when things are rough. But you need that hope to hang on to because that's what helps you get through those days, especially those hard days, is knowing that things will get better.

This is, psychologically, what people miss about this campaign is when people started feeling like it's not going to get better. That should have been a big tell that things were going to go south.

Something I really struggle to reconcile is, on the one hand, you have voters saying that the economy and inflation are their top issues, and they feel the pain of price increases, which is completely understandable. On the other hand, under Trump, we now have the richest cabinet in modern history. The world's richest person is gutting the federal government. Yet, polls show the president starting his second term with higher approval ratings than when he began his first term. It sends this confusing message about what the electorate actually wants. I don't think so. You have class as a central part of your story. Why don't you think it's a confusing message?

Because people that are working class, poor, don't necessarily look at the ultra-rich as their competitors. They want to be rich someday. So they don't necessarily fault the quote unquote rich for them being rich. Where they do fault them is when it starts affecting them. So they're going to give Elon and his little weirdos the benefit of doubt, and they're going to give Donald Trump the benefit of doubt until it proves that it's actually affecting them personally. And that's when you'll see them start pushing back. If you look, historically speaking, the thing that finally started moving Donald Trump's numbers away before the 2018 elections was when he gave a massive tax cut to the rich. So I think that's what's going to end up happening. I think this administration is going to give a massive tax cut to the rich. They're going to do it by cutting Medicaid and other programs for the poor. That's when you're going to see people saying, No, that's not what I want.

The democratic message among some Democrats is eat the rich, right? No, it's not going to work. That's not the right message.

No, these people want to be rich. They want to be rich. Most Democrats The base Democratic voter wants to be rich, and there's nothing wrong with that. Our job is to expose when there are abuses by the rich, the wealthy, the powerful. Then that's how we get those people that want to aspire to that to vote for Democrats.

Elon Musk, Donald Trump, are these the people who have actually figured out how to connect with the working class? Yes.

We just had an election that proved that.

Why?

Well, I think because they are... I think they both are two things that I think a lot of politicians are. Number one, they actually understand the consumer. Because Because they are engaged in every day, one way or the other, trying to talk to the consumer, and in this case, it's the voter.

They're a salesman, essentially. Yeah, exactly. They understand who the client is.

The client is the voter. They They don't care, by the way, that's the thing. They don't care how they get the sale done. This is why you saw during the campaign, Trump said, You know what? No tax on tips. We're not going to tax on security, all this stuff. On the other side, people were like, Well, that's where they're going to do something and do an imbalance to the budget deficit. Why did Donald Trump care? He just wanted her to win. What is Elon Musk going to do? He just wants to win. He knows where the voter is, and he'll get there however he can get there.

After the break, I asked Senator Gallegio about a contentious issue where he's challenged his party Immigration.

Listen to the immigration groups because they have good legal advice. Do not listen to the immigration groups if they tell you that this is a representation of where Latinos are because they are totally off.

In a world of constant change, business transformation is essential, and technology is the key enabler. At PwC, we have the deep industry experience to guide reinvention. This is transformation, human-led, tech-powered. This is PWC. Visit PWC. Ie to see how.

New York Times cooking saves me time because it The instructions are so clear, so simple.

There's not a day I do not open the app.

The salmon curry, right? Just coconut milk, some greens, throw some salmon in, and 25 minutes later, you have something I would have probably never made before.

The perfect chocolate cookies. Those are to die for. Those little tiny snapshots, they make your mouth water a little bit.

I always read all the comments for what people are substituting.

So I just put in gluten free, and all of the comments that have gluten free in there comes up.

Low-key, one of my favorite parts about the app is the screen stays on while you're cooking. Every time I open the app, there are brand new recipes. They all look phenomenal, and they've never disappointed. If I didn't have New York Times cooking app, I'll be lost. That's true story. Hey, it's Eric Kim from New York Times cooking. Come cook with us. Go to nytcooking. Com.

I want to ask you specifically about immigration, which was one of the central issues of the election, as we mentioned, and one that really hurt Democrats. I'm curious how your own story your view of the immigration debate. Your parents emigrated from Colombia and Mexico. What was your family's experience with the immigration system?

Well, so most of my experience with the immigration system was already done. My mom was a naturalized citizen when I was born. My father was a legal green card holder then. I don't know what his status is now. But my experience was, for example, crossing the border fairly easily, back and forth, going to in Mexico and then coming back when I used to work on the farm. But then it's also my experience talking to... I have a very extended family on both sides about their frustration, like wanting to come to United States? For example, talking to family in Mexico that had been waiting for their green card or had been waiting for their work visas and waiting forever. Or even recently, the last six years with a refugee crisis at the border, hearing from Latinos most immigrant Latinos saying, Wait a minute, why is that person crossing the border and getting a work permit and my cousin still doesn't have a work permit? I think being closer to where your everyday Latino is on immigration is really what helped set my policy mindset because what you were hearing was entirely different from what you were hearing from groups and other opinion leaders about where Latinos were on the border and immigration.

There's nuance within our communities, within the immigrant community. They can tell the difference, or they tell the difference between recent immigrants that came in legally, immigrants that came in 10 years ago illegally, and refugees in asylum seekers right now. A lot of them will say, That person that came in legally, yes. That person came in 10 years ago. They shouldn't come in illegally, but they're part of the community now. Let's give them an opportunity to be US citizens or come out of the shadows. That person that just crossed the border claiming asylum, and now they get a work permit, that's BS. That's not right. If you're in that community, that makes sense to you. But if you're out and looking in, which a lot of Democrats do, that doesn't make sense. You just draw a general idea that they all think the same, and they just don't.

As Senator, your first vote was for the Lake and Reilly Act. You were one of two Democratic co-sponsors of the bill, the other one being John Federman of Pennsylvania. Many in the immigrant advocacy community were, shall we say, unhappy with that position. They have criticized the law. They say it raises due process concerns for immigrants. Another big concern is that it will give states more control over immigration policy, essentially gutting federal authority over that. What was your thinking behind voting for the Lincoln Raleigh Act?

Well, my thinking was behind voting it for the second time because I voted also in the House of Representatives, is that this is, again, a response to talking to voters, and they wanted more immigration control and reform. Look, what happened in Lake and Raleigh was horrible. Look, these immigration groups, again, have some very valid points in some areas. But where they're attacking or where they're moving is not necessarily in line, again, where the majority of voters or even the immigrant community are. I heard from them a lot. The one thing I heard from them is like, this is not what Latinos want. They don't want this bill. I'm like, that's actually not true. I go home and there's a lot of support for bills like this. Certainly, I think that there is a mismatch right now. The immigration groups have moved to a point where they somehow started representing that they represent the voice of Latinos, and they don't. They're not even close. One of the things I've been very clear also telling my center is, listen to the immigration groups because they have good legal advice. Do not listen to the immigration groups if they tell you that this is the representation of where Latinos are because they are totally off.

I'm responding to what I saw and heard out in Arizona, and that's why I've supported last year and this year.

This bill does seem to want to change the nature of how immigration is done in this country. And writ large, the architect of this administration's immigration policies is Stephen Miller, who in the past has promoted hardline views by citing the work of white nationalists websites, and that's according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. There does seem to be a strain in this administration that does want to change the makeup of this country.

Without a doubt, yeah.

Do you worry that voters' legitimate concerns about our immigration system are being weaponized for ideological ends?

Well, absolutely. But this isn't new. Immigration and border have been weaponized in politics for forever before Donald Trump. When I was involved in the years on a Statehouse, it was being weaponized. None of us should be surprised by it.

Then was it hard for you to cast that vote knowing that context?

No, because this has been happening for the last 20 years. The context that I worry about is how do we get the trust of people back to the point where we can actually bring the immigration conversation to a more normal state of frame. Let me give you a bigger picture of this. When the Democrats basically dropped the ball on the chaos on the border for many years, we essentially lost the debate on immigration reform for years because the everyday voter doesn't trust us on the border and on immigration reform, because for years, they saw that chaos on the border, and we did nothing. The Biden administration finally moved, but by then it had been so long and the damage had been done. By the way, for us that care about immigration reform, and we truly do, and I want to see immigration reform I want to see undocumented families come out of the shadows. I want dreamers to become citizens, everything else like that. We've been set back for years because we hesitated on asylum seekers when we knew in our guts that what was happening there was an abuse of the system was unpopular with Democrats, but somehow we decided that we were going to essentially just give the issue to the Republicans.

We could have had a very sane position on this.

Do you blame President Biden for that?

I blame President Biden, but I also blame a lot of the people that were advising President Biden, a lot of these groups that were advising President Biden. You're only as good as advice that's given to you. But these immigration groups that I think are looking out for people ended up making the situation a lot worse now.

Just understand where you stand on specific issues. For example, should local law enforcement be helping ICE carry out deportations?

No, because if you talk to local law enforcement, and especially in Arizona, talking to sheriffs and talking to the police, they don't have the bandwidth. They don't want to do this. They want to keep the community relationships. Police are there to actually enforce local laws. If it's someone that is a drug runner or criminal and they need police backup, sure. Why wouldn't? If there's a warrant or anything else like that. But no, you shouldn't have police doing local immigration laws, especially because I can't afford it.

Should migrants be sent to Guantanamo or to prisons in El Salvador?

Not migrants that have their due process, and especially not ones that are dangerous, but certainly ones that are severely dangerous, like people that have committed crimes, but we can't legally hold them here. I think there's something to be said about that.

I'm surprised.

For gang members, criminals? Why would you want to keep gang members and criminals that don't even have a legal right to be here, and Venezuela won't take them back?

I think there is a concern that people that get put into these systems, it's like a black hole. It's a legal limbo.

We've been having legal limbo for the immigrant community forever. Guantanamo has been used for refugees and asylum seekers prior to this.

But not ones that have been in the United States. There are people who have been caught at sea. Caught at sea.

Okay, I see what you're saying. Look, at the same time, we're dealing in a very different situation. If there is a hardcore criminal that has gone through our judicial system, but we can't actually deport, what are we going to do? I'm not saying, again, we do this for everybody, but there has to be some logical security that we should be thinking about because they're going to end up being criminals again, especially in these very, very vulnerable communities.

How have you seen the deportation working in the last three weeks since Trump has taken over?

So talking to people in Arizona, talking to ICE agents also. It's caused a lot of fear. Some of the ICE agents are very frustrated also because they feel that they're put on to make an artificial quota, that they first were sent to go after hardcore criminals, and now they're being pushed to just grab anybody. For example, in Arizona, they have a quota of 75 people per day. The frustration, I think, is also in the fact that there's a really any coordination of need. For example, they're bringing investigators off ATF, DEA, and HSI who are actually going after real criminals, both US citizens and non-US citizens, and they're just being thrown in here to essentially do a show of force. It's a frustration on both sides, too. They have families that are living in fear because there's no real communications happening from ICE. The actual agents themselves feel like this is not a good use of my crime, nor taxpayer a dollar for security.

You think it's ineffective?

I think if Donald Trump actually wanted to get rid of these hard core criminals, there is an actual way to do this where you would have a lot of these undocumented families, the ones that I tell you that have been here forever, the ones that have kids that are here that will likely help you. But when you are trying to cast a wide net, you're going to have everyone hide, and you're going to end up probably making a lot of these criminals that are here illegally be able to get away with it.

Do you take Donald Trump and his administration at face value that what they're interested in doing is deporting criminals as opposed to deporting immigrants?

No, I don't take it at face value. This is why where can we have our points of leverage to have them focus on that is going to be the harder question. Because right now, with this election, we basically hand them the keys to everything. So what can we do to actually make them focus on these hardcore criminals is going to be the next, really, the big fight.

As you discussed, there are concerns about Democrats being too deferential to the more liberal parts of the party. Yes, on immigration, but also gender, LGBTQ rights, DEI, whatever it is. These are all things that the right has been hammering Democrats on for a while, and it seems to be working. How do Democrats stand for what they believe in without being seen by voters as being outside of the mainstream?

Well, I think the first problem is it's easier for us to be hit as being extremists if we're not also known for something. If we're not fighting to make someone's life better, to minimize or bring down the cost of living, raise wages. If we're not actively fighting for that, it's going to be easier for people to take the most extreme positions and say, Well, that's actually what the Democrats are. I think most Americans are actually very much pro-LGBT. I think they are pro-women's rights. I think they're more aligned with Democrats than with Republicans are. But when we aren't identified at the core of doing something for the grander America, they're just going to be able to see, they're just so focused on these small little niche groups instead of you. And that resonated. But again, we need to recognize that when Democrats fail, when we fail in making people lives better. And I know, again, someone's going to go, I don't know if you have blogs that attach this podcast, you're going to say, well, the GDP under Biden was the highest and we had the lowest unemployment ever. Ruben Gallego is wrong. Yes, that was all true.

But But people were not feeling it. People were just not feeling it. Again, if we want to lie to ourselves and say, well, things were really good, the economy was really good. When people were telling us it was not, we're going to continue having this problem. It's going to be easier for people to take opportunities to take away some of these basic rights if we allow the middle of America to continue to suffer economically.

Senator Ruben Gallego, thank you very much. Thank you. That's Senator Ruben Gallego. This conversation was produced by Seth Kelly. It was edited by Annabelle Bacon, mixing by Sophia Landman. Original music by Dan Powell and Marion Lozano. Photography by Philip Montgomery. Our senior booker is Priya Matthew, and Wyatt Orm is our producer. Our executive producer is Allison Benedict. Special thanks to Kellyn Browning, Ron Hansen, Haphim Shapiro, Rory Walsh, Ronan Borelli, Jeffrey Miranda, Jake Silverstein, Paula Schumann, and Sam Delnick. If you like what you're hearing, follow or subscribe to The Interview wherever you get your podcast. To read or listen to any of our conversations, you can always go to nytimes. Com/theinterview, and you can email us anytime at theinterview@nytimes. Com. Next week, David talks with Pulitzer Prize-winning science writer, Ed Young, about experiencing burnout after his years reporting on COVID and how burning helped him recover.

It's meditative in a way that actual meditation is not for me. I struggle to achieve that when I try and meditate. I achieve it without any effort when I'm burning.

I'm Lulu Garcia Navarro, and this is the interview from the New York Times.

It's a question for C-suites everywhere. How best to leverage Gen AI to transform for growth help you unlock its full potential responsibly. This is Gen AI, human-led, tech-powered. This is PwC. Visit pwc. Ie to see how.