Dr Andrew Payne
Well, good evening, everyone, and welcome. Thanks for joining us this evening at Chatham House. My name is Andrew Payne. I’m the Research Director for Europe, Russia and the Americas, and it’s a real pleasure to be chairing this evening’s event with Senator Ruben Gallego. A couple of housekeeping points before we begin. This event is not under the Chatham House Rule. It’s on the record, despite the name, it’s on the record, we’re being recorded. We are, indeed, being livestreamed. I think there are 350/400 people watching this online, as well.
Senator Ruben Gallego
That’s my Latino family, mostly.
Dr Andrew Payne
We do want this to be an open conversation, so towards the end we’ll leave about 25/30 minutes for questions. So do please be thinking of those questions. If you’re online, you can do so by just dropping a couple of questions in the Q&A box, and I’ll bring as many of those in as I possibly can. If you are on Twitter still, please feel free to tweet about the event using the #CH_Events.
Now, this is an extraordinary time in American politics, indeed, in US foreign policy more broadly. In less than 100 days, the second Trump administration has launched a sweeping transformation of America’s role in the world, and one that has touched nearly every area of policy. The on again, off again approach to tariffs has led some to declare the end of globalisation, a move that has been welcomed by some who look forward to the resurgence of US manufacturing, but met with deep unease by others who are watching the reaction of global markets. Federal agencies like USAID have been dismantled. We’ve had ideas floated to take over Greenland, Gaza, Canada and the Panama Canal.
And here in Europe, the effects of these policies have been particularly significant. Amid the ongoing War in Ukraine, the new administration has made clear its desire to deprioritise its commitment to European security, to reset relations with Russia and to focus instead on challenges in the Indo-Pacific. And the tone, too, has shifted significantly. Gone are many of the references to the liberal international order, and in their place a more hard-nosed, realist framing of geopolitics has taken hold, one that foregrounds clashing interests over shared values.
Now, here at Chatham House, America’s changing role in the world is something that we are thinking very much about. Just a couple of weeks ago, a quick plug, our US and the Americas Programme published a major new report surveying the competing visions of international order in 11 countries across the globe. So, if you haven’t had a chance to take a look at that, I strongly encourage you to do so. But tonight, our focus is on the voices of those eager for America to return to its traditional position, including members of Congress, who are hoping to assure allies and partners that there remains strong support for that kind of global leadership, rooted in multilateralism and deep global engagement. And so, it is in that context that I’m delighted to introduce our speaker this evening.
Senator Ruben Gallego was elected to the US Senate last November to represent Arizona in one of the most closely watched congressional races of the election. A contest, of course, that took place in a swing state and one that President Trump managed to flip back to the Republican column. The Senator’s personal story, growing up poor, studying at Harvard, joining the Marines, fighting in Iraq, was central to his campaign, and it’s been offered as a potential model for Democrats trying to reconnect with some of the demographic groups which had drifted away from the party.
Senator Gallego had previously served for ten years in the House of Representatives, where he rose to become the highest-ranking Latino member of the House Armed Services Committee. And it’s a pleasure to host him here for this discussion tonight. Senator, welcome, and thank you for being here.
Senator Ruben Gallego
Thank you, Andrew, thank you everyone, too [applause].
Dr Andrew Payne
So let’s start with the bigger picture. How would you characterise this moment in US foreign policy?
Senator Ruben Gallego
Well, I think, unfortunately, the way I would characterise it, it’s confusing. We are sending confusing messages to our allies, and actually we’re also sending confusing messages to our adversaries. You know, we just – I’m on a swing through Europe. I was in Slovakia about three days ago, I spent two days in Germany meeting with their foreign government and, you know, what I hear and what I consistently here, is, “What is going on? Explain to us. We just want to know how to work with you. We want to know what’s going on with our relationship, like, what does this mean? What does this mean going forward?” You know, even just, in general, just this feeling of, “What can I do to fix this?” as if we’re the – you know, as if we’re a couple, and we’re the bad couple that’s trying to leave this and, you know, everyone is trying to figure out how to put this back together.
And, you know, one of the reasons why you’re going to see, I believe, a lot of bipartisan kudos, kind of, coming through Europe in the next couple of months, ‘cause a lot of us have a true belief, Democrats and Republicans, that we’re going to be here longer than Donald Trump, and our relationship, and our transatlantic relationship, has to be – and has to be able to, you know, survive these types of leadership changes. And I think you will see a Congress that is more dedicated to our historical ties and especially the special relationship you have between the UK and the United States.
But there is no doubt that this is confusing, and there is no doubt that this administration is causing absolute chaos when it comes to the liberal order that, you know – and in fact, and some within his administration don’t actually understand what that means. I think they actually think it means liberal as in, like, the conservative liberal parties in the United States, but it is causing everything – well, a lot of problems.
Now, it is a reflection – and here’s something that, you know, we have to understand, at least in the United States we have to understand, it is a reflection of a lot of consternation and just anger and angst within America. Of, you know, millions of people, tens of millions of people that have felt that they’ve lost their position in terms of their status in the country, when it comes to being able to attain the American Dream. You know, we have some of the highest growths in, you know, income in the country, but the actual buying power of a American is at the lowest it’s ever been, too. And some of it has been driven by inflation. You know, we had – I know it’s hard – it’s crazy to say that in Europe, but, you know, we were really, really hurt by inflation. For the first time, a lot of families just couldn’t work their way out of – into the middle class.
A lot of them were very angry that for the first time, generationally speaking, you can work as hard as you want, but you could not buy a home, which is very much an obsession, an American obsession about buying and owning a home, and for a lot of reasons it does make sense. A lot of generational wealth in the United States is created by home ownership, and the reason you see some of the slides, actually, when it comes to demographics and punishing the Democratic Party, is because a lot of the younger population in the United States is what we call ‘of colour’, black, Latino, Asian. And they feel like they’re missing out on the first rung of building wealth because they can’t afford to buy a house. And so, these are the things that, you know, ends up somehow, unfortunately, being put on the floor of trade, and even other types of, in general, title what they call as “Fighting the elites.”
Dr Andrew Payne
Yeah, so I want to zero in a little bit on transatlantic relations specifically. And we did some polling in recent weeks suggesting that many Europeans no longer see the US as a trusted partner or friend. So, it’s not the US position that’s changing, it’s the reception and the image…
Senator Ruben Gallego
Yeah.
Dr Andrew Payne
…and reputation of the US in the broader world. In one poll, more than half of Europeans considered Donald Trump to be an enemy of Europe, and that feeling appears to be mutual. I mean, according to The Economist, the share of Republican voters who view the European Union as unfriendly or an enemy has almost doubled over the past year. So, how concerned are you by those shifts in America’s global image and the prospect that they might actually be irreversible?
Senator Ruben Gallego
Well, first of all, I hope it’s not irreversible, but of course, I am deeply worried, and some of this was done intentionally by, you know, misinformation, disinformation, by Russian assets. This is something they’ve been working on for years, and it’s not something that I’m just theorising. We know for a fact that, you know, Russian intelligence was paying, you know, for American podcasters that have huge followings within the conservative movement, hundreds of thousands of dollars through a shadow group to really influence our opinion of – you know, American opinion on Russia, but also our involvement in Ukraine. So does it matter? Yes, ‘cause eventually, it does have policy implications.
You know, I am very good friends with a lot of Senate Republicans and Senate – House Republicans too. I was very lucky to be on the Armed Services Committee for ten years. I put close to, you know, ten defence budgets together, so I, you know, know them very, very closely and were very, very trusted. And many times they told me that they had to pull their punches on Ukraine because there was so much internal pressure in their district from Republican-based voters that they were afraid to do what they knew was correct, which is backing Ukraine so they could push back on Russian aggression.
And so, this does become now – how does this end up working the other way? You know, we, as a country, are only going to be strong enough to meet the demand and the competition of China with strong alliances. There’s just no way we’re going to be able to continue and be competitive against a $1.2 billion economy, you know, going – one – two – 1.2 billion person nation and economy – going to the future, unless we have strong allies, both on the national security side, but also when it comes to trade. But if, you know, if we have actions like Donald Trump, what he is doing, creating these adversarial relationships with the youth of Europe, you know, what does that look like years and years from now, when we may get into a tough situation, where we’re going to come back and ask our European allies to back us versus China, whether it’s a kinetic war or whether it’s just simple as being able to back us in any type of trade and trade war?
You know, one of the things that I think the President just messed up is, you know, I think there’s ways for us to have these, you know, conversations with friends, with allies, with – you know, and, you know, the UK’s not just a friend, they’re a partner, right, and the way we’ve treated them is as if we’re the bully, and nobody likes a bully. And the President is making the United States look like a bully, and I don’t see how that actually ends up being in the long-term national interest of our country, at least.
Dr Andrew Payne
You made the point a moment ago that Congress can be the source of continuity, I guess. Presidents come and go, but Congress is always there, right?
Senator Ruben Gallego
True.
Dr Andrew Payne
But if you think about foreign policy in the United States, of course a lot of that power is concentrated in the executive branch. And so, while I think the concern in many circles will be that these are words that many will want to hear, but this was a similar message that we heard eight years ago, right?
Senator Ruben Gallego
Yeah.
Dr Andrew Payne
And then Joe Biden came in, he told us, “America is back, diplomacy is back,” but today it looks increasingly like Biden and not Trump was the historical blip. So, are American politics so polarised now that we should just come to expect these dramatic swings in policy every four years, or do you think that there is a realistic prospect in Congress and more broadly of forging some kind of new consensus?
Senator Ruben Gallego
So, I’ll give you a good example. When we were dealing with Trump’s first administration, crazy I have to say that – we, kind of, saw this threat evolving. I actually authored a couple of important pieces of legislation within the defence budget to restrict what the President could do when it comes to certain, you know, national security decisions. For example, in the defence budget I put that he couldn’t move bases out of Germany without the authorisation of Congress. We put language in there that he couldn’t, you know, unilaterally take us out of NATO without the authorisation of the Senate. You know, we’ve found different ways to, kind of, still keep the structure there as, number one, a reminder to the President that we are a co-equal branch of the government, and number two, as a message to our partners across the world that we are still going to be here.
The question is – now, again, it’s crazy to say this, ‘cause we’re not even, yet, 100 days in – when it comes to those situations, we have the defence budget coming up, probably going to start negotiating that, you know, fairly soon, starting in the summer. You know, will we have the – our allies, traditional Republican allies with us again to, kind of, put that sort of structure and restrictions on the President, so that we have something to come back to within four years? But I don’t think you’re going to see this see-saw that you’re seeing right now when it comes to foreign policy, if we do a couple of things.
We have to take care of domestic policy in the United States, because when we don’t take care of domestic policy in the United States, that’s when they start blaming the elites, and that’s when they start blaming foreign institutions. I don’t know how many times I have to tell you, when I was on the campaign trail, you know, we spend so much money overseas and we have homeless people on the streets. You know, you spend so much money on Ukraine and there’s so many, you know, men and women that, you know, don’t have homes. Like, these issues, even though they are incorrect, still have policy implications, and I think it’s important for both Democrats and Republicans, if we want to continue to be world leaders, we also have to take care of our domestic politics, especially our median income voter, who feels like they’ve been forgotten by both Democrats and Republicans.
Dr Andrew Payne
Hmmm hmm. Is it not the case, though, that notwithstanding, you know, get your own house in order before we think about the foreign policy landscape, is it not the case that the American people have rejected that vision of America’s traditional role as a, sort of, a, you know, a deeply engaged country? I mean, if you look back at polling from November, Trump had a comfortable margin over Kamala Harris on the question of which candidate would handle foreign policy most effectively. And we know that foreign policy is not top of mind for most voters, but even among those who identified foreign policy as their main concern, Trump carried that group by a margin of 20 percentage points.
So, on foreign policy specifically, what needs to change in the message from Democrats? What should Democrats be doing or saying differently if they want that position to land?
Senator Ruben Gallego
Well, I mean, first of all, don’t read too much into a poll that says ‘foreign policy’. I mean, that’s a big thing. You say that to an American and, you know, we have hundreds of millions of Americans, what is foreign policy to one person is totally different from someone else. You talk to – in Arizona about foreign policy, they want to talk to you about trade with Mexico, right, or migrations. You know, you go to New York, you’ll be talking about, you know, Israel and Palestine. You could go to Florida, they’ll be talking to you about Cuba, right? So, that is not a really good barometer of where the United States public is when it comes to foreign policy.
Largely speaking, the American public will trust their leadership, Democrats and Republicans, when it comes to foreign policy, until they see a problem. A good example – not a good example, a bad example, but it happened, you know, President Biden was very well-trusted by the American public when it came to foreign policy. The debacle pulling out of Afghanistan, there’s just – and how we pulled out of Afghanistan, I always believed we should have gotten out of Afghanistan as fast as we could’ve, but not in the way that we did. That basically triggered a lot of doubt within the American public about the President’s and the Democrats’ position or strengths when it comes to foreign policy.
I think the most important thing we can do when it comes to getting the trust of Americans when it comes to foreign policy is we have to be very clear, very transparent, and we have to be, you know, we have to be less wishy-washy. One of the things that I did not appreciate from a lot of my colleagues on the Democratic side is that we weren’t very clear about Ukraine for quite a while. I was considered a ‘hawk’ in the Democratic party because I, you know, I did believe Biden was slow rolling a lot of support for Ukraine that I think severely impacted battlefield outcomes. But there were not as many of my colleagues that were willing to, you know, be as vocal. And some of it is because there’s legacy, sentiments of Democrats, you know, we’re the peace party, I guess, or something like that, but, you know, we aren’t very clear when it comes to a lot of this, and I think that really will cost us.
Dr Andrew Payne
I want to come to Ukraine in just a moment, but there’s one more question, if I may, on the, kind of, transatlantic relationship, and you alluded to this earlier. President Trump’s return to office has actually been welcomed by some across Europe, you’ve been travelling around Europe, I’m sure you’ve seen some of this, particularly on the populist right. In some of the same polls I mentioned earlier, the support among far-right parties in Italy, in Germany…
Senator Ruben Gallego
Sure.
Dr Andrew Payne
…including here in Britain, have grown more favourable of the United States since Trump’s return to office. And we’ve, of course, seen explicit attempts by members of the administration to build ties with political forces…
Senator Ruben Gallego
Hmmm.
Dr Andrew Payne
…across the pond, whether that’s JD Vance’s speech in Munich in February, Elon Musk’s many interventions on Twitter. What do you make of these attempts to forge a new, kind of, MAGA-style international project? And what does that do to the traditional foundations of transatlantic relations?
Senator Ruben Gallego
Well, it’s nothing new. This has been going on forever. It’s just now it’s the right is more organised than it’s ever been. You know, you saw this in the 1980s, different parties, you know, for many years, you know, the Democrats in the United States had great relations and still have great relations with a lot of the Social Democrats and their analogues all throughout Europe and the rest of the world. The thing is the digital world has made it easier, right, and this is the one thing that has allowed them to communicate, to organise, to cross languages.
There is a lot more infrastructure, money that comes to it. You know, we have, you know, CPAC, which is a Conservative gathering that happens and it draws people from all over the world. There’s some guy from the UK that shows up all the time, that shall remain nameless. You know, but you also have, you know, the President of Argentina, you have Orbán going. I was just with the Prime Minister of Slovakia, and he was bragging to me about, you know, going to CPAC. It’s – I didn’t have the heart to tell him that I wasn’t there, but, you know, there’s a whole infrastructure that is, like, helping this out.
What does that mean? I think for us, kind of, allied in the positions that we are, is that we need to have higher and better co-ordination, we need to also be talking and speaking from the same page. We need to understand there is a design to movements, I think, to break down the order that has brought stability to the world since, you know, post-World War Two, and we need to try to bring our own organisations of that same nature and calibre out there. And, you know, we don’t have what they have, and talking to my friends and even more my friends on the real Conservative side, they’ll talk to me about, you know, Conservative lawmakers that they work with in Colombia, right, or the fact that they’re going to, you know, Hungary to go to a think tank talk.
Right, there needs to be a real programming consensus, I think, among allied thinkers to match that, ‘cause they will organise, and they have money now. In the past they were kooks and they weren’t organised. Now they’re organised, they’re smart, and they have money, and that’s a very dangerous combination.
Dr Andrew Payne
So, let me come to Ukraine. You mentioned the, sort of, the point about the lack of clarity, but let’s bring things up to speed. We have seen a dramatic reversal in US policy on Ukraine in recent weeks. The Trump administration is pursuing a negotiated settlement, it’s opened the door to a potential rapprochement with Russia, and we feel quite a long way away from President Biden’s assurances that the US will support Ukraine for as long as it takes. So, given where things stand today, what do you think the goal of US policy towards Ukraine should be?
Senator Ruben Gallego
What it should be is that we should be backing Ukraine so it has the capability to fight as long as it needs to fight, to come up with the most viable terms for peace that they choose and that they negotiate. And then, most importantly, they should be in these meetings between Russia and the United States and the rest of Europe should also be in it, ‘cause there is not going to be a solid peace without a European Union backing Ukraine. There will be temporary peace, you know, if President Trump, you know, falls or is, you know – I’m trying to be diplomatic, it’s really tough. Oh well, if he’s dumb enough, to be honest, let’s just be honest, if he’s dumb enough, and he is when it comes to Russia, if he’s dumb enough to take a bad deal from Russia that brings peace but there is no security backing to that, Ukraine will be taken within five years.
And this is why I think a real peace deal has to have Ukraine in there and has to have representation from the European Union, ‘cause that will actually bring long-term peace. Russia knows what they’re doing. Putin knows Donald Trump inside and out, and they are playing him like a fiddle right now, and they’re going to continue doing it, and I’m hoping there’s some people within the President’s inner circle that are pointing out smartly, like, you know, in Donald Trump’s words, like, “You’re getting taken,” and that may be the best situation.
I think also, back to domestic politics, the President’s numbers are sliding. His last approval rating from a fairly serious pollster was at 42%, largely driven by the economy, largely driven, by the way, because of the tariff chaos that he’s causing. The more popular – I’m sorry, the more unpopular he becomes, the better chance we have, you know, to bring some of our moderate national security Republicans back into our fold, because then they won’t be afraid, necessarily, to, kind of, push back and we need those votes. We just don’t have the control of the House or the Senate in that regard.
Dr Andrew Payne
So, supporters of the administration would argue that on Ukraine, Ukraine is a distraction, right, from the broader geopolitical challenge that the US is facing, which is China. And from their perspective, disengaging from Europe, patching things up with Russia, would free up US resources and bandwidth to reinforce the military posture in the Indo-Pacific. So, are they wrong?
Senator Ruben Gallego
Yeah, absolutely. What’s happening right now is China is looking exactly at what is happening in Ukraine and they’re taking notes, and they’re to figure out, “How can we do this and replicate it in Taiwan? How can we destroy this alliance that has made these two – you know, the transatlantic relationship so strong? How can I drive that wedge? Can I also, you know, pay off a couple of podcasters to, you know, push anti-Taiwanese language?” They’re learning everything.
And also, you know, what we’re also learning about what modern warfare looks like right now can be very valuable, should we ever get to that horrible situation of one. And what, you know, we’re learning, what the Chinese are learning, what the Taiwanese are potentially learning, what our allies are learning about how we work with each other – even right now, I know everyone – you know, you’re hearing about the President’s lack of support, there is a lot still going on. You know, I just came from briefings in Germany with our US military partners, and it is extensive and it is ongoing, and it could be a huge, huge additive to us.
But what’s happening right now, not just Ukraine, by the way, but also with tariffs, is just showing, like, a playbook to the Chinese Government about how to disrupt our alliances, how to tear us apart and how to make us weaker, should we ever find ourselves in an engagement, and does have true effects. You know, the Prime Minister of Singapore – someone who has been a strong US ally, someone who – you know, a country that has modelled their whole defence apparatus to trying to, you know – as we put it, their viewpoint is they want to be the apple that the anaconda or the snake dies on trying to eat, when they fight China, should they ever get up to it, are now openly questioning whether they should start allying themselves back to the Chinese, back to China. For a nation state, by the way, that is, I think, 70% of Chinese ethnicity to begin with.
So, you know, this is all, unfortunately, working together in favour of China. So, the positions they – that, you know, some respected people like Colby – Elbridge Colby’s a really smart guy – you know, I think, and he is just jumping way too far. Now, if we really want to be able to be ready for China, the best thing we could do is weaken Russia to the point that they’re no longer a serious threat on the Eastern front of Europe, and we build up NATO and the European Union in general, so that we can have a more focussed attention on Southeast Asia, or Asia, I should say. And that’s not going to happen if Russia is always going to just be five to 10 years away from cycling up and going back across the line.
Dr Andrew Payne
Is there a role for Congress to play? I mean, you mentioned its role in, sort of, the public sphere.
Senator Ruben Gallego
No, just here, and of course, why else would I run for office?
Dr Andrew Payne
But specifically, ‘cause I know that you were a co-sponsor of a bill a couple of weeks ago on the possibility of applying more sanctions on Russia, if it drags its feet on negotiation. Do you get the sense that there is an appetite to move forward with that kind of action?
Senator Ruben Gallego
I do have a sense. What’s happening right now is Republican Senators are trying to figure out where is the safe ground for them to be able to engage in Ukraine with – in a positive way that helps Ukraine or helps security in general, without getting, basically, smeared for being, you know, ‘pro-Ukraine’ or ‘woke war’, I don’t even know what they’re using anymore. But – so they’re trying to figure it out. So I think, you know, you’re going to see some calibrations happening when it comes to policy, and yes, there’s going to be other approaches. There’s going to be, you know, defence budgets that come up. There’s potentially going to be other types of situations where they’re – they must pass legislation, they could try to put things in there.
The actions of what Putin does himself, you know, for example, the massacre that just happened on Palm Sunday, you know, will end up also driving more people, more base Republican voters, to actually be anti-Russia, or at least pro-Ukraine. So, there is possibilities. I think, again, the more the President gets unpopular, whether it’s through economic reasons or for whatever reasons, the more likely you’ll see support swinging back, open public support from the Republicans when it comes to Ukraine.
Dr Andrew Payne
Where does this leave NATO? You mentioned earlier the, sort of, congressional moves last year that made it harder for the President to unilaterally withdraw. But President Trump has cast serious doubts about, in practice, whether the US would actually be willing to uphold Article 5. There have been reports that the Pentagon is drawing up plans to withdraw thousands of troops from Europe. I mean, is NATO effectively dead at this point?
Senator Ruben Gallego
No, I wouldn’t say NATO’s effectively dead. I mean, it is – you know, for those that get to see the inside workings of NATO, it is the strongest it’s ever been. Policy-wise it is, you know, it is a pawn right now, but the United States is going to honour Article 5. You know, it is a treaty that was signed, not just by the President, but affirmed by the United States Senate, and it has survived, again, different presidencies, different threats, and it will continue. What a future NATO needs to look like, is it needs to have the capabilities and platforms and ability to lead, not necessarily just with US initiative. And a lot of times it does happen that if we’re not there saying we need to do something, nothing moves. And some of that is because, institutionally speaking, for many, many years, that’s what we preferred, you know, as the United States. We didn’t want NATO to do anything without us, or lead any type of initiative without us, because we didn’t want to trigger a fricking nuclear war, it makes sense.
But, you know, I think would be helpful is number one, you know, for – to show – for these NATO countries to show initiative when it comes to, you know, somewhat more regional issues and/or local issues. A good example would be, you know, when it comes to the Russian sabotage of our sea cables in the Baltic Sea, having, you know, our partners take a major lead on that, which they have actually, is a really good, you know, example of what can be done. You know, seeing our defence budgets rise above 2% and quickly is extremely important to us. It shows that there is a want to be a partner and not a ‘freeloader’, which is not a term I use, but it’s out there, to be clear. Those are the kind of things that I think would make a big, big difference.
And, look, there are some great bright spots, you know, and we notice it, you know, where – how Poland has really been moving, the Baltics have been extremely strong. I was the Chairman of the Baltic Caucus and created the Baltic Security Initiative seven years ago, where we, you know, I think over a span of four years, we gave them $1.1 billion. And they’ve been using that money correctly to create a true approach that – deterrence by denial. And that’s the kind of stuff that really builds real confidence for us, and I think, you know, strengthens support for NATO among elected officials and the public.
Dr Andrew Payne
So, you would support a move towards greater strategic autonomy, even a Europeanisation to some degree, of NATO?
Senator Ruben Gallego
Yeah, to some degree, absolutely. Like, look, you know, we have shared values. We shouldn’t be afraid of – yeah, I’m not saying we have a separation or anything like that, let’s be clear, but we have shared values as a continent, we have shared trust. You know, why would we be afraid of Europe being stronger and being able to lead? We’re still going to be there, I’m not saying we’re running away, but there should be no fear among, you know, the American military establishment that Europe is becoming, you know, more sustainable.
And it doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to have, like, different platforms or anything of that nature. We should be co-operating, collaborating, as much as possible. You know, what we build in the United States should also be partly built in Europe, and vice versa. It makes us all stronger, it, you know, it helps us do, you know, adaptable kits that are very important for certain regions. We become stronger in general. We’re seeing a lot of this, by the way, already in Ukraine with some of the work that, you know, the Ukraine Defence Ministry is doing with a lot of European collaboration. It’s a really great model that we just need to continue. I think we could continue and really make our respective militaries much stronger. And of course, the relationships that work that way, too.
Dr Andrew Payne
So, before I open to the audience for questions, just one question on tariffs, and you did mention this earlier, but I’m curious again on the congressional role here. And this seems to be an area where Congress has given up a degree of its authority over time.
Senator Ruben Gallego
Sure.
Dr Andrew Payne
There was a world previously where congressional authority, the power of the purse, was very strong on tariff policy.
Senator Ruben Gallego
Yeah.
Dr Andrew Payne
Do you see any moves to reassert that control, or even challenge the President’s…
Senator Ruben Gallego
Yeah.
Dr Andrew Payne
…use of emergency [inaudible – 35:43]?
Senator Ruben Gallego
I think it’s going – well, I think it’s going to come back. We gave authority away for a couple of reasons. Number one, you know, unsurprisingly, Congress can be not so nimble, and sometimes you need to have tariffs – tariff policy that’s more nimble. You know, about 100 years ago, you know, tariffs were the way we funded our government and so, it was important that we actually had control over the power of the purse, ‘cause that, basically, is how we got all of the funds that we needed for our general budget. You know, we moved away from that, even though it’s in the Constitution, but I think we are steering that. You’ve already started seeing Republicans talking about bringing back – and wrestling back that control. It’s especially affecting a lot of – you know, I would say, ‘red states’ that are dependent on trade.
You know, Arizona is one of those swing states that, you know, if tariff policy – if there’s a – it’s a very strong and not properly applied – though I don’t believe there should be any tariff between the United States and Mexico – could really put us into a deep recession. And, you know, we hear from American businessmen, largely Republicans, that are just extremely unhappy about the chaos this is causing, and it’s both ways. You know, we have American suppliers and Farmers that are now being told that their contracts are being ripped up. You know, we have – we sell a lot of, for example, because we’re so close to Mexico, very expensive tractors. This gets very American, I’m sorry. Very expensive tractors that we cross over into Sedona and, you know, right now a lot of these businesses on the US side are saying they’re not getting the same contracts they usually do. This is going to have a hard trickle down economic problem for Arizonans, but the Republicans in the House that represent those areas are now also hearing it, too.
So, I think you do see it. The problem is the speed of it, right? ‘Cause I’m sure everyone around the world, not just our allies here, but Wall Street, Main Street, would love to see some stability and, you know, us taking control of tariffs away from the executive would bring that. The bond market would certainly love that, but we just – we don’t – unfortunately, we will not move that fast, but we are moving.
Dr Andrew Payne
Okay, I think let’s open this up to the floor for some questions. If you’re in the room, please raise your hand and wait for a mic, which will magically be brought to you by a team member. If you are online, please do drop those questions in the Q&A box. I will try and wrap as many as I can through. If, when you ask you question, you could please state your name and affiliation and ensure your question is exactly that, a question, something with a question mark at the end of it, I will be very appreciative. Okay, let’s go in the corner here, first off.
Kanishkh Kanodia
Thank you so much. I’m Kanishkh Kanodia. I work with the US Team at Chatham House. A couple of quick questions. Firstly, why do you think some Arizona voters voted for you but not for Harris, the reason why the Democrats lost the presidential…
Senator Ruben Gallego
Ah.
Kanishkh Kanodia
…electoral votes in Arizona, but you on the Senate race? And second, what’s the Democratic party’s plan for 2026-2028, to have a more unified platform that is beyond just anti-Trump? Like, what new ideas or platforms are the Democrats willing to put forward now to gain back the seats and the presidency?
Senator Ruben Gallego
How much time do I have? Let me try to be as succinct as possible. Vice President Harris was punished because of, I think just the voter wanted to punish the Biden administration and the Democrats. By the time she came along, she just didn’t have enough time to introduce herself, nor to introduce policy ideas that could really bring that kind of voter back. The one thing that was different between me and Harris and why there was that huge separation is because I had been running for office for 15 months in Arizona prior – no, no, I’m sorry, almost two years, actually, before the election, and so voters got to know me. They understood who I was. They – you know, I understood also that there was a problem.
The economic data was showing, yes, the economy in the United States was improving. We had wages going up and we had inflation stabilising. So, if you talked to The Economist, like, “Well, things are getting better. Inflation is down.” But if you talked to a normal person who does not have a degree in economics, or just anybody, and you tell them, “Is inflation down?” they’ll tell you, like, “No, I go to the grocery store, the prices are still the same,” right? And it doesn’t matt – we could all judge or whatever, but that is what they see the world as.
I’m very lucky that I, in Phoenix, I live in a very working class called South Phoenix, and we have, you know, your working class people, the people that decide their wealth by how many hours they work per week. And so, I could see the fluctuation of what people were feeling because of the economy by just going to the grocery store. I don’t know they – do you guys have generics here? Is that a thing? No, for Americans, you understand, we have generics and we have brand names. You guys have brand names, obviously, right? So in the United States, if you can’t afford the brand names, you go get the generics, which is just, like, a little off, right? So what’s a good example? You know, you have – you guys know Cheerios, right?
Dr Andrew Payne
Hmmm hmm.
Senator Ruben Gallego
Well, you’ll be, like, Cheetos, but it’s cheaper. And so in my neighbourhood, if the economy is not doing well and things are very high, you know, off-brand Cheerios is being bought more than on-brand Cheerios, and you could see it in the aisles. And that was happening still during the campaign, and as we were going closer and closer to the election, it hadn’t changed. And even though the, you know, the data said otherwise.
And lastly, the reason a lot of people didn’t see it is ‘cause most Americans were doing better, but they were paying off credit card debt. And my advice to the Harris camp was that they need to talk about that more and recognise that, yeah, this still hurts, this really sucks, we’re going to do this, we’re going to work together, but don’t try to gloss over their pain. And that was a big, big mistake, and they’re – by the way, it wasn’t – you know, it isn’t, like, oh, you know, Trump just brought in some great times. His numbers are down because people feel like he hasn’t done anything yet. They were hoping he was going to do something on the cost of living, and right away, they’ve already, not in the first 100 days, they’re not getting credit for it. And they actually give them stuff because he’s focussing on all these things except for bringing down the cost of living.
And he’s going to be, and the Republican party’s going to be in a very hard situation if costs don’t continue to go down and unemployment goes up at the same time. And interest rates, by the way, haven’t gone down, and so nobody can really start buying homes. If this is occurring coming into February of next year, you’re going to see a historical wipeout of the Republicans, at least in the House of Representatives.
Dr Andrew Payne
Well, we shall have to watch the sales of generics, and if you have time on your visit, you should drop by Lidl’s. You’ll see a lot of those off-brand things there.
Senator Ruben Gallego
Yeah, yeah.
Dr Andrew Payne
Anyway, more questions. I’ll go for the lady at the front here, please.
Terri Paddock
Hi, my name’s Terri Paddock. I’m a Chatham House member and US/UK dual national, so thank you. I’m not convinced by – given the amount of damage already done in less than three months, that by the time we have the mid-term elections, let alone the 2028 elections, that we won’t have irreparable harm done to the country. But the margins are so small in both the House and the Senate, isn’t there some possibility that you could talk to those sane Republicans you’ve mentioned behind the scenes? You just need to flip four in the Senate, two in the House.
Senator Ruben Gallego
Well, I mean, we talk, yeah.
Terri Paddock
Could they be convinced to do that?
Senator Ruben Gallego
We do talk to them, and you know, there’s a lot of private conversations that happen, but, you know, you have to look at that election counter. Some of them have primaries, and that’s the most important thing they worry about, right? They’re worried about losing the primary, and their rationale is, “At least if I’m around, the person that’s going to take – that would take my place would be a lot worse. So I’m going to try to hold out as long as I can.” The most important thing we could do, we and people that are aligned with us, is that we need to make the President unpopular. If you make the President unpopular, those moderate Republicans can start move – can have more room to move.
And this is the thing that I talk to my colleagues about, because Donald Trump is really good at distracting you, and he’s going to do some really awful shit. I was trying to go through so that – he’s going to do some really awful stuff to distract you, because if he knows he’s doing poorly, he’s going to distract you. The economy and the stock market has been going up and down, people are really worried. You know, we have Goldman Sachs is predicting a recession. We have all the indicators are predicting the recession. So, what does he do this week? He causes a controversy by accidentally leaking that he may send, you know, citizens to El Salvador, right? Overheard, like, of course that’s illegal. Of course we’re going to fight if that happens. Is he really going to do it? I sincerely doubt it.
But you know what’s not being talked about right now, by my colleagues by the way, is the fact that he destroyed our economic system. We were slated to have 3.4 GDP growth this year. It is now going to be in the negative, right? We were supposed to have employment continue to grow, now it’s going to be on the back, sliding down. Interest rates were supposed to go down, now we’re predicting they’re going up. That’s not what we’re talking about right now. And by the way, that’s where this President is the weakest, when it comes to the economy, when it comes to whether people believe that he’s fighting for them. Right now, in that area, they don’t think he is.
If you engage with him and fight him when it comes to border issues, immigration issues, that’s where his strongest strength is. So, you’re going to see that. Every time he starts losing, he’s going to try to, you know, raise the temperature when it comes to border issues and immigration issues, and for those in the opposition, you know, we need to fight smartly. Not fight everywhere, fight smartly.
Dr Andrew Payne
Let me take a question from this side of the room.
Senator Ruben Gallego
Yeah, you’re being a little left leaning.
Dr Andrew Payne
I’m trying to get some more women in here. There seems to be…
Senator Ruben Gallego
Yeah, they’re pretty thin here, yeah.
Dr Andrew Payne
There’s a lot of men with questions out here. Let’s go here, on that theme, right at the front, please.
Barbara Morris-Welsh
Barbara Morris-Welsh, Chatham House member. Is there a puppet master pulling Donald Trump’s strings?
Senator Ruben Gallego
Oof. I mean, yes, it is, you know, the 79 years of not getting therapy for – and it drives his grievance politics, ‘cause a lot of it is – it makes zero sense, and it’s who he felt slighted by and, you know, what makes him feel better, tougher, that is. Now, are there other outside influences? In some regards, yes, in certain policy areas. For example, Elon Musk does have a lot of influence on the President, but not when it comes to trade. Right, the President has been talking about his theories on trade, you know, if you look back since the 1980s, and, you know, he has surrounded himself with people that are either in align with him or are willing to just go along.
You know, when it comes to, you know, foreign policy – oh, sorry, domestic policy, when it comes to border security and immigration, you have Stephen Miller and couple of other people around that world that are heavily influencing. But a lot of times he is very much, from talking to my friends that are close to him, he is very much an independent actor, but an independent actor that doesn’t really look at the world like traditional Politicians. You know, he thinks about, you know, “What does this mean for me?” And what he – what that means “for me” is in his mind good for the country, which, for us that are leaders, you know, whether it’s a company, non-profit, your family, you know that’s not necessarily the case.
Dr Andrew Payne
Okay, gentleman there, yes?
Ibrahim Aziz
Thank you very much. I’m Ibrahim Aziz. I’m from Kurdistan, a Lecturer at Salahaddin University. As you mentioned, you served in Iraq, and my question is about the Kurds in Iraq with the US. Do you think this new administration policy reflecting badly or – you know, in that manner or not? Do you think the US troop will withdraw in Syria? Thank you very much.
Senator Ruben Gallego
Oh, do I support a US troop withdrawal in Syria? Look, I think when it comes to, number one, the status of the Kurds in Syria, Iran or Iraq, for example, and they’ve been great, great partners, you know, any peace or any withdrawal has to have protections and assurances for the Kurdish people. Any withdrawal of us from Syria also has to have two elements. Number one, there is a massive ISIS prison out there. About 20,000 ISIS prisoners and family members, largely international, not from Syria, not from Iraq, that, you know, if we pull out, and the Kurds are largely the – and SDF are largely the people that are guarding this space, this prison – if we pull out we will bring instability to that whole area.
So, number one, there has to be some conclusion to that, right, and whether it’s going to be a continued presence, a continued prison, repatriation of these families back to their home countries, you know, whatever it is, we can’t move beyond that. There needs to be, you know, an assurance that this won’t be a massive path for Iran and Hezbollah to be able to move, you know, from East to West, to reinforce Lebanon, I’m sorry, Hezbollah in Lebanon. So, I think those are the two elements that I – so, you know, as much as I would love for us to disengage from Syria and from the Middle East, it’s just – we’re not there right now.
The other things is, our presence is fairly economical. And I – just the one thing that I dislike about what the President talks about, some of our, you know, our troop deployments, and they are dangerous, don’t get me wrong, are also fairly economical. We’re doing a lot over a very small footprint and still bringing stability to that area. And right now there is, I still think, a potential golden moment for us in Syria with this new administration. It doesn’t mean we have to trust them. It doesn’t mean we have to believe they’re going to be 100% great, but we should at least give them opportunities to actually see where this goes and, you know, and before it – to – for example – oh, I don’t think I can say this. No, we’ll skip it out.
Dr Andrew Payne
No, we have dozens of questions online.
Senator Ruben Gallego
Yes, okay, yeah.
Dr Andrew Payne
So, I want to pick one of these up. So this is from Alan Houmann, who is a Member of Council here at Chatham House, on the Board of Trustees. It’s also one of the questions which has been upvoted the most. “Do you feel the constitutional guardrails are sufficiently robust to stop a slide into authoritarianism? Serious commentators argue that the process is well advanced.”
Senator Ruben Gallego
Do I think – no, I think what’s going to end up stopping this – the guardrail – is the American public, elections. And I know everyone’s, like, “Oh, elections aren’t going to happen.” They’re going to happen, right? The – I give a lot of credit – I give more credit, I think, to the American public than a lot of Politicians, which I think is a big problem. You know, they understand true threats. Are they paying attention all the time? Are they seeing, like, these little calibrations that, you know, are moving slowly, slowly to autocracy? No. Will it get to the point where they will? Absolutely.
And, you know, there’s – I have zero doubt in the American public. I have zero doubt in our professional class of government employees. I have zero doubt that our US military will do the right things and – but what we had put in the constitution was a lot of guardrails that we thought would be instituted by loyal Americans that would put the American constitution above partisan politics. That is not the case, and we have to be realistic about that. We thought there would be checks and balances. We have a, you know, ineffectual Supreme Court, who’s trying to make sure they keep the credibility of the Supreme Court alive for the next four years without engaging , you know, directly in a conflict with the President. And so they’re, you know, they’re seeing – they’re playing a game that it’s not, in my opinion, playing out well. But it’s going to be the American public that, at the end, is the actual guardrail for this.
Dr Andrew Payne
Great. We have time for just a few more. Gosh. Let’s get this lady here in the front row.
Valerie Mathis
Thank you. My name is Valerie Mathis, I’m a Chatham House member and a dual national, as well. Thank you for coming.
Senator Ruben Gallego
My pleasure.
Valerie Mathis
It’s wonderful having you in the room. I have these notes tonight, I want to make sure that I have it correct here. I was thinking a lot, I was thinking that the Republicans have already sold our souls, the Politicians, to the President, but I was wondering, what’s happening with the Democrat politicians? Why don’t we hear more from them? And you mentioned that he’s moving so fast, the President, but we – it’s like a moving target, and nobody can get to, and it takes time for things to happen in Congress. Is that the main reason he’s getting away with so much and he sees the more he moves, the harder it is for you to counteract?
Senator Ruben Gallego
No, I mean, it’s – why we’re – the truth is, we don’t have power. You know, it’s like, where we have the opportunity to use the rules of the Senate to stop him, we do. But this is why you’re seeing Democrats, for example, going out and having massive town halls. Why are we doing massive town halls, right? So organising massive town halls in Republican swing districts, so that way we can, basically, build support for, number one, our opposition to the President, and number two, to really put these 18 House Republicans in a bind. These are 18 House Republicans that are in districts that either voted for Harris or Trump by the smallest of margins.
So, the best thing we could do is make sure that whatever policy the President is pushing, that the local voter population knows it and knows that that Congressman is either supporting it or is, you know, not answering. So, you know, we’re – and we’re starting with demanding town halls. We’re having – you know, you’ve seen some of the ones that Bernie and AOC have been having, all over the country, they get a lot of attention. We’re – I think almost every Democrat is doing that. I don’t get – 18,000, I don’t know. I don’t get invited to Coachella either, so it’s cool. But, you know, we’re doing it at an effective area.
Like, I have – I’ve been having town halls in the reddest, rural parts of Arizona, and will be going, actually, to rural and suburban Pennsylvania in a couple of weeks to talk about the President’s plan to, you know, cut these essential services to, you know, give Elon Musk and his friends tax cuts. Right, we’re talking about – you know, I had a VA town hall, veterans’ town hall about the Veterans’ administration, in one of the most reddest cities in Arizona, it’s a military town. And, you know, we had 200 veterans showing up, that they were mad that this administration is, you know, cutting 15% of the veteran hospital’s workforce and potentially cutting veteran benefits from that.
So, there’s a lot going on. I think what people want, because this is so emotional and so stressful, they want a knock-out punch. It’s not going to happen, it’s just not going to happen. We have to fight. This is a, you know, a 12 round boxing match. I used to do some boxing back in my younger days. If you wear yourself out in the first three, there is no other nine. So, we have to take this, be strategic, figure out how to win, and once you’re there, then it’s much easier to control and contain this President.
Dr Andrew Payne
And we have a final question. We’ve got five minutes left. How do you feel about taking a group of three to round us out?
Senator Ruben Gallego
Sure, alright, this is what I…
Dr Andrew Payne
And we’ll try and keep track.
Senator Ruben Gallego
Fast and – only for the fast route, rapid fire, rapid fire, okay.
Dr Andrew Payne
So let’s go right at the back, in this row, second row from the back.
Senator Ruben Gallego
So glasses or – second row from the back?
Kayode Adeniyi
Oh, thank you.
Senator Ruben Gallego
Oh, okay, got it, there you go, sorry.
Kayode Adeniyi
My name is Kayode Adeniyi from the London School of Economics and Political Science. I just want to ask that what are your views concerning the President going now to, you know, make some unpleasant things about, you know, Harvard University and Columbia University, because it’s concerning, actually? I just want to hear your views concerning that. Thank you.
Dr Andrew Payne
So hold that question. We’ve got a higher education question.
Senator Ruben Gallego
Alright, got it.
Dr Andrew Payne
The gentleman here and the lady over here.
Senator Ruben Gallego
Alright, okay.
Ezra
Yeah, hi, my name is Ezra. My question is regarding the Palestine/Gaza issue and you mentioned quite a few times about the national security, but how much do you think is that going to be having implications on your national security, especially with the freedom of speech being curtailed in the US and universities and so on and so forth, so many? But how much do you think is this going to be impacting the national security going forward? ‘Cause you spoke at length about Ukraine, but not really about this issue.
Dr Andrew Payne
Okay, universities, higher education…
Senator Ruben Gallego
Higher education and Palestine.
Dr Andrew Payne
…and Israel/Palestine, and then, one last here.
Annabel
Hi, Senator, thanks for the talk. My name is Annabel. I’m a Chatham House member and a graduate of LSE’s European Institute. My question is about domestic policy in the US that affects Americans like me and the more than 150,000 of us abroad in the UK, which is The SAVE Act. The SAVE Act is one of the biggest acts of disenfranchisement that could really affect Americans’ ability to register to vote, not only when they’re in the US, but also outside, that requires them to live abro – if they live abroad, return every year. You voted against it as a House Representative. Are you leaning towards voting against it that way as a Senator now when it comes to the floor?
Senator Ruben Gallego
Oh, you want to make news, don’t you?
Annabel
Not necessarily, but if you – but – and truly, if you were leaning and which way, for or against it, could you show your thinking?
Senator Ruben Gallego
Yeah.
Annabel
Thank you.
Senator Ruben Gallego
Oh yeah, I already have a mic. Let’s start with Harvard, Columbia, I think the question was?
Dr Andrew Payne
Yeah.
Senator Ruben Gallego
Look, I think the President is, number one, wading into very dangerous territory, and dangerous territory because, look, we are a strong country because of our college institutions, because they are, you know, institutions of higher learning and that includes allowing speech and thought that maybe you don’t agree with all the time. I do think that the universities should police themselves better, you know, not necessarily on the speech side but on the safety of the students that – because they became a very, very contentious and volatile situation for some of Jewish students in some of our institutions.
But this heavy-handed approach, which right now is focused on free speech on issues of Palestine, is going to evolve even further, and then we could, kind of, get a little on your su – in such a matter, because they’re going to use this as, kind of, the first approach to control these universities, because it’s a popular issue across the country. There was – you know, the majority of Americans were very unhappy seeing some, you know, Jewish students having to cower and also just a lot of the things that happened on campuses. But then it’s going to move on to other things, you know, about if a campus is too woke, if a campus is, you know, maybe accepting too many people of colour, so therefore it’s going back and creating in the back door a DEI programme. All of these things that are just going to continue.
So, I think, number one, I certainly believe he shouldn’t do this. You know, I think it was a mistake for Columbia University to give in and not fight. I think they’re – you’re going to see bad repercussions in the future, you’re going to see a lot less people applying to Columbia. I imagine their donor base might dry up a little. I think what you’ve seen with Harvard, this is why they’re better than Columbia – sorry, I do always get – you know, if you’re a Harvard guy, you’ve got to get a dig in somewhere, right? You know, they’re fighting, and I think, you know, they understand that they had to have a long-term view of fighting this for the independence of the university system, and you know, now they have the capacity to do that.
They have a $52 billion fund, and this is when it’s important to do it. But I think they may end up, kind of, saving the whole college liberal arts system. But I do think that the best thing to do, fight them, but at the same time actually start looking internally. Like, you know, what are the things you can do to better yourself? I’m not – and again, this doesn’t go into areas of censorship, but what are the areas that you could do better? So, that way you don’t have, you know, popular support for someone coming in from outside, like the President, to come in with a heavy hand.
Where does Palestine-Gaza work in this whole – when it comes to national security? It’s hard to say, because right now, I think what the President is focused on when it comes to the Middle East is mostly, right now, moving and shifting to Iran. And he, you know, has given up, I think, any – you know, basically, allowing Netanyahu to do what he wants, and he wants to focus on the big deal with Iran, and how that influences that outcome could be – that’s going the more interesting stuff. And I fear, again, that the President has some really good people around him, but he has a problem of he thinks he is savvier than he actually is, and that could end up being very detrimental to all of us when it comes to outcomes over there.
Annabel
SAVE Act.
Senator Ruben Gallego
SAVE Act.
Dr Andrew Payne
That one’s…
Senator Ruben Gallego
I was so close.
Dr Andrew Payne
That one’s a yes or no question. That one’s going to…
Senator Ruben Gallego
No such – yes or no, Andrew, there’s no such thing as a yes or no in politics. So I mean, now, for the Politico, I’m sure you’re watching this, you know, what I’ve seen recently, is that – now look, and I’ve been fairly bipartisan in my approach with Republicans in certain areas, especially when it comes to a real understanding of border security and having, I think, a more realistic approach to immigration. Our asylum laws, for example, need to be fixed quickly ‘cause they’ve been – they were abused for the last couple of years. But what I’ve seen so far from this administration is that if you give them power, they will not use it judicious – English is my second language, by the way, so sometimes you’ll see it come out – judiciously. And The SAVE Act is one of those good examples.
You know, you talk about, you know, Americans serving abroad that have to come back every year and, you know, re-register in person. You know, there are women, for example, if you don’t take your husband’s name or if you don’t change your registration, you’re going to have to go and show up with your marriage certificate and your passport and your birth certificate, so it’s all aligned. And you know, you’ll hear some people say, like, “Well, what’s the big deal?” Like, it’s a pain in the ass, that’s why it’s a big deal, and it’s not fair, you know, for a lot of Americans, who really don’t think about voting up until the last two weeks, when you’re going to potentially disenfranchise a lot of working class women because we made up an arbitrary threat that doesn’t exist, right? There is no massive election fraud in the United States. There is no, you know, plans of, you know, ‘illegals’ registering to vote. We could barely get the Americans to vote.
And, you know, is there – are there once in a while mistakes? Absolutely. You know, a lot of times there is election fraud that is done by American citizens because they want to vote twice for somebody, and a lot of times it’s actually Republicans, too, so, prosecute them, right? But by passing things like The SAVE Act, you’re more likely to disenfranchise thousands, tens of thousands of Americans, and likely not going to stop the one or two, you know, people that are going to vote fraudulently, because if those people who have a real intent to do it, they’ll figure out a way. But there is no proof of this, there has never been any proof of this, of any illegal voter fraud. My opponent is always coming up with new reasons why she lost. I think this week she came up with another one.
As a matter of fact, in Arizona, I’ll give you guys a little preview of how Republicans, especially Republicans that lose like she does, flip things. In Arizona last year, our county recorders, Republicans and Democrats, discovered there was close to, I think it was 90,000 voters that had been registered for quite a while that we had just grandfathered into being currently registered. And – but by law, we needed to figure out what to do with them. So there was a compromise between the Democrats and Republicans. You know, they had been voting for quite a while. These people were largely middle aged Republican, white, male Republican and Independents, that were voting and had a very consistent voting pattern and history, that instead of trying to disenfranchise them, we were going to let them vote again as they have in the future.
Now, finally a ruling came down, they’re going to have to go now, and they’re going to have to go and ask these men, largely men, to prove and recertify themselves as voters, right? That’s fine, I have no problem with that. I didn’t have a problem with them, you know, voting before. My opponent’s claiming, ex-opponent claims that she would have won if not for that population. That population voted for her tremendously. If they had have been actually purged, I would’ve won that election by even more. But they’re so wrapped on this idea, and even when they win, they still want to allege voter fraud.
But there is no massive voter fraud, and I’m not going to vote for a bill that is – my Chief of Staff is texting my PR persons right now, getting the press release ready – that – I’m not going to vote for a bill that is based on lies, that’s only going to disenfranchise women, and you know, it also never ends. This has been a thing that these guys have been going on forever. Every year it’s something new, something new. You know, next year they’re going to try to get rid of early voting, because, you know, that’ll be the thing, the next thing that they use. And so there is no appeasing them when they’re living in a lie to being with. So, I will be voting no, there you go.
Dr Andrew Payne
Well [applause], Senator, as you can see from the level of interest in the room, and I assure you there are hundreds more online here, I’m going to disappoint many of you that we are, unfortunately, out of time. But you could see that we could have continued for another hour, another two hours.
Senator Ruben Gallego
Yeah, I see.
Dr Andrew Payne
But I know you’ve got a hard commitment to get to, so we’re going to have to close things here, but thank you, Senator, very much indeed for sharing your perspective.
Senator Ruben Gallego
Thank you so much, and please have me back, yeah.
Dr Andrew Payne
And thank you very much, indeed [applause].
Senator Ruben Gallego
We’re done.
