[0:03]Good afternoon and welcome to the National Press Club. Our former pro Our formal program will begin in 1 minute, but before we get started excellent time to silence your cell
[0:23]phones. Uh you'll also find uh cards on the seat. Uh these question cards, they look like that. Uh if you have any questions for our
[0:34]speaker today, please write them on the cards and pass them to the staff members collecting them around the room. Cecily is waving her hand over here. She'll collect them. Uh
[0:44]and uh please feel free to put your media outlet on there if you'd like. I will ask as many questions as time permits, but I can't ask what I can't
[0:54]read. So, please print legibly as possible and also please uh make it a question uh not a statement. If I have to sort of wade through a statement to get to the question, I I won't be able
[1:06]to to ask it. Uh won't be able to do that here in real time. Thanks again and we'll get started in a in a couple in just a few moments. Good afternoon and welcome to the
[1:26]National Press Club, the place where news happens. I'm Mark Shuf Jr., the 119th president of the National Press Club and the financial services
[1:36]reporter at CQ Roll Call. We're pleased to welcome today Rep. Ro Khanna of California. As I'm sure everyone in
[1:46]this room knows, he is the sponsor of the legislation, the Epstein Files Transparency Act, that became the law that forced the Department of Justice to
[1:57]release the Epstein files. After strong resistance from the White House, Khanna and his colleagues were successful in using a discharge petition to get the bill to the House
[2:08]floor where it passed 426 to 1. The Senate uh then passed the bill by unanimous consent and President Trump signed it on November 19th. Since then,
[2:20]the DOJ has released millions of pages of Epstein documents as well as thousands of videos and images, but many lawmakers and others say that there is still much more to be learned from the
[2:31]Epstein files, including about those who enabled the deceased sex offender's behavior. Today, uh former former Attorney General
[2:41]Pam Bondi was to have appeared for a deposition before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on which Congressman Khanna serves. Lawmakers wanted to question her about
[2:52]DOJ's compliance in releasing the Epstein files, but President Trump fired Bondi on April 2nd and she subsequently declined uh to appear for the deposition
[3:02]saying she was subpoenaed as Attorney General. Congressman Khanna is here to talk to us today about uh Bondi's firing and its relevance to the release of the Epstein
[3:12]files. He also will explore what he sees as the connection between the Epstein files and economic inequality. Uh Congressman Khanna was first elected
[3:23]to the House in 2016 and he represents Silicon Valley. In addition to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he also is a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Select Committee on the Chinese
[3:35]Communist Party. He also serves as the vice chair of the of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. He has worked on a right wide range of climate, foreign policy, human rights, science and
[3:46]technology, and tax issues. In fact, he recently introduced a bill uh to impose an annual 5% tax on billionaires. Congressman Khanna will deliver remarks
[3:57]and then take Q&A. Congressman Khanna, welcome to the National Press Club. >> [applause] >> Thank you uh President Shuf for uh that
[4:12]kind introduction. President was very diligent, wanted to make sure I got he got my pronunciation of my name right. Then I realized it's because people have been mispronouncing
[4:21]your name. So, uh I appreciate that and uh what an honor uh to be here at the National Press Club. I mean, as I was coming in, I was telling the uh the president and John Nichols, there's a
[4:32]picture of Nelson Mandela. I mean, some of the greats really who have come and spoken here. So, I feel like I've finally made it to be invited to uh a place like this. And thank you for
[4:43]all the press coming uh here. I thought uh everyone would be covering the Swalwell and Gonzalez resignation. So, that the fact that you're still here, uh I appreciate it and I wanted to take
[4:55]today not to just speak about the news of the day, uh but about something deeper about our democracy. Uh obviously very disappointing that uh Pam Bondi
[5:05]didn't come today uh and uh we're going to be uh working to make sure in a bipartisan way that her uh deposition gets rescheduled uh or she will be held
[5:16]in contempt and we have the votes to do that. Uh but I want to speak more broadly about uh what the Epstein class uh means for our democracy and uh what
[5:26]the way forward is. Uh we meet at a time of crisis in self-government. Cynicism and even nihilism has taken
[5:35]hold of many corners of our nation. People are losing faith in liberal democracy itself in terms of having the ability to deliver.
[5:47]70 years ago, John F. Kennedy declared that an American president shouldn't mindlessly follow the Pope.
[5:56]Today, Donald Trump is mindlessly bickering with the Pope, choosing hate over humanity, war over peace.
[6:07]How far have we fallen? Meanwhile, the American dream is out of reach for most of our citizens. 70% say they no longer believe in the American dream.
[6:18]Powerful economic forces of globalization and automation seem beyond their control, shaping their destinies while struggles go unnoticed. More troubling, perhaps the most
[6:30]troubling, there is growing doubt about whether our nation can have a common national purpose again. Americans simply do not trust government because they see it captured by big
[6:42]money and by the powerful. They see the impunity of people like Pam Bondi not showing up even when Congress subpoenas them. And nothing encapsulates this sense of
[6:53]injustice more than what I call the Epstein class. This is a group of elites who operate outside the law. When people see powerful men abusing and
[7:03]trafficking young girls without consequence, it shakes something fundamental. They have seen the callousness, immaturity, hedonism, venality,
[7:14]rootlessness, and immortal immorality of our governing class. People who chose being part of a network instead of speaking up against the abuse of young girls.
[7:25]And many are asking themselves, if these elite can get away with that, what can't they get away with? They see elite indifference and impunity has led to wealth piling up in the hands
[7:36]of a few in a few places while the vast majority of this country has faced stagnation and struggling for economic security. Workers and communities have been
[7:48]treated as dispensable just like these young girls were in the Epstein matter. Fortunes have been built on a foundation of offshoring jobs, automating plants,
[7:59]liquidating companies, buying back stock, and of course harvesting all of our data. Consider this. 19 billionaires hold over
[8:10]$3 trillion in wealth. 12 and 1/2% of our entire economy. This is three times the concentration, three times the concentration of the Gilded
[8:22]Age where we had Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan, and Carnegie. We are in a new Gilded Age. The question is no longer, are you
[8:32]better off than you were 4 years ago? For many, it's are you better off than you were 4 weeks ago? Decades ago, like scholars like William
[8:42]Julius Wilson, warned about black job loss hollowing out our inner cities in places like Philadelphia and Milwaukee. Too few listened. Later, economists like Anne Case and
[8:54]Angus Deaton showed how economic despair was spreading in white working class communities. We still did not act. Well, now the concern has hit the professional class.
[9:06]I was just up at Brown University and I asked, how many of the folks there are concerned about getting a job in the future? Almost all the hands went up.
[9:16]Even Ivy Leaguers and their parents are concerned. A society fearing its future is a society that is in decline.
[9:26]We do not need to be a nation in fear. So, where do we go from here? We cannot go back to the days before Trump. That led to a Democratic Party that had
[9:37]an approval rating of 27%. How and why should we go back to a party or a politics that got us two terms of
[9:47]Donald Trump? We cannot simply resert resort to incrementalism or this fashionable nudges of a broken system.
[9:58]There was a paper written about let's just nudge things in the government. It was heralded as some great academic insight. The era of nudges and incrementalism are over.
[10:09]We need a new generation of leadership and we need bold, ambitious legislation, the most bold and ambitious programmatic agenda of a generation.
[10:19]I call it a new economic patriotism. I am for team America. This is a comprehensive new economic vision, a new deal for this era,
[10:31]a freedom budget for this century, a combination of what FDR proposed and Bayard Rustin proposed for our time. Not extractive capitalism, but patriotic
[10:43]productive free enterprise that leaves no community behind. When Europe was devastated after World War II, George C. Marshall developed a plan for reindustrialization of Europe. Well,
[10:54]today we need a 21st century Marshall Plan for the middle class and working class of America, mobilizing business, workers, universities, and government to rebuild struggling communities and
[11:05]address our economic divide. Here's what that means. First, it means jobs. And if the president wants to tweet out on Truth Social like he did with Warren,
[11:16]this is what I want him to focus on. We need a work for America program modeled on the Works Progress Administration
[11:25]that created over 8.5 million jobs under the Roosevelt Administration. Here's how it would work. Every young person out of high school or college would have the chance to do work that is deeply
[11:37]meaningful, rebuilding communities, providing care services, working on national technology projects, making government agencies user-friendly, training in industries of the future.
[11:48]You'd get a job right after high school or college and it would be for a few years. Young people could work in their own communities or they could work in a community far away from where they grew
[11:59]up, building bonds of social cohesion that have been missing in our country. After a few years of service, they would build real world world skills that translate directly into strong private
[12:11]sector careers. It becomes a civic equivalent of military service, highly valued by employers and a proven pathway to opportunity.
[12:21]Second, we need investment. We will create a historic national industrial bank to invest in critical technologies that will that will define the future,
[12:32]semiconductors, rare earths, advanced manufacturing, key starting materials for drugs, medical innovation, modern steel, robotics, shipbuilding, and more.
[12:42]And it will meet the test of the private sector with critical investment from the federal government in deindustrialized areas like Johnstown, like Lorraine,
[12:52]Ohio, like Milwaukee. This isn't invoking distant memory. You don't have to go all the way back to Bill Knudsen and FDR. We did it recently with the CHIPS Act that I helped write a
[13:02]few years ago. Now we must do it for other critical technologies across this country. Third, we need to make the care economy a national priority. Child care, elder
[13:14]care, home care are not just services. They are the backbone of a humane society and they also happen to be good paying jobs that AI can't do or that
[13:24]can't be uh outsourced. These could be the backbone of jobs in many communities that are struggling and deindustrialized. Fourth, we need to make sure America has
[13:34]modern skills for the economy of the future. We need to form a nationwide system of trade schools and tech institutes in this country. That means a thousand new trade schools for jobs of
[13:46]HVAC technicians, electricians, cosmetologists, drone operators, robotic technicians. Young tradespeople there will learn how to use technology and AI to do their crafts and tech institutes
[13:58]across HBCUs and public universities in this country. We did this with the TechWise program that I launched with Google, Nvidia, and Zoom. We provided
[14:07]nine-month courses, $5,000 scholarships, 10 hours a week leading to 75 to $100,000 jobs in rural Iowa, in South Carolina, in Central Pennsylvania. We
[14:17]need to scale that across this country. We need people who are going to be helping the next generation get the jobs of the future while being able to stay in their communities. Fifth, we must
[14:28]give workers ownership. AI creates a capital-biased world with exaggerated returns to shareholders. 1/3 of the nation's wealth originates in my district, $20 trillion in my district,
[14:39]$70 trillion stock market. Well, paying workers a living wage is necessary, but it's not enough. They must share in the company's profits either through stock
[14:49]or defined benefits. If workers are the most productive ever, they must be compensated to match that and have shorter workweeks, time off, and actual compensation in the profits of the AI
[15:01]economy. Good jobs and worker ownerships is a starting point, but in the richest nation in history, no American should be worrying about the basic necessities of life. This was basically the freedom
[15:12]budget. That is why we need an economic bill of rights for our time. The moment has finally come for national health insurance. Why? Because people now realize you cannot have health care
[15:24]linked to your job, not at a time where your job may change or where you may lose your job. We need Medicare for all. That's a better system with better outcomes where health care is guaranteed
[15:36]to every single person from the day they are born. For our young people, to assure career opportunity is not limited by your family's wealth, we need free college and free trade schools. Let me be very
[15:48]clear, we could pay for all of free college and free trade schools in America, a thousand new trade schools for the time that we have been in Iran. And I'm tired of senators in my own
[15:59]party saying, "Well, we got to read the president's budget before we know that it is wrong to have a $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget." What do they want to read? How much defense pork is going to
[16:09]come to their state? How much defense pork is going to come to their district? Let me tell you, I don't need to read that. We need to be no, absolutely no, because that money is not helping the
[16:21]American people. We need a Democratic Party that is actually going to stand for investment in our communities and not for a bloated defense budget and wars overseas.
[16:33]We also need, of course, a housing plan to build more housing, cap rents, and assist first-time home buyers with $50,000 for their down payment, money that we could get if we weren't spending
[16:44]on wars and a a bloated Pentagon budget. And we need child care at $10 a day. We had universal child care with the 3,000 war nurseries when Roosevelt was president.
[16:55]We can have universal child care, $10 a day, paying child care workers $25 in 2026. How do we pay for all of this? We need to make different choices. Cut the
[17:06]wasteful spending, vote no on this bloated Pentagon budget, consider that every bomb we drop overseas is a student who does not get a scholarship, a rural hospital that is not staying open, child
[17:17]care and parents were not able to get child care. I've got to admit, I basically uh borrowed that in my own words uh from Dwight D. Eisenhower's uh
[17:27]Cross of Iron speech which John Nichols sent to me. But you could read that whole speech today, be relevant today, that we should be spending in our communities, in America, for child care,
[17:38]health care, housing, uh and uh our jobs instead of the Pentagon bloat that we have, which is basically uh getting us into war without helping Americans.
[17:50]Let me close with a few thoughts. I'm not calling for bloated government. I'm calling for dynamic government, working with the private sector, protecting workers, driving innovation, generating
[18:01]results, not waste. Remember, it was American taxpayer-funded technology that helped create the current markets in my district that have generated so much wealth. 1969, it was NSF that funded the
[18:13]internet from UCLA to Stanford. It was Dartmouth and Stanford and MIT in the '50s and '60s that developed AI, developed GPS, developed the mouse. That
[18:22]was all government-led funding. So, I'm tired of people saying that government is bureaucratic and inefficient. We need smart, dynamic government. And I say to those who have done well,
[18:34]if America has been good to you, then you must do good for America. That is why we need a billionaires tax. That is why we need people who have done so well in this country because of taxpayer
[18:45]investments to to give so that we can have jobs and economic security for everyone. It is patriotic to pay our fair share.
[18:55]This is not anti-business. It is pro-America. I'm passionate about this new economic vision because I've seen what this country can be. I grew up in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
[19:06]My neighbors were electricians, nurses, teachers, HVAC technicians, doctors. You know, there there was a pool at the end of the street. We knew that the
[19:17]kids' dad had a job as a hotshot at some big corporation. We all went to that house to hang out and be in the pool, but we played street hockey together, collected baseball cards together, saw
[19:27]Rocky movies together. And we came here, my parents came here believing in America. We were a nation brimming with confidence. Kennedy had
[19:37]called for us to go to the moon. This country was on the move with energy, preeminence in science. I went to public school. I had coaches who believed in me even though I could
[19:47]not hit. They said, "Rob hits, he goes play set ninth." Kids used to chant watch the bun. But I had teachers who believed in me. And they said I could do anything in America.
[19:59]And I believed them and I still do. I want young people to have the chances I did. I want American families to have the chances this country gave my family.
[20:09]If we bring economic hope and prosperity to every neighborhood and community for those left out, for those who have given up, for those who are single cynical and
[20:18]barely hanging on, we can rebuild faith in our democratic project. Right now, let me just be blunt. We have too many elected officials who are completely oblivious and unprepared for
[20:30]what is coming. They may be good and adept at talking about the news of the day, but they lack a vision for what needs to be done for the future of this country. The people of the United States need
[20:40]real leadership and a government that understands what the future is. Economic renewal is our new national purpose. We can then build a cohesive
[20:50]multi-racial democracy where every American has dignity, independence, and security. America is desperate to be proud again. America wants to be a force for good
[21:01]again. For ourselves and for the world. With bold leadership and a new economic patriotism, we will take back this nation from the grips of extractive
[21:12]capitalism of an Epstein class and an American people will build the future. Thank you very much. >> [applause] >> Well, thank you for joining us today,
[21:30]Congressman, and for outlining your economic policy vision. I want to start though with with Pam Bondi. She didn't testify today. You mentioned
[21:42]it briefly at the beginning of your remarks, but if you could elaborate a a little bit, what are the next steps with her? She's not Attorney General. She said she was subpoenaed as Attorney General. She's now a private citizen basically. What What do
[21:53]you do from here? Well, she's wrong. Nancy Mace and I wrote the subpoena, so I know what's in the subpoena. The subpoena was for Pam Bondi as an individual, not as Attorney General.
[22:05]And we have the votes to subpoena her again if it comes down to it or to hold her in contempt. Remember, there were the votes to hold President Clinton in contempt when he was not coming and
[22:16]cooperating with the committee. President Clinton is not in office, but he was relevant to the investigation. And certainly Pam Bondi is relevant to the investigation. And Nancy Mace and I
[22:27]wrote to Comer saying that we expect him to reschedule this. He is going to try to reschedule it. We need to let that process play out. If not, we will have the votes to hold her
[22:37]in contempt. And that is something that I don't think she would want. So, I fully expect that she will come in. This is just a delay tactic. In the Trump administra- administration,
[22:49]we we've seen a lot of dis- disruption on on uh uh legal procedures and so forth. Do you think contempt will uh
[23:01]will will get her to to appear? Or I mean, you know, in this in this atmosphere, will that stick? Well, look, Donald Trump is not going to be president forever. Some people are
[23:11]figuring that that out sooner than later. He is under 40% approval. His allies like Orban are losing. I mean, I'm hoping JD Vance actually goes and campaigns for everyone in the United
[23:23]States. You know, we we he is at he's he's losing a grip on his power. And do I think Pam Bondi would be prosecuted
[23:34]for contempt by Todd Blanche or the president's new Attorney General? I don't. Do I believe that she would be prosecuted for contempt by the new president who will be a Democrat in
[23:43]2029? I do. So, people who are violating the law need to think that in three years we're going to have a new president. And that
[23:53]president is going to hold the elites accountable. So, my hope is that she will recognize that compliance with the law is what is required. The Clintons did. And
[24:04]they were that was President Clinton was a two-term president and he didn't want to be held in contempt. So, I I hope Pam Bondi will appear and it doesn't come to that.
[24:13]And if she does appear, what what do you want to ask her? What don't you know yet about the Epstein files? I don't know a lot.
[24:21]I I don't know why the three million files that have been held have been so blacked out. Why the redactions took
[24:33]place in March where a lot of the names that were mentioned of people who were abusers, who raped young girls. Why those are all
[24:43]blacked out and even members of Congress can't see them. She they claim, "Oh, this is to protect survivors." But you don't need to blank out three million pages of documents just to
[24:55]protect survivors' names. That would be the first question. Why aren't they releasing the actual documents where most of the people are named who raped and abused these girls? The second thing I don't know is why she refused to meet
[25:05]with survivors. You know, why not meet with survivors' lawyers? Just from protecting yourself, if I were Attorney General, I would say, "Well, let me get the survivors' groups in. Let's have a process that the survivors' lawyers
[25:17]agree to so that if there are any honest mistakes, we could have had the survivors' buy-in and I wouldn't get blamed." But they refused to meet any of the survivors' lawyers. They refused to sit down with the survivors. Why? Third,
[25:29]why are they not starting investigations in a criminal matter with people with serious allegations like Les Wexner, like
[25:41]Leon Black. You know, I was asked recently about the very disturbing allegations against Congressman Swalwell and how do I square that with the Epstein class? And I said there needs to be accountability, whether you're a
[25:52]member of Congress or whether you raped or abused allegedly girls on Epstein's Island. But there's the Manhattan DA is within days opened up an investigation
[26:03]into Congressman Swalwell. And yet for years we don't have a single investigation into Leon Black and into into Les Wexner. Why? Why is there no investigation? How powerful are these
[26:14]people that you've not opened up a single investigation for prosecution of the people mentioned in the Epstein files? Are there
[26:24]are there any people who who have been mentioned who could be highlighted further than they have been uh
[26:33]so far? I mean, there's a question about uh whether members of Congress could read names on the House floor of some of the of of some of the people who who are
[26:45]implicated in the files and and yet that hasn't happened. Do you have a There was a question from the audience. Do you have a I tried that. I tried that and I we had two names that I
[26:56]revealed with Massie. One was the Dubai port CEO and one was Les Wexner. But the challenge is that members of Congress that shouldn't be
[27:07]naming names where the context is not clear because four of those names that I read, it turned out that well, they were
[27:14]part of a lineup with the FBI. And we we never got that clarification or context from the Justice Department. So, the problem is that they put members of Congress and the public in a terrible
[27:25]spot where they have not been transparent. They have not been able to identify who these people are. So, you don't want members of Congress
[27:36]just naming people in the Epstein files without any context. There are a lot of people mentioned in the Epstein files who have no guilt. Who have and it shouldn't be a witch hunt. The problem
[27:47]is that there are a number of people who raped or abused these girls or covered it up and those people aren't being held accountable. And the person who confirmed this is First Lady Melania
[27:58]Trump because while her president is calling all of this a hoax, she said very clearly, quote, "Epstein was not alone." That is the point that the survivors and Massie and I have been
[28:10]making for months. He was not alone. This was not just Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein. There are a lot of other men who were involved and they need to be prosecuted. Right.
[28:21]And staying with Epstein for just a couple more questions. Another one from the audience. Do you see any And and this has come up a lot in the in sort of the milieu
[28:32]that we have here with Iran and Epstein going on at the same time. I knew I knew people would switch. I knew people wanted to talk about Epstein, which I'm happy to do. And then I said, "But I'm going to push my economic vision anyway." >> I'll get to that. I
[28:43]will get to that. But do you see any relationship in the timing of President Trump's foreign policy announcements and actions like those in Iran with the timing of breaking scandals
[28:53]related to the Epstein files? Well, you can create distractions. You know, I saw two memes online. First when the president went into Iran, I saw
[29:03]war a way to distract from Epstein files. And then when Melania Trump made her statement, I saw a meme saying Epstein files a a way to distract from war. The reality is that they're both
[29:15]terribly unpopular and wrong policies. The Epstein class cover-up betrays a lack of transparency from this administration. And this war also
[29:25]betrays a lack of transparency from this administration. I don't believe that the president went to war just to get the Epstein matter off the front pages, though it had that impact of reducing
[29:36]searches. I believe that he went to war for because he was talked into it by hawks and he's it's led to a disaster with gas prices up, with the Strait of
[29:47]Hormuz more controlled by Iran, by a more hardline regime in Iran, uh by 13 service members dead, by thousands killed in that region. But I don't I don't believe it was just
[29:58]get the Epstein files off the front page. Right. And and we will pivot to economics. You can ask whatever question. I was just joking around. No, no, I know, I know. But actually this is where I wanted to pivot anyway.
[30:09]Uh the midterm elections are coming up, important for your party in terms of trying to take back the house and perhaps the Senate. Epstein versus affordability or Epstein
[30:20]versus economic inequality. Which one do you think is more important for the campaign for uh house candidates, Democratic house candidates to emphasize on the campaign
[30:31]trail? The point I tried to make is that they're connected. And here's how they're connected. The Epstein class has led to a system of extractive capitalism
[30:41]that basically has uh been indifferent to the working class. And if you say, "Okay, I want to reduce the cost of child care and I want to reduce the cost of health care and I want to reduce the
[30:53]cost of education." But you're not talking about the role of big money in politics, you're not talking about the role of private health insurance companies in politics, you're not talking about the role of a group of
[31:05]people who have rigged the rules to benefit themselves, then the American people aren't going to believe your promises. So I believe what we need to do is say, "Yes, affordability, we need
[31:15]an affordability vision." But the reason we're in this position is that we've had a group of governing elites of both parties that have shafted the working class and that have created two tiers of
[31:27]justice and two Americas, two economies. And that what we need to do is have an economic vision that's actually for working and middle-class people. So I I
[31:38]don't think that the Epstein issue is sufficient in and of itself. But when it's an explanation in part for why people are struggling
[31:48]even though they're working hard. And it's not because they're not hard working. It's not because they're doing things wrong. It's because the system is rigged against them. Then I think it
[31:58]offers a compelling vision for why we should trust Democrats to get back power. You called in your speech for bold ambitious legislation, what you called a new economic
[32:10]patriotism. And you drew a parallel to the the New Deal and President Roosevelt. You're vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
[32:22]What would you say to people who would say to you, "This is This is an idea This These are liberal ideas for big government."
[32:33]That's probably going to hear that. Well, first of all, the last time we tried it a Democrat who ran on the New Deal, he won four terms. So it was not a not a bad strategy. Never understood why we didn't try it longer.
[32:45]But the second thing I would say is my vision is for a dynamic government, not a bloated government. I mean, part of the problem with liberalism has been a sense where government is just incremental, the government is just
[32:56]trying to needle around with the right type of tax incentive and that hasn't affected people's lives. I think a government that actually delivered would, both in
[33:06]terms of getting national health care, in terms of expanding Medicare, in terms of having $10 a day child care, in terms of having a free public college. Instead, what we do is we have these
[33:16]50-page bills, which is like, "Okay, you'll get child care if your income is between 175,000 and 225,000 with a tax credit for this." And people have no idea what you're doing.
[33:27]Be simple, be bold, be direct, put money in people's pockets. I think that will restore confidence in the government. So it's not as technocratic and it's actually delivering. And secondly, bring
[33:37]people from business into government. I do not believe that you don't don't have business leaders in government. Bill Knudsen was the CEO General Motors. And FDR brought him into government. I
[33:49]believe we can have a dynamic government that has metrics, that has results, that is working to create new jobs and reindustrialize this country. So I want
[33:57]a dynamic, innovative, experimentalist government that is tackling the broad issues of our time. What What would you say to to people to
[34:08]fellow Democrats who say that the way to take back the House and Senate this year is to run toward the middle and from the middle.
[34:18]It it it sounds like you're further to the left. I mean, dynamic government rather than big government, okay, we'll stipulate that. But still, people would say that the ideas that you laid out
[34:29]here are more to the left of a of a of the moderate Democrats than than uh are to the left of moderate Democrats,
[34:38]but yet it's the the moderate track that's going to lead to electoral success. Well, it's going to lead to electoral success. I appreciate that argument. It's the independents. And where are the disaffected Trump voters?
[34:50]Where are the independents? But my argument is I've actually succeeded in building a coalition with disaffected Trump voters. I got the Epstein files
[34:59]passed. What other Democrat, and I say this with humility, has passed any legislation in the last 10 years with a coalition of Trump voters?
[35:10]A single name, a single substantive piece of legislation that has passed with a coalition of Trump voters. I would argue what Massie and I have done is the only time that that has happened. And you look at the what I just last
[35:21]night I was on Marjorie Taylor with Marjorie Taylor Greene. Some people are upset, "Why would you go on with Marjorie Taylor Greene?" The reality is I am building an alliance for an anti-war message, an anti-Epstein class
[35:32]message, and a pro-working class agenda that actually will get us a lot of the disaffected Trump voters in deindustrialized communities in Western Pennsylvania, in places in Ohio, in
[35:43]Wisconsin, in Michigan. Uh and if you want instead kind of the Mansion-Dole vision of let's just have status quo government but tinker with it and find some bipartisan deal so we can get, you
[35:55]know, 2% child tax credit for every family, well, that's going to get lose to a populist person on the right. So I believe what what we need is a bold
[36:05]vision on the left. It's It's kind of remarkable to me, you know, Donald Trump gets up there on these podiums and he says, "I'm going to conquer Greenland." And we
[36:16]criticize him. And then someone gets up here and says, "Okay, I want Medicare for all." Everyone says, "Well, that's too radical. That's too bold." What about conquering Greenland? The guy who's saying conquer Greenland won two elections for president. The people who
[36:27]are out there talking in technocratic gobbledygook keep losing. Maybe we should be simple, bold, aspirational, not willing to take risk, willing to
[36:39]take risk, willing to get the govern people to believe that the government's actually going to try to solve big problems. Bold visions on on the left. Uh
[36:50]To what extent do you does your vision overlap or coincide with say Senator Warren's, which she laid out here in January at in this very room actually?
[37:01]And do you do you see uh or is there competition for the bold vision on the left? I think Senator Warren has offered incredible ideas. I think she is one of the
[37:13]intellectual leaders of what the bold vision should should look like. And I have been influenced by her ideas when
[37:23]it comes to the types of financial regulations that we need, when it comes to the types of antitrust issues we need. What I add in my view to
[37:32]it is a understanding in of the economic future of the future of AI and technology and how we're going to build
[37:43]the economic security and economic success of this country in every community for the future. So I would bring a understanding of where the economy is headed and how we actually
[37:53]achieve that for our time. Uh and I also believe that we share a fundamental view of a new social contract that we need to be taxing these billionaires to be
[38:04]to to be supporting the new social contract of health care, housing, and education. But I'm a guy who's doing that with more billionaires in my district than anyone
[38:15]in any other district. And that in my view is a sense, "Okay, if if Khanna can can say, 'Let's tax these billionaires and fund health care and child care.'" And somehow his district keeps sending him back,
[38:26]maybe this is a majoritarian message. Cuz there are a lot of things you can call me, but you're not going to be able to call the guy who represents a district with $20 of socialist. There are a lot of critiques you can make
[38:38]about me, but you're not going to be able to get tell a guy who just did a fireside chat with Jensen Huang about the future of AI that I don't understand economic wealth generation of the modern economy. But you know what? I don't want
[38:48]an economy which is just going to generate the wealth for billionaires. I have an actual road map of how we're going to get the kids I grew up with in Pennsylvania economic security and
[38:58]prosperity based on the modern economy. So I would say I'm a beneficiary of the work Elizabeth Warren has done and part of the next
[39:07]rung of the relay in taking that along with people like FDR and Bayard Rustin in articulating what a new deal for our time should look like.
[39:18]Bold bold visions, of course, require money. And to put this in context, we're in in the Trump administration we're seeing the debt and deficit skyrocket.
[39:29]So and and in a republic under a Republican Congress we're seeing it go up and up and up. Good financial reporter has got to ask about this. But so we'll we'll put that out there as
[39:39]context. But you talked about bold bold visions. Uh you have to pay for those. And when you talked about paying for them right here at this podium, uh you said cut uh waste and fraud, uh
[39:51]cut the Pentagon budget. You you didn't mention entitlements like Social Security and in fact you called it or Medicare, you you called for expanding Medicare for all. Uh
[40:02]most budget analysts say that without touching entitlements uh we'll never get the uh fiscal the the country's fiscal house in order. What what do you say about uh
[40:13]uh entitlement spending? I disagree with that. Let me uh say, you know, Clinton had balanced budgets uh in in in 2000. Then we did the war in Iraq.
[40:24]Uh then we did 20-year war in Afghanistan. Then we had the Bush tax breaks for the rich. We had the Trump tax breaks in the first term for the
[40:34]rich. We had the Trump tax breaks for this in the second term for the rich. If you just reversed all of that, you would get uh close to budget balanced budgets, not fully because we had the great
[40:43]recession and we had COVID. But a lot of uh the budget cause is because of increased defense spending and massive tax breaks for the wealthy. What I would say on Social Security is I would get
[40:55]rid of the Social Security cap. So, even Mitt Romney has said this, for people making over 400,000, you should tax them on their income on Social Security and you could uh pay for Social Security and
[41:07]even expand benefits. Why? Because there are people in my district, I just met a couple of them, seniors, who are struggling on a couple thousand bucks a month when you've got $20 trillion. So,
[41:18]why wouldn't you just say, "Okay, tax the billionaires a bit more, uh have people paying over 400 making over 400,000 pay Social Security tax so that senior senior family can have economic
[41:28]dignity?" And the numbers would work if you had increase on stock buyback taxes, increase in the step-up in basis taxes, the billionaire tax, defense cuts, uh
[41:37]you could have Social Security and uh expand Medicare. Uh you and Senator Sanders have have uh introduced a billionaires tax bill just recently.
[41:48]>> Yes. How does that go over in Silicon Valley? You've got a lot of billionaires there. It's mixed. >> Have you When you go to When you have town halls, do do the tech billionaires show up and and give you their opinion
[41:59]of that bill? No, they they're they're they're keyboard warriors. They don't have the time to actually show up to a town hall. How how beneath them to come and sit with
[42:08]the the masses and stand in line to ask a question when they can just fund a super PAC against you. I mean, why would they do that? Uh you know, they just recruit candidates. By the way, they never run.
[42:19]Very few from run. You know, the one thing the only thing that I agree with Donald Trump is when when he's not the only thing, but one of the things that few things I agree with Donald Trump is when he says, "You know, all my uh
[42:30]billionaire friends, none of them have the guts to run. They have no idea how hard this is. They they they all think they can be president when they look in the mirror, they probably couldn't run for dogcatcher." Uh and most of them
[42:41]don't. They just write a check because they don't want to do the hard work of democracy. But the reality is that not all billionaires are the same, not all tech leaders are the same. You have some who I call economic patriots who
[42:52]understand that America's been good for them and they should do good for America. That they have made enormous amount. If they have 20 billion, asking them to give 1 billion so people can have health care, child care is not the
[43:03]end of the world, especially when their rate of return is between 8 and 10% conservatively every year. And then you have others who really uh are opposed to the that idea. But I want to build a
[43:13]coalition of business leaders, faith leaders, civic leaders, uh young people to say that we need a new social contract. Not to disparage
[43:24]wealth, but to say once you built wealth that you need to do your part, your fair part uh to help fund the rest of the country. Warren Buffett understands this. Warren Buffett understands that billionaires aren't
[43:35]paying their fair share of tax. Well, artificial intelligence could become a the disruptor of the social compact and a lot of other things including entry-level and and and higher
[43:45]jobs. You represent uh Silicon Valley. What should Democrats say this fall during the campaigns during their campaigns to American
[43:56]workers who are afraid that they're going to lose their jobs to AI? You're right to be afraid and we're going to protect you. Uh we're going to make sure that AI
[44:06]benefits workers, not billionaires. I'm not an AI accelerationist. I'm not an AI doomer, but I'm an AI democratist. And
[44:14]it would be foolish and uh untruthful to tell American workers, whether blue-collar or white-collar, not to worry. That's just not the truth. But
[44:25]not when you have Dario Amodei from Anthropic saying you could have 40% unemployment or social dislocation. Not when youth unemployment is at 18% in China. Not when you have so many coders
[44:36]losing their jobs. Now, you don't have to be draconian about it. You need to say that Democrats will actually protect these jobs making sure we have a human in the loop. That means that truck drivers need to be on trucks as we build
[44:48]technology. That means that there need to be bargaining power for workers with companies so that if their job is being changed, they're going to get a different job and they're going to not
[44:58]be laid off, that there severance if they are laid off, that there is appropriate severance and there is appropriate uh worker insurance. Uh and we need what I
[45:09]are outlined, work for America, modeled after the Work Progress Administration. Imagine if you had the federal government saying to young people in this country, "You can come work to rebuild our nation. You can go rebuild
[45:20]your own community. You can rebuild a different community. You can come and do a moonshot project." And we have hundreds of thousands of people employed, which is where the biggest risk of AI is, in these entry-level jobs. And they're building life skills
[45:32]and they're participating in a national project uh and they're developing uh the their their resume. Uh I believe those are the types of ideas that that we need to offer. But I think we've got to get
[45:43]beyond the AI bad, AI good. I mean, the American people, you know, they have an emotional reaction. They want their leaders to offer a a path forward. So, what? Okay,
[45:53]you're saying AI bad, then what? What are you going to do? You know, we've had so many so many years of sloganeering of people who are kind of entertainers. I
[46:04]think the American people want substance. They want an actual sense of how their kids' lives are going to be materially better in the 21st century. So, what I would say is we need to have
[46:16]a real framework that's going to convince people we understand the future and we have their uh a plan for how it benefits them. A follow-on AI question
[46:26]from uh Taya Graham of the Real News Network here in the audience. Do you support breaking up or regulating major tech firms to prevent AI from creating
[46:36]another Epstein class? Yes, and we're going to need to do more than that to prevent an AI Epstein class. We're going to need to have a tax on billionaires, but absolutely uh we
[46:47]need to have AI regulation. I mean, I don't even understand how this is a question. Uh we have electricity and electricity is regulated. We have nuclear energy, nuclear energy is regulated. We fly on
[46:58]planes, great thing, and I'm glad there's an FAA. Has ever every anyone ever been on a plane when they're like, "Wow, there are too many regulations."? >> [laughter] >> No. You're like, "Thank you that there seat belts. Thank you that you have all
[47:10]the" They say the same thing over and over again uh every time you board. So, AI, which is which by the founders' own belief, is
[47:21]a technology with that kind of power, why wouldn't you want safety regulations on it? Why wouldn't you want to make sure there was certification uh and appropriate checks? And we should have
[47:32]that done in a federal regulatory AI agency. And we shouldn't have a race to the bottom with China. We should say America will provide the safest, most excellent one AI, where you know that the AI isn't going to take your data,
[47:43]where you know that the AI isn't going to do crazy things. And if China wants to have a race to the bottom, you know, let's see who the Europeans and Asians and Africans want to buy the AI from. We should say we will have the highest
[47:54]level. And then I think we also need open source so that you don't get concentrate all the power in these companies. Right. Uh staying on the um
[48:06]uh um uh political questions from the audience. What is your strategy for overcoming pushback opposition from your own party? Uh what about opposition from members of the Republican Party?
[48:18]I don't know which will be tougher. >> [laughter] >> Uh look, people like Senator Schumer need to step aside. Uh we the the the base is unhappy with the Democratic
[48:28]Party leadership. They they they see a Democratic Party that by definition has failed. You have a Donald Trump second term. You know, I grew up a sports fan. You know, if the
[48:40]Eagles kept losing, Philadelphia fans are tough, but you know, there are only so many times they'd say, "Okay, let's have a change. It's not personal." So, my view is that uh
[48:50]where the obstacle is is you've got people who have hung on too long in this town, uh who are out of touch with the base. They're out of touch that on very simple things, that uh there was
[49:01]genocide in Gaza. You know, today is a Holocaust Remembrance Day. And of course what happened uh in Gaza is not comparable to what happened in the Holocaust. But what I take Holocaust
[49:12]Remembrance Day to be about is to be truthful about the cruelties that are happening today. And we should be clear that what happened with 70,000 killed in
[49:23]Gaza was a genocide. We should be clear that there should be no new dollar to Israel. We should be clear that the war is immoral and wrong. We should be clear that a president can't threaten to wipe
[49:35]out human civilization or I mean Iranian civilization, not because uh you know, he didn't consult Congress because it's morally wrong. And we have a democratic leadership that
[49:46]is not speaking with moral conviction. And so I I would say that it's going to be a fight within the party. I you know, I'm not one of these
[49:55]people bite your tongue until the election and let's just have Kumbaya. I'm a believe that we need to infuse this Democratic Party with an energy and a moral conviction that that's going to
[50:07]be part of building a bigger majority in 26 and taking back our country in 2028. Speaking of members of Congress who should go though, another question from the audience. Any
[50:18]Bryson of CBS News in light of Congressman Gonzalez and Congressman Swalwell's announcing their departures, are there more members of Congress that you think may need to resign?
[50:29]Let me let me just be clear. When I say that Senator Schumer should step aside is because of political leadership. >> Well, right. I wasn't implying okay. >> any any personal you know, I I I have no
[50:41]criticism of his personal character. The the uh in the Congress, look, there are people obviously who uh uh have there others
[50:51]who have committed some terrible things and I'd be open to to to to seeing if there are ways that they can resign or be expelled. I mean it's a really really sad
[51:03]uh happened with Gonzalez and uh Swalwell. I mean it's against the law of the House rules to have any inappropriate relationship with any subordinate, whether it's in your
[51:14]office or any other office and that should be a bright line in this day. That doesn't mean you don't have due process. You just don't need to serve in the United States Congress. I mean I'm all for having due process in the judicial system. So if there are other
[51:25]people who have had that kind of inappropriate relationship, then they should resign or leave. And certainly the the that we need to be make sure that
[51:36]our there's a release. I voted for it of all the sexual harassment lawsuits that were settled. I mean all of that should come out. Another audience question. This one about your home your home state. You're
[51:47]now home state. Since 2000, California has had the lowest growth rates in its history as a state and the pandemic intensified the state's
[51:58]population slowdown. However, the state's economy outperformed every other in the US in 2025. Do you think the federal government needs to intervene on
[52:07]the slowing population? California has the problem that the nation has and my district has the same problem, which is that the economy is
[52:16]really working well for those who are in technology, those who are in entertainment, those who are in finance, but it's very hard for people who are in the working and middle class.
[52:27]It's hard because the cost of housing is too high. We messed up housing policy in our state. It's hard because the cost of child care is too high. It's hard because the cost of health care is too high. So uh
[52:38]the reason people are leaving California is not because you know, Sergey Brin is leaving. It's not because the AI revolution isn't going to happen in Silicon Valley. The reason people are
[52:49]leaving, if you just look at the data, is because they can't afford to a house, because they can't afford the cost of living. So what I would argue and one of the reasons I've supported Tom Steyer is that we need a progressive governor in
[53:00]California who is going to have policies for universal health care, universal child care, building new homes, uh being a YIMBY, so that we can make life better for the
[53:11]working and middle class in California. That is the challenge. Fox News gets it all wrong. If they were smarter about it, they wouldn't be focused on some of exodus of business. They'd be focused
[53:21]about how is life for the working class in California. That is the issue. Right. YIMBY yes in my backyard for those who know. And I
[53:32]on on AI regulation, I just thought of the follow-up I wanted to ask you earlier. Uh state and federal AI regulation or just federal Of course I mean state and federal. Most good
[53:43]federal legislation comes from states regulating and then taking the best from different states. But right now you have an administration that is totally accelerationist. That has basically
[53:53]given the keys of AI to their tech billionaires friends. So the only check is state regulation. And what type of state regulation do we need? Have
[54:04]truck drivers on trucks. We don't want four to five million truck drivers losing their jobs in this country. Make sure that kids are not being bombarded with sensational
[54:16]algorithms. Make sure that decisions about someone's health care denials aren't happening by algorithm. Make sure that someone's decision to be put in prison aren't happening by
[54:26]algorithm. Those are all things that can be done at a state level until we have the federal level of thoughtful regulation. Down to to two final questions. One one regular question and then kind of a fun
[54:38]question for me. We'll get to that in a moment. But the final question actually is from the audience. Just received it. We're going to go back to the Epstein files. How has the arrest of Andrew
[54:49]Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in Britain influenced Congress's outlook on what accountability would look like for the Epstein class members in America?
[54:59]I'll answer the question if you permit me a uh personal digression. I My grandfather, as some people know, was part of Gandhi's independence
[55:08]movement. Went to jail in the 1930s and then the 1940s during Quit India. And so uh during this entire Epstein issue, there was a headline that
[55:20]I saw in Britain, "Grandfather jailed by British monarchy. Grandson in US Congress may bring down British monarchy." But I don't intend to bring down the British monarchy. I
[55:32]appreciate though that the former prince was arrested and that there is some accountability. I have made a request to King Charles that he meet when he comes
[55:43]here with the survivors, not to discuss the details of his brother's case, but to show that the modern British monarchy is relevant and and on the side of those
[55:54]who are under privileged and have been ignored. I think it would be an incredible gesture to show the relevance of it. But what is happening in Britain, what is happening in Norway, what is happening
[56:04]in France is instructive to the Congress in that it is embarrassing America. Two American Congress people got the Epstein files
[56:13]released and America has been the least nation to actually hold the Epstein class accountable. In fact, Britain is asking for the
[56:23]release of the remaining files based on the Epstein Transparency Act. So it should be sobering that instead of leading in holding the Epstein class accountable, we have been a laggard. And
[56:35]I believe what Britain is doing and other nations are doing is more reason for urgency in this administration to to actually get justice.
[56:46]Before I ask the final question, let me take a moment to thank our Headliners team who helped organize today's discussion as well as Club Executive Director DD A. Saugy and all of the club
[56:58]staff for making this event possible. Thank you to our audience for being here with us as well. We hope you will join us for our next Headliners event on
[57:07]April 28th when AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler will address artificial intelligence impact >> artificial intelligence impact on the
[57:16]American workforce and the AFL-CIO's ongoing work. So we're going to be pursuing AI at at future club events. >> participated in a round table she led on
[57:27]AI and she's really very thoughtful. So she'll be great. Now let me present you Congressman Khanna with our coveted National Press Club mug. >> of this. I'm very excited about this mug.
[57:37]>> It's all our speakers receive. Thank you. Thank you for being here. >> on my desk. I appreciate it. Yes. >> I love coffee, so this will do. Excellent. And now for our final question. I read that you're a Golden
[57:48]State Warriors fan. Is that correct? I am. I'm more a Phillies and 49ers fan, but I do follow the Warriors. It's Steve Kerr and Curry. >> Okay. Well, the Warriors are in a play-in game tonight, I believe, in the
[58:00]NBA playoffs. >> How are they going to do and what are the chances that the Warriors are going to be the next Miami Heat who went from a play-in to the NBA
[58:10]championship two years ago? >> I would just say never underestimate Steve Kerr. He's one of the best coaches and Curry and the team. So I mean it's they're underdogs, but I think they have
[58:22]a shot. >> [laughter] >> Well, and and just a follow-on question if I may, because I read a story in The Athletic this morning that Coach Kerr is under pressure given this year's performance of the
[58:34]team. It sounds like you think he should stay in place. >> Absolutely. He's one of the greatest coaches. I mean he he is he was obviously on the Bulls when he was a three-point shooter. He's been one of the few
[58:44]coaches to speak out on gun violence and he really cares about the community in the Bay Area. He's very engaged, by the way, as is Steve as is Curry. They have foundations that
[58:55]are very civically engaged. But as a coach, he uh is an incredible coach. I mean he makes it about the team. He has the respect of his players. And of course he had an incredible
[59:07]run. So I'm I'm a big fan. I I personally know him, so I'm probably biased, but I I certainly would be a vote for him to stay. Not that my I just don't want to hurt him. I don't want to
[59:18]like say, you know, get get billionaires are like, "Ah, we got to get rid of Kerr. Khanna has he's got Khanna's endorsement." So, you know, I whatever I I'll just say he's he's a he's a great coach.
[59:29]Congressman Ro Khanna, thank you for joining us today. >> Appreciate it. >> [applause]