The following is a lightly edited transcript of the January 27 episode of The Daily Blast podcast. Listen to it here.
Greg Sargent: This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR Network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.
As the political world absorbs the shocking news of Alex Pretti’s murder by federal agents in Minneapolis, President Trump is realizing that these horrors are becoming a major political problem. He just sent his border czar to Minnesota and even claimed he had a constructive conversation with Minnesota’s Democratic governor. Meanwhile, numerous reports show Republicans and even senior ICE officials panicking about the situation. And White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt refused to say whether Trump backs officials who labeled Prede a domestic terrorist. Democrats are now demanding major restrictions on the Department of Homeland Security and vowing to oppose funding if they don’t get them. Will Democrats hold the line? We’re talking today to Senator Chris Murphy, who has been a leader in calling for a serious congressional effort in restraining ICE. Senator Murphy, thanks so much for joining us.
Senator Chris Murphy: Yeah, absolutely. Good to be with you.
Sargent: So just to recap, after the horrific murder of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Democratic senators vowed not to fund the Department of Homeland Security without major, major restrictions on it—and maybe not to fund it at all.
Democrats are debating what to demand from Republicans in the White House to restrict ICE. Senator, where are those discussions among Democrats right now?
Murphy: Well, we’re working it through. I’ve been on the phone pretty constantly over the last three to four days trying to get consensus. Obviously, I have been of the mind for a while that it made no sense to fund a Department of Homeland Security that was out of control even before these last two murders. To me, it looks like it was a violation of our oath to hand billions of dollars to a Trump Department of Homeland Security that every single day is violating the law.
I think it’s important for us to understand that this is not just about Minneapolis. I understand that the country is seized by the mayhem and the chaos there—the murder of American citizens. But in every state all across the country, there is a degree of terrorism happening. I was in Texas last week, Greg, and I spent the morning at an immigration court. This is a place where legal immigrants are showing up to apply for asylum. And what’s happening there is just fundamentally immoral.
These immigrants are coming to the courtroom. They’re going in for their hearing. They’re advancing their case. And then they walk out of the door and they get disappeared by ICE, never to be seen again.
So whatever reforms we construct have to apply not just to what’s happening on the ground in Minneapolis, although I think that should be our primary focus, but to the illegality that’s happening all over the country right now.
Sargent: Well, let’s just back up and look at what’s happening with Trump right now. Trump just announced that he’s sending border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota. He claimed he had a constructive call with Governor Tim Walz.
Meanwhile, we’re seeing Republicans splitting: Senator Bill Cassidy and others are calling for a full investigation. Some in the administration are leaking that the politics of this have turned against them. Anonymous ICE officials are leaking that there’s extreme frustration with DHS for blaming shooting victims.
Senator, I think Trump wants to be seen as trying to get the situation under control amid Republican panic. How do you read it from your side?
Murphy: I don’t know. I’m glad you’re optimistic. I mean, first of all, what a low bar we have for Republicans. I mean, so the story is that Republicans are splitting because they want a state investigation of a murder. Like, I mean, that’s something that we never, ever argued about. Of course, a state has a right to investigate a murder of its citizen. There is no sign that Republicans are breaking on anything that would actually have a substantive change in the way that ICE and DHS are operating.
Tom Homan is not some avatar of restraint. He’s been lying through his teeth about what ICE has been doing since he was put on the job. He’s a fundamentally corrupt leader and somebody who has been cheerleading the brutality from the start.
So I hope that things are going to change in Minneapolis for the sake of the citizens of that city. But I don’t want to put too much optimism in the rumblings we’ve heard out of the White House today. Let’s see for ourselves what happens on the ground.
Sargent: I want to play some audio of Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary. First, here she is refusing to say whether Trump endorses Stephen Miller’s description of Pretti as a domestic terrorist.
Reporter (voiceover): Secretary Noem said Alex Pretti committed an act of domestic terrorism. Stephen Miller labeled Pretti a domestic terrorist. Does the president agree with them?
Karoline Leavitt (voiceover): Look, as I’ve said, I have not heard the president characterize Mr. Pretti in that way. However, I have heard the president say he wants to the facts in the investigation lead itself.
Sargent: And here she basically says Holman will replace Greg Bovino as the point man in Minneapolis, essentially throwing Bovino under the bus.
Reporter (voiceover): Is Gregory Bovino also going to remain in Minnesota overseeing his ICE operation?
Karoline Leavitt (voiceover): Mr. Bovino is a wonderful man and he’s a great professional. He is going to very much continue to lead Customs and Border Patrol throughout and across the country. Mr. Homan will be the main point of contact on the ground in Minneapolis.
Sargent: Senator, what’s your reaction to that? I think it’s very clear that if you’re putting Tom Homan in charge of your damage control, you’re not in a good spot—accepting your point about how we don’t really know how they view this and they’re completely out of control. I think that there’s some clear evidence now that Trump himself seems to recognize that there’s a real political problem here, especially in labeling these victims domestic terrorists.
Murphy: Right. And an assassin, right? I mean, within minutes of that shooting, they were labeling him a domestic terrorist and an assassin, when everyone could see with their own eyes exactly what happened, which was that he was exercising his First Amendment rights, that ICE and CBP approached him, and that he was murdered.
And I think it’s just bone-chilling to the American public that our federal officials at the highest level lie to us and that Trump hasn’t cleared up what his top advisers have said. Karoline Leavitt had an opportunity there to say, Donald Trump does not believe that he’s a domestic terrorist. He does not believe that he was an assassin. But she won’t do that.
And yes, their bench is Tom Homan. I mean, the problem is the only people that they have available to go in and try to manage Minneapolis are also fundamentally unprepared individuals who have no history of doing anything other than making a mess of people’s constitutional rights. So again, I’m hoping for de-escalation. It just doesn’t appear that by picking Tom Homan, they are paving a path to things being much better.
Sargent: Well, let’s go back to Democrats for a sec. Sources are telling us that a group of Senate Democrats are kind of coalescing around some specifics: requiring warrants for arrests, requiring federal agents to identify themselves, requiring DHS to cooperate with state and local investigations into horrors like this one. That would be a real advance.
And requiring Customs and Border Protection to stay confined to the border, as opposed to invading communities in the interior. Is that what Democrats are starting to coalesce around? Is there a group of Democrats who wants that as the basic bottom line?
Murphy: Yeah, I’ve been a part of a bunch of different conversations over the last 48 hours in which we are—you’re trying to come up with a list of reforms that meets the moment. And what I mean by that is this: I understand that, you know, under the gun of a government shutdown, we are not going to be able to do a comprehensive immigration reform package.
I also know that these reforms have to be substantive; it can’t just be window dressing. And so I think that the list that you articulated is consistent with those two goals. So yes, we have been talking about de-escalating the practices by requiring warrants for immigration arrests.
You basically stop the most abusive practices, which are these street-by-street sweeps, the “show me your papers” practice, and the home-to-home confrontations—requiring identification and body cameras—again, that gets at accountability. A state investigation would at least clear up and allow for accountability for what happened in these crimes.
And then getting CBP back to its mission, right? It’s trained to be at the border; it’s not trained to do crowd control or criminal investigations. I think that’s really important as well. Again, none of those reforms, even if they were all passed, would fundamentally—would not address every single one of the abuses we are seeing. But it would make Minneapolis much more safe. It would make the cities in Texas that I visited much more safe. It would be a real, important set of reforms.
Sargent: Well, can I ask, do you expect at the end of the day that that’s essentially what Democrats will demand in exchange for any funding for DHS? That basic package?
Murphy: Yeah, I mean, I think—I can’t say that. That is certainly a package that unites a lot of Democrats. I would add to that list restrictions of ICE and CBP operating in sensitive places like churches and schools. But this full conversation with the caucus has really begun after Alex Pretti’s murder. And I think in the next 24 to 48 hours, you’ll, you know, hear what our consensus requests are.
Now, of course, it requires Republicans to agree with us, but I think when people see what we’re asking for, they’ll see that it’s reasonable. It really is simply about getting ICE back to obeying the law. And I think there’ll be a real groundswell of support across the country behind the reasonable but impactful reforms that we’re going to be asking and demanding.
Sargent: Well, so let’s kind of look ahead. Do you expect the entire Democratic caucus to hold the line here? It’s sort of easy to see a handful of Democrats breaking away and supporting continued funding to DHS. How do you see that unfolding?
And would you urge Senator Schumer to make sure that doesn’t happen? Would you urge Senator Schumer to keep the caucus united behind no funding unless you do this package of restrictions?
Murphy: Well, I would be a fool to make a prediction. Obviously, we have a really diverse caucus. I think we held together very well when we were demanding an end to the plan to increase people’s health care premiums. But then in the end, we had a handful of Democrats that crossed over and ultimately agreed to something that was not sufficient to protect our citizens.
I don’t know what’s going to happen this time around. I think right now my sense is that we are pretty united around, (a) demanding that there be a separate standalone vote on the Department of Homeland Security budget and, (b) that there will be a conversation around significant restraints. Beyond that, I can’t predict the future.
Sargent: Right. Just to clarify for people, what you’re referring to there is that Democrats want to advance other appropriations bills separate from DHS funding before the deadline. Do you expect Trump and Republicans to agree to that? I guess indications are that they won’t. If not, what happens then? You really need Democrats to hold the damn line here and refuse to budge, right? Until they get what they want in terms of DHS restrictions.
Murphy: Well, I mean, that’s not an unreasonable request at all—especially after Alex Pretti’s murder—to simply say, let’s isolate the budget that we have disagreements on and then we can pass those other budgets. Now, disclosure: I’m not a big fan of those other budgets.
I don’t think the Department of Defense budget or the Department of Transportation budget actually have sufficient restraints against Trump’s illegality in those departments. But I submit that there are probably enough Democrats who will cross over and vote with Republicans to fund DOD, the State Department, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
So if Thune chooses to keep those all lumped together, then it’s his decision to shut down half of the federal government. I think Democrats would be prepared to vote on all those other budgets. Those departments would stay open and the fight would just be over the Department of Homeland Security. So if there’s a shutdown—a broad shutdown of many federal agencies—that’s the Republicans’ decision. That’s a Republican shutdown.
Sargent: Right. And given the emergency that is clearly unfolding in places like Minneapolis, you would think that it would be an easy case for Democrats to make. They could just say, Look, we’re in the middle of an actual serious emergency. Americans are getting killed by their own government. You know, we’re not doing this. We’re not going to vote for a funding bill if you’re not going to have a real debate over what to do about this, right?
Murphy: Yeah. And listen, this is a moral moment. Right. I know that sometimes Democrats are afraid or reluctant to engage in a fight on the issue of immigration or border security because I think we believe that we too consistently in the past have lost those fights.
(a) This president has lost any political advantage he has on the issue of immigration and border security, because people don’t believe anything that’s happening in Minneapolis has to do with border security. But (b) it’s not really an issue about immigration or border security any longer. It’s an issue of abuse of power. It’s an issue of humanity and morality.
And that’s a fight that we can win again because we aren’t demanding broad immigration reform. We are simply saying: Stop murdering U.S. citizens. Stop purposefully evading the law. We want ICE to behave lawfully. And if they do that, they will likely get enough Democratic votes to pass this budget. That is absolutely a fight that we can win.
Sargent: Right. And I think a lot of liberals worry that the Democratic leadership in the Senate and potentially maybe a small block of senators doesn’t see it the way you see it. And I think you’re absolutely right. I’d even go further and say, I think Trump is losing the country on immigration itself.
But so it would really be a catastrophe for the party at this point if senators broke and supported something insufficient in terms of restricting DHS. Would it not? I mean, you’ve been willing to sort of push the party in this kind of direction—it sure seems to me like it would be an absolute calamity for the party if something goes wrong and they don’t really get actual restrictions on DHS.
Murphy: I do think that we’ve reached another one of these breaking points where the public is looking at a runaway democracy and they feel like maybe no one can save it. Well, Senate Democrats are in a position to save it because they do need our votes to fund this illegality.
And I think if people don’t see us fighting on something as existential as whether we condone the federal government murdering our own citizens, then there will be a mass withdrawal from politics altogether. And so I do think this is a critical moment.
The whole country is seized by what they have seen—the statistics suggest that 80 to 90 percent of Americans have seen these videos—and they desperately want somebody to stand up for the rule of law. So yes, if we do not make a fight right now, I think it could result in just a massive withdrawal of participation in our civic life.
And that is how democracies die, right? Democracies die not often simply by force—of it would be totalitarian—but by citizens deciding that there’s no one that is willing to stand up and save them. And we have to show as the primary opposition party, Senate Democrats, that we are willing to stand up and fight for the ideals of this country. This is a pivotal, pivotal moment in the fight to save our democracy.
Sargent: Right. And to be clear, you’re also talking here about the Democratic base. The Democratic base would just withdraw if they actually see their leaders in this situation not standing up.
Murphy: Yeah. And again, this isn’t a hard moment for us to stand up because the people are with us. 60 to 70 percent of Americans don’t support what ICE is doing. People want to see us fight for our values right now. And yes, the result will be a lot of voters who tend to turn out in midterm elections just won’t.
And a lot of Democratic activists who we rely on to protect our democracy—they’re the ones that show up at these national and local protests. I think many of them will also start to scratch their heads and say: Wait a second, if I’m alone out here and my national leaders aren’t willing to fight, then it’s not worth it.
But let’s not be pessimistic about this. We’re talking today because Senate Democrats this weekend stood together and said: We are not going to fund the Department of Homeland Security without reforms. And so I am very hopeful. I am planning for my colleagues sticking together to demand those reforms.
We’ve got to show strength. And I will say in the past, Republicans have just waited us out because they thought that we would break. And we have broken in the past. And this would be, I think, a very dangerous moment for us to do that because of the very specific moral question being put to the nation: Does the president of the United States get to murder American citizens? The answer to that question has to be no, but it likely will only be no if we’re in a position to win this fight.
Sargent: Well, since you’ve been willing to push the party along these lines, I want to ask you if maybe we need something even bigger from the Democratic Party right now: some sort of unified statement maybe by senators, House members, governors, attorneys general—in some form, just coalescing behind the idea that Trump’s paramilitary warfare against Americans and American cities just has to end.
I think I’ve seen some people suggest a move by Democrats almost similar to Europe defending Greenland, which ended up humiliating Trump. Where are you on that? Would you like to see something even bigger at this point, given the existential nature of this moment?
Murphy: Well, I mean, I’m up for anything. I mean, I guess I don’t put a lot of political stock in joint statements. I think the fight is in the Senate right now. I mean, we have real power, right? A statement is important. It’s a visual of what you stand for, but we actually hold power in the Senate.
We can decide—not to shut down the entirety of these operations because, as you know, even if the Department of Homeland Security didn’t have appropriations funding, they still have $70 billion left over from the reconciliation bill—but it is not easy for them to transfer over all their operations from regular budgetary appropriations to money from the Big Beautiful Bill. It would slow them down. It would slow the illegality down. So I just think we should focus on this legislative moment in which we hold power; we can constrain their illegality. That probably is the most important thing: to show people that we’re not willing to back down.
Sargent: And do you anticipate that Democrats actually might hold the line if it comes to that—if there’s actually a protracted confrontation, a shutdown of some kind?
Murphy: Well, I plan for success always. So I’m planning for success here. And listen, we’re going to be in constant contact with our colleagues. I’m sure there will be offers from Republicans or even offers from the White House to make paper changes, executive orders—things that might look different in Minneapolis to try to distract you from the fact that there’s still a dystopia happening in San Antonio.
And so for those of us who know immigration law well, who have worked in and around immigration law and ICE enforcement for years, our job is to help our colleagues not fall for reforms that are paper-thin.
Sargent: Senator Chris Murphy, best of luck at this mission. It’s pretty damn important. Thanks so much for coming on with us.
Murphy: Thanks, man.
Hence then, the article about transcript a dem senator s harsh takedown of trump breaking point was published today ( ) and is available on The New Republic ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Transcript: A Dem Senator’s Harsh Takedown of Trump: “Breaking Point” )
Also on site :
- Maria Shriver Sends a Clear Message About America's Future: 'No More Excuses'
- Aldi's 3-Piece Vintage-Inspired Apothecary Jar Set Will Elevate Your Bathroom Organization Beautifully
- Russia-Ukraine war: List of key events, day 1,433