MS NOW EXCLUSIVE: Van Hollen will take on Schumer to lead Senate Democrats — FULL VIDEO

[0:00] Yes, I am planning to run for the Senate Majority Leader. [0:04] And let me tell you why, because this is not about any one individual, [0:08] but it is about answering the call of the American people. [0:12] We saw a huge outburst of democracy on Election Day, [0:17] red states, blue states, purple states. [0:19] And it wasn't only a rejection of Donald Trump and his corruption [0:24] and his wars and his cruelty. [0:25] It was also about a call for a larger change, to take on a broken economic system [0:32] that's rigged in favor of the very wealthy against working people. [0:36] And it's fueled by a corrupt political system. [0:39] And the call was really to reject the status quo and to reject business as usual. [0:46] And to do that, I think we need new leadership. [0:50] You've, as recently as Saturday, you said you weren't planning to do this. [0:54] What has changed over the last couple of days? [0:56] What's changed was the sense of how this is a generational opportunity [1:01] for the Senate to respond to the call of the American people for change. [1:07] The scale and scope of this victory, 56 Senate Democratic seats, [1:12] really gives us a mandate and the votes to do big things. [1:17] But it should be very clear, while voters have rejected the Trump policies, [1:23] they've not yet hired Democrats. [1:24] They've given us a chance. [1:26] We have to earn their trust. [1:28] And my view is that you can't earn that trust with old leadership. [1:33] You need to move on to new leadership. [1:36] So I think a lot of people out there, they did vote for change. [1:39] They feel that, right? [1:40] A lot of people who are coming in have expressed an openness to different leadership at the top [1:45] in the Senate. [1:46] But for those who are looking at the priorities and they're wondering, [1:49] what is the difference between having you as the majority leader and Chuck Schumer? [1:54] For people out there who aren't living in Washington, who aren't attuned to all of the leadership [1:58] elections, what's the difference? [2:00] Sure. [2:00] I think there are a number of differences. [2:02] One is I believe that we should use our full power in the United States Senate to respond to the [2:09] calls of the American people. [2:10] So, for example, the war in Iran, this is an illegal and senseless war. [2:16] I believe we need to end it now, immediately, to use all our power to do that. [2:21] That means not one more penny spent on this war so that we can bring prices down right away. [2:27] I mean, gas prices are up. [2:28] Diesel prices are up. [2:29] We're going into a winter where home heating oil prices are up. [2:33] We should end this war and bring down costs now. [2:36] And what would you do that is different from how Leader Schumer would approach that particular [2:42] issue? [2:43] Well, he hasn't taken a position on this. [2:45] Well, for people who are, you know, they haven't tuned in to exactly the differences. [2:48] So tell them the differences. [2:49] Yeah, look, well, the difference is I believe we need to be firm. [2:53] I think that we heard loud and clear from the American people that they want to end the war in [2:58] Iran and bring down prices. [2:59] Like 75 percent of voters who went to the polls said, end the war, bring down prices. [3:05] We should do it now. [3:06] We shouldn't say we're going to wait till January when we have the power to do it on [3:11] December 11th. [3:13] And so this should not be a finger in the wind issue. [3:15] This should not be sort of frittering around. [3:17] This should not be a question of timidity. [3:19] We need to answer the call of the American people and the war, bring down prices, do it [3:24] now. [3:25] Not a penny, not a penny to fuel this war. [3:29] So it's about funding for the war and it's about keeping the Democrats together once they're [3:34] in the majority to oppose any additional funding. [3:38] That's one example. [3:39] I mean, that's an example of immediately using the power that we have, all of the power we [3:43] have to answer the call of the American people, which was overwhelming. [3:48] End the war, bring down costs. [3:50] And you think that would prompt the president of the United States. [3:54] He would be forced to end the war is your point. [3:55] You think that's the approach that would force him to end the war? [3:57] Because Congress can't do it unilaterally, right? [3:59] The president would be given a choice, right? [4:02] Does he say to the American people that I'm going to shut down the United States government? [4:06] Am I going to shut down all the agencies of the U.S. [4:08] government to keep the legal war in Iran going and to keep prices high when we could do it [4:15] now? [4:15] So the president would have a choice. [4:18] He could choose to completely ignore the will of the American people and shut down the [4:23] government. [4:24] But my view is it's our job to do what we think is best for the country. [4:30] There are a number of incoming, and I want to talk more about your agenda, too, here. [4:34] But there's a lot of question out there. [4:35] There's a lot of openness, I should say, from incoming members and existing members to [4:40] a difference, a change in leadership at the top. [4:42] I want to play for you, though, something that Alyssa Slotkin, Senator Alyssa Slotkin, [4:46] said earlier this week. [4:47] She did a press conference with Senator Bernie Sanders. [4:49] He made clear afterwards he would be supporting you. [4:52] But I want to play what she said and get your thoughts on it. [4:54] I think whoever wants to run this caucus should come forward with a [5:03] plan on how they're going to govern differently, what they're going to do in the first 100 [5:08] days to put money in people's pockets, and then in particular, how they're going to communicate [5:12] differently. [5:13] So you've mentioned the war. [5:16] That is on the minds of so many people out there, so many Americans. [5:19] That would obviously have an impact on gas prices. [5:22] There's lots of concerns that Americans have out there also about the level of corruption, right? [5:27] Also about health care costs. [5:29] What else would you do that would be different from Leader Schumer in terms of how you would [5:34] approach the first 100 days? [5:35] So we need to immediately tackle the issues you just mentioned. [5:39] We need to reverse the damage from the Trump administration. [5:43] We need to restore the Medicaid funding. [5:47] We need to make sure we restore the food nutrition programs. [5:50] Republicans had tax cuts for the rich permanently. [5:53] We need to extend tax credits for the Affordable Care Act. [5:57] But we can't stop there, right? [5:59] We have a completely broken health care system. [6:02] It's become profits, not people. [6:04] And so my view is we also need, in the first 100 days, to make health care more affordable [6:10] for tens of millions of people. [6:12] We need to immediately make it clear that nobody's going to pay one penny to subsidize [6:17] data centers. [6:18] We need to rein in AI, mandatory safeguards, protect workers. [6:24] We need to make sure that we have a livable minimum wage. [6:28] And I will also say, and I think it's important, Jan, on the political side of the equation, [6:34] we shouldn't have a Democratic leader who is getting involved in picking sides in open [6:42] Democratic primaries. [6:44] And we should be focused on defeating Republicans, not getting involved. [6:49] We have we have two senators right now in the United States Senate who wouldn't be there [6:54] if the current majority leader had his way. [6:57] He supported establishment candidates in the primaries. [7:00] Talking about Maine and Michigan. [7:02] We're talking about Michigan and Minnesota. [7:04] OK. [7:04] You're also right about Maine. [7:06] You said a lot of things there. [7:07] So let's dig into a couple of them. [7:09] So you think as it was as majority leader, you would not take sides in primaries, not [7:15] certainly not in open primaries. [7:16] OK. [7:17] You wouldn't be recruiting your preferred candidates for primaries. [7:20] You would let the people pick in those states. [7:22] I think the Democratic primary voters, the voters in the state should pick, not Washington, [7:25] D.C. [7:26] You've also mentioned in the past, you've been very critical of Leader Schumer and the [7:30] DSTC, frankly, for taking money from APAC, from the crypto industry. [7:34] If you were the Democratic leader, would you also not take money? [7:37] Would the DSTC not take money from APAC or from the crypto industry? [7:40] Are there other red lines you have on that front? [7:42] So the two races that we talked about, you're right. [7:45] Leader Schumer sided with the candidate who is backed by APAC and crypto. [7:51] So my view is we should not have a Democratic leader who's weighing in in that way in any [7:56] of these races. [7:57] That's significant, though. [7:59] It is significant also that you're deciding to jump into this race. [8:02] I should also note. [8:04] So does that mean there would be no money taken by the DSTC? [8:07] If from APAC, if you were the leader. [8:10] So my view is that we shouldn't take any APAC money at the DSTC. [8:14] OK, just to be clear, I just wanted to be clear on that. [8:16] Let's talk about there are a lot of priorities. [8:18] The American people want a lot to happen, right, with an incoming Congress. [8:22] There'd be a lot on the shoulders of whomever the Democratic leader is. [8:26] Another issue they're very focused on is holding the Trump administration to account. [8:32] Investigations. [8:32] And there's a lot of calls for that, a lot of interest in that. [8:35] So as you look to some of the issues that there have been calls for investigations, [8:39] Trump's corruption, the Iran war, ICE, what is at the top of very top of your list in terms [8:45] of where you would like to see investigations prioritized? [8:49] So, Jen, this is an area where there has to be coordination between the House and the [8:52] Senate and among committees, because I think we should investigate Trump corruption, especially [8:57] the Trump corruption that has a direct direct link to hurting the American people in our [9:02] national security interests. But I also think we should investigate how we got into this war [9:08] in Iran. And I also believe we should have oversight over ICE. [9:13] I mean, ICE is responsible and the Department of Homeland Security for killing two American [9:19] citizens. And yet they've worked to cover it up. [9:21] They first called them domestic terrorists and now they're covering up. [9:24] So, yes, we need to shine a spotlight on that. [9:26] And I do think that we can do all of that and also make sure that we have a strong agenda [9:32] for working people. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. [9:36] But what would you want to do first of the investigations? [9:39] Because there are different committees working on different areas of jurisdiction, but there [9:43] are certain committees that have more oversight power. [9:46] Where would you want them to focus there? [9:47] So, for example, I think the oversight committees, for example, in the House Oversight Committee [9:51] and the Judiciary Committees, they should focus on Trump's corruption and not just his personal [9:57] corruption. I mean, he's made two billion dollars since he's been president, but also how he sells [10:03] favors out of the overall office to his billionaire buddies. But that doesn't mean, for example, [10:08] that the Armed Services Committee, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can't look into something [10:11] like how did we get into the Iran war? So different committees have different jurisdictions. [10:16] I do think it's also important that as we shine a spotlight on corruption, that we make it very [10:23] clear that our top priorities are these kitchen table issues, because this was a populist election, [10:28] right? This was not right versus left. This was not Democrats or progressives. This was people fed up [10:35] with a system that stacked against working people in favor of the very wealthy. So we really need to [10:41] keep our eye on the ball there. [10:42] There are a number of incoming members who were elected from red states who won over 10%, 11% or [10:49] more percentage of Republicans in their state. People like Adam Hamilton, first Democrat elected [10:53] in Kansas since 1932, very significant, who said if he spends the next two years being doing [10:59] investigations, he would be deeply disappointed is how he phrased it. You prevent that from being [11:05] something that is weighing down these new members or others who have concerns about investigations [11:09] taking over the agenda of the incoming Democratic majority. [11:14] Well, I agree with Adam Hamilton. We cannot allow the investigations to eclipse our main focus, [11:21] which needs to be on these kitchen table issues, the things that put more money in people's pockets, [11:26] bring down costs, and by the way, deal with the corruption or political system that feeds that [11:33] economic rigged system. So I think that needs to be our focus. That will be our legislative focus. [11:38] But you can also have committee hearings that shine a spotlight on those other issues [11:42] to hold the president accountable, because you don't want people to think that they can get away [11:46] with all this wrongdoing and illegal action going forward. I really think we can and must do both. [11:53] Talk about the numbers here, because in order to I mean, this is a small number of votes that [11:58] anybody is looking for who's trying to be the Democratic majority leader in the Senate, [12:02] right? You are trying to get the majority of 55, 56 senators, right? So right now, [12:08] as far as the count we saw publicly, Chuck Schumer has at least 12 senators who have come out publicly [12:13] for him. He said he's confident he'll be elected. Clearly, he thinks he has the votes. I assume you [12:19] disagree with his math on that. But why? Because I've talked to almost every member now, [12:26] or at least tried to reach them. And I've gotten feedback from members of the caucus. And my view is [12:31] this is very much in flux. Am I the underdog? Yes. You're talking about an incumbent who uses the power [12:37] of incumbency to, you know, provide deals to people. I think that's part of the problem. I [12:43] mean, I think the American people want to see a little bit more democracy in the Senate Democratic [12:49] Caucus. We just had a great day for democracy around the country. We should have a little bit [12:53] of democracy in the Senate Democratic Caucus. You mentioned some of the new people. You know, [12:57] one of the things they heard on the campaign trail led them to say they're not going to support [13:02] our current majority leader. They're not going to support Senator Schumer. That was in response to [13:06] people they were hearing from in this election. Have you talked? Okay, sir. So I think we need [13:11] to be listening. I've talked to just, yes, all of the incoming members. Yes, I've talked to all [13:15] the incoming members. And look, I think, as they said to their constituents, there is a desire for [13:22] change, not just fighting back against the Trump policies, but really change in Washington, D.C., [13:28] getting a written, getting beyond the status quo. And I think that requires new leadership. [13:33] So you were, just to be clear, you were just announcing right now that you're running against [13:37] Chuck Schumer, but you have been making calls. This is how the process works. I should remind [13:40] everybody, you've got to make calls and see who you're getting support from. At this point, [13:44] we've seen Senator Bernie Sanders came out and supported you publicly. How many other private [13:50] pledges of support do you have? I'm not, we have, we have a lot of people. More than 10? [13:55] We have more than 10. More than 15? Let me say this, Jen. We have a lot of people. But here's [14:03] the thing about an election like this. As you say, I'm the underdog. A lot of people have not seen that [14:09] this is going to be a race for sure yet, right? I told people I was thinking about it. And so now we [14:16] are opening up the process, right? And now people will have to make a decision one way or the other. [14:21] And they have to decide whether they want to vote for change or whether they want to vote for the [14:29] status quo. That was part one of my exclusive interview with Senator Chris Van Hollen, who has [14:35] just announced that he is running against Senator Chuck Schumer for majority leader in the next [14:39] Congress. And Senator Schumer, I should note, has released a statement in response. He says, quote, [14:44] I welcome any discussion about the future of our caucus and the important work ahead. I'm proud of what [14:49] we've accomplished together. Fifty five seats and counting is an amazing result. And I have the votes [14:53] to continue serving as Democratic leader. I look forward to leading our new Democratic majority and [14:58] delivering for the American people. After a quick break, I'm going to bring you more of my exclusive [15:02] interview with Senator Chris Van Hollen, including his answer to whether or not he would support [15:06] Democrats impeaching Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Attorney General Todd Blanche, and even President [15:12] Donald Trump. Stay with us. Let me ask you a little bit more about investigations, because a lot of [15:17] the other thing that's on people's minds are impeachment, right? We've seen a failed impeachment [15:22] vote in the House for Pete Hegseth this week. Hakeem Jeffries, who, of course, you'd be coordinating [15:27] with if you were in this position, said he wants to see that come back up. Would you welcome a trial [15:31] for Pete Hegseth? I would. I mean, it would, of course, be on their time if they were supposed to do [15:36] it, right? So, yes, I wish that that initiative had passed. I mean, Pete Hegseth has committed war crimes. [15:41] He's lied to the American people. He should never have been Secretary of Defense to begin with. But the answer is [15:47] yes, I would. What about Todd Blanche? I don't think we can spend all our time, right, on impeachments. [15:53] I think Hegseth is an example, which was a bipartisan example in the House. But I do think [16:00] Todd Blanche needs to be held accountable. I mean, he's the guy that came up with the idea of using [16:05] taxpayer dollars for a slush fund to give to people who committed crimes on January 6th. And you've seen [16:12] them corrupting the judicial process. So, yes, we need to have a shine a spotlight on exactly what's [16:20] happening at the Justice Department because it's not in the interests of justice. But you don't [16:25] necessarily think, obviously, if the House votes to impeach Todd Blanche, it would go to the Senate. [16:29] But you don't think that should be a priority? I don't think that should be a priority. It's not [16:34] that he has not committed impeachable offenses. It's how are we going to use our time at this moment? [16:40] And I do think, as Adam Hamilton said, we should be focused on these kitchen table issues, [16:46] putting more money in people's pockets, bringing down costs and going after the corrupt political [16:51] system that feeds the rigged economic system. So what about President Trump? Do you think [16:58] there should be, would you welcome impeachment proceedings for him? I think he has also committed [17:02] impeachable offenses. There were two impeachments against Donald Trump in his first term. [17:07] So my view is we should not be focused on that at this point in time. Again, [17:12] our focus needs to be on shining the light on his corruption, but then really responding to the [17:18] call of the American people. And it was a populist call. It was not right versus left. It was everybody [17:24] rejecting Donald Trump's corruption, his wars, his cruelty, giving us a chance. Now we need to seize that [17:33] opportunity. There was a headline yesterday in Politico describing you as the new darling of the [17:39] progressive left. I have followed your career for a long time. I know that's not how you started your [17:44] career. Do you embrace that mantle? I am upset for a year what I'm saying to you tonight, and more [17:51] actually, that this is not about progressives or moderates or conservatives. This is much more [17:58] a populist movement that unifies people on left and right against a rigged economic system, a system [18:05] that has been rigged by very rich people and powerful interests against working people. And to get at [18:12] that, we need everybody. And that's what this election said. And to get at that, we need to go [18:17] after a corrupt political system, because what you have is some of the richest, most powerful people in [18:22] the world spending gobs of money in these elections to try to buy a Congress that will do their bidding. [18:28] So, for example, we need to get rid of super PACs. We need to get rid of secret money. We need to get [18:33] rid of the Elon Musk loophole that allows them to try to buy a Congress while getting billions of [18:37] dollars in federal contracts. Those issues are important. And we also need to be protecting voter [18:42] rights so that we have a democracy that works for people, not for the fat cats. You got a lot on your [18:48] agenda here. A lot to do. One of the issues you've been outspoken about that is on the minds of a lot [18:53] of people is, of course, ICE and the fact that ICE has been terrorizing communities across the country [18:58] for the last two years, nearly, since Trump retook office. You've said you want to get rid of Trump's [19:05] ICE, I believe is the phrasing. What does that mean? Does that mean abolishing ICE or does it mean [19:10] abolishing ICE? No, it means, first of all, defunding ICE. Completely defunding. So there are two steps [19:17] here. One is Republicans put aside about 200 billion dollars for ICE through that reconciliation [19:24] package. We should claw that back and use it to help more people afford health care. Then we need [19:30] to look at ICE through the normal process where we use the power of the purse to completely rein in [19:37] their illegal activities to end this sort of, you know, paratrooper approach and to put in place [19:44] very strict safeguards to protect our constitutional rights and to prevent this sort of mass deportation. [19:52] It's one another reason why I think whether you whether you welcome the mantle or not, [19:56] one of the reasons I think a lot of people in the progressive movement are excited about [19:59] you is that you've been an advocate, a co-sponsor of Medicare for all, something that Senator Bernie [20:04] Sanders said this week. He'd like to move forward quickly in the new Congress as leaders. That's [20:09] something you'd push for and advocate for. So I believe, Jen, at the end of the day, we'd have a [20:14] better health care system if we got to Medicare for all. I don't see us getting there all at once. [20:19] So what does that mean? Number one, we actually need to increase the benefits under Medicare. We need [20:26] to add vision and dental and hearing. Number two, we need to open Medicare immediately to people [20:33] of additional more ages. So 55 to 65. We should look at kids. Andy Kim, for example, has a bill for [20:40] Medicare for kids. We need to do all that. We also need to look at a public option within the Affordable [20:46] Care Act because we need to end the system where we have a health care processing system that has [20:54] essentially become a money making operation. Over 30 cents of every health care dollar goes to [21:00] administration and profit in Medicare. Two percent goes to administration. So do I believe that would [21:07] be a good end result? I do. But I don't say that we have to get there right now. I don't think we have [21:14] the political ability to do that. But we can do is improve it right away. Get away from a system [21:21] that's focused on profits over patients and put patients first. So it sounds like what you're saying, [21:26] just to make sure I'm getting this correctly. There are 18 co-sponsors, I should say, [21:30] of Medicare for all. That's not nothing. It's not the majority of the caucus, I would say. But as [21:34] majority leader, you're not saying the only way forward is Medicare for all because that's not [21:39] where everybody supports. I'm not saying that. Exactly. I'm not saying that. As I said, I think [21:43] that would be a good end state, but I don't see us getting there like in the first hundred days. [21:47] Let me ask you about something else because you mentioned the elimination of super PACs. I think [21:50] that's something a lot of people love to see, even though Elon Musk just flushed a half a billion [21:54] down the toilet. So there's that. What about corporate PAC money? Is that something that you [22:00] think the DSCC should accept? Look, there's a distinction between what my position is on those [22:07] and I don't take corporate PAC money. But the DSCC, that is something, Jen, that I think we'd have to [22:15] look into because I want to make these decisions, that kind of decision, with the full input of the [22:21] Senate Democratic Caucus. That's really important. And I will say one of the reasons people in the [22:26] caucus are hungry for change is because we don't have a very open, transparent caucus right now. [22:34] We need more inclusion. We need more transparency. We need more member participation and meaningful [22:41] input. And that includes the new members that are coming in. These are really important new voices. [22:47] One of the arguments, and I just wanted to play something that Senator Gallego said earlier this [22:54] week. You may have seen, because one of the arguments that is being made by some people who [22:58] are supporting Senator Schumer publicly is, hey, look at us. We've got 55, maybe 56 seats. And this [23:04] guy brought us here. So maybe we should give him more time. I just want to play this and get your [23:07] thoughts. I used to be a longtime Cub fan. And I luckily got over that. When the manager takes you [23:16] the World Series, you give him another contract. And this has been a really good election cycle for [23:22] us. He's making the argument, look, he brought us here. He brought us to the game, right? What do [23:29] you make of that argument? Well, I think if you look at this election, this was not like a Washington, [23:35] D.C. orchestrated victory. This was a huge movement around the country. You know, one of the things that [23:42] kept me hopeful in the last two years were all the people who showed up for no King's Day events, [23:46] the people who took to the streets of Minneapolis, the people who refused to shut up and go away when [23:52] Donald Trump wanted them to shut up and go away. And on Election Day, they came out in huge numbers. [23:57] It wasn't orchestrated from Washington, D.C. or the D.S.E.C. It was a people-powered movement. [24:04] That's why we won in places like South Carolina. That's why we won in Mississippi. I mean, look, [24:11] I appreciate the work of everybody at the D.S.E.C. But the reality is that until the very last minute, [24:19] the D.S.E.C. did not spend money in South Carolina or Mississippi. And we won governorships. We won [24:26] state legislatures. This was a huge wave. Again, I appreciate the work of the people at D.S.E.C. [24:33] I used to chair the D.S.E.C. But I also know from also chairing the D.S.E.C.C. that you can see big [24:42] wave elections for or against you. And yes, you can work at the margins. But an election like this, [24:50] where you win 56 Democratic seats, this was because of the will of the American people, [24:56] not with respect to the D.S.E.C. It's no secret that you've thought about running for president. [25:04] I know you've said your focus at this point is really thinking about this race and Senate [25:08] majority running for Senate majority leader. And now you've said you're going to be running for [25:11] Senate majority leader, which is a significant, very big deal. What do you say to the people who say, [25:16] well, you're just doing this to raise your profile to run for president? [25:19] Yeah. So I was thinking about jumping into the presidential race, and I made that clear. [25:26] I now believe that we can collectively make the biggest difference by responding to this huge [25:33] opportunity that the people have given us in the United States Senate with 56 seats. [25:39] That is an opportunity to shape the direction of the country. It is an opportunity to shape the [25:43] direction of the Democratic Party. And that is why I've made the decision to run for Senate majority [25:49] leader. Senator Chris Van Hollen, we ran through the gamut there. So thank you for taking the time. [25:55] We did. Now you're going to be running for Senate majority leader. You're going to have a very busy [26:00] couple of weeks. I appreciate you coming here and having a lengthy, thorough conversation with me [26:04] about all of it. Great to be with you. Thank you so much. [26:06] Hey, it's Rachel. I am so glad to see you at the end of that clip, because this is where I get to [26:12] tell you about a new way to watch all our clips and all of our shows and everything on MSNOW on your [26:18] phone or your tablet or your laptop. You can watch things live or recorded. Plus, you can ask me and [26:24] all the other hosts and reporters questions in our weekly live chats. You can go to ms.now [26:30] slash membership or just click below. Thanks.