This Senator has an Eric Swalwell problem

I'm in Washington, D.C. this week to interview Arizona Senator Rubin Gayego.

He's a Democrat from Arizona, but he's been thinking about running for higher office,

and he's been pitching himself as someone who has a new message for Latino voters that can bring

them back to the Democratic Party. But Gayego's run into some hot water recently,

because of his connection to Congressman Eric Swalwell.

Eric Swalwell lied to all of us. My friendship with him, our family's friendship together with him,

caught in my judgment. And I was wrong. I deeply, deeply regret that.

This week on America, actually, we asked Gayego about predatory behavior in Washington,

his plans for immigration reform, and more. Let's dig in.

Recommendations can be great. Maybe someone recommended this podcast, and here you are.

But home projects are a little different. If the podcast isn't your thing,

you might lose a few minutes from your day, but if you hire your cousin's neighbor to mount

your TV, you might end up with a lopsided screen and wall damage.

I know a guy isn't a good strategy for your home. That's why thumbtack works so well.

It matches you with top-rated local pros, with photos, reviews, and credentials,

all in one convenient place. For your next home project, try thumbtack.

Hire the right probe today.

Support for the show comes from Odo. Running a business is hard enough,

so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other?

Introducing Odo. It's the only business software you'll ever need.

It's an all-in-one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier.

CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, and more.

And the best part? Odo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost.

That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch.

So why not you? Try Odo for free at odu.com. That's odo.com.

Senator Gallagher, thank you for joining America, actually.

I appreciate your time. I know that there's been some news this week.

I want to get to it later, but I want to start with the premise of why we asked you to come

on the show. We've been thinking a lot about topics that you've been talking about,

things like immigration, affordability, even the Democrats' outreach to Latino voters.

I kind of wanted to start there out of the groups that we've seen over the last year.

Latinos maybe have the biggest polling shift in terms of backlash against Donald Trump.

Do you represent the swing state with the highest percentage of Latino voters?

I wanted to know what you think is driving this backlash to their

administration, at least, that we see in the numbers.

So two things. Number one, the affordability crisis. In number two,

immigration, immigration enforcement. The affordability crisis, Latinos are probably just

also as affected by the economy as black men. And so when things start going south,

that community first feels it first. They're the ones that will get fired first. They're the ones that

start losing contracts first. And they don't have much savings to actually kind of like get through

these bumps. So when the economy started going south, Latinos that already started moving

against the president because they were feeling it first. Number two, immigration enforcement.

Now, the president had a message in 2024 that if you listened, it said, I want to do massive

deportations. And of course, everyone in, you know, DC mind will says like, well, how do these

Latinos not see that? Well, in their mind, in their mind, like what they're talking about is those

people that are just coming across the border right now in these massive waves claiming asylum.

They weren't thinking that, oh, you're going to go after the person in my neighborhood that's

been here for 20 years. That's a good, that's a good person that, that works. And so they,

they rationalized it that that's not going to happen. And then to add the fact that they were

racially profiling, US citizens has made them turn and turn very, very fast. Yeah, I mean, I think

you're isolated a couple of important points. I've heard you make this kind of case before,

particularly that people were more affected to their communities around them than they may have

expected from Trump. But you know, if I think back to how explicit he's been about his targeting

of immigrant communities, particularly black and Latino immigrants, I mean, if I think

back to the mass deportation now signs at the RNC, how could you not see this coming? It did seem

like the explicit promise, because I think they didn't want to see it coming. They viewed the

soundseeker crossing the border in those waves as not being part of their community, right? And I think

people kind of forget that, you know, especially Latino communities, long-term,

Latino communities, did not see the waves of people coming in as being part of their cultural

Latino culture. Right. It's not like an inherent collective, right? So it's not some like shared

sense of identity. I think sometimes political discussion groups, folks. Exactly. Yeah. And a lot

of us knew this, and we were trying to tell people this, because there was, you know, just to be

clear, there was fear from, you know, Democratic consultants, immigrant people around the president,

that if you do that, you're going to quote, lose the Latino vote. When we knew many of us that are

very, you know, well connected to the Latino community, not just like Latino politicians,

that Latinos did not see or identify with that mass migration as being part of their

collective idea of who they are. Yep. Yep. I hear you. I mean, that brings us to, I guess,

an important point because, you know, what you're talking about is pressure that was on

President Biden to not necessarily embrace a stronger border enforcement message that maybe

some folks think he should have. But I guess I, when it feels related to the question of what is

Democrats own affirmative position on immigration, you know, part of the premise of this show was

kind of to try to take Donald Trump out the center. And if we do that and think about that specific

to immigration, I wanted to ask you like, what do Democrats stand for when it comes to immigration

reform? Besides just Donald Trump is bad. Number one, we want border enforcement. And, you know,

when I ran for office, I led one of the first commercial head was in Spanish about border enforcement.

A lot of people understand that some people have come to this country illegally. And I think the

majority Americans will prefer, the super majority would prefer that you come here legally. But for

some reason, you, you overstate your visa, you cross because you had, whatever it is, right?

Get yourself right with the government, get a background check, pay a fine, get in the back of the

line, in case there's people that have been doing this right first, and then go from there. Number two,

we want you to go after bad people. Good people in, bad people out, right? And so people

have criminal records, people that have, you know, are danger to society, not just to, you know,

the immigrant community, but, but to everybody else. And then lastly, a, you know, flexible

and responsive immigration system, right? Because there is going to be times where we are going to

need more immigrant immigrants to come and do work, do jobs. And sometimes when we don't need

immigrants, I think it's okay as a country just to say, you know what, at this point right now,

we don't need as many immigrants, we're going to lower the amount of immigration immigrants

visas that we're giving out, right? That's when Americans are extremely rational on this.

It's the politicians, I think, that have really gone one way or the other. It's either

absolutely nothing or absolutely everything. And I think that's just not a winning message,

nor is that where I am, and nor is where most Americans are, especially by the way where

most Latinos are. Half of all Americans wanted to abolish eyes, according to a recent poll. I

just saw, you've caught that position ridiculous. I wanted to know why. Because if you actually

ask somebody what that means, it's different for everybody else. If you ask somebody, do you think

we still need to have a deportation force in this country? Almost 80% of Americans would say,

yes, we need a deportation force because you're going to have to deport bad people, right?

The question that we have to ask is, I was like, what is a proper force? What are the rights they

have? How big should they be, right? And so, you know, as I say, like, I have to win a red state.

There's some people that can just run and say whatever they want and be fine, right? But I have a

state where there's 300,000 more registered Republicans and Democrats. We've been severely affected

by immigration, right? It is my job to have to explain the nuance in order for me both to win,

and to get all the Democrats to win in a red state. So, do I want to totally tear apart ice?

And maybe we can move different portions, different departments, slim it down because it's

because it's so big, it's so bloated, they're going to go after everybody to restrict them to make

sure they can't, they are only going after criminals and that they're not doing mass deportations

absolutely. If you tell me, does that mean that ice will not exist? Sure, ice may not exist,

but there's always going to be a deportation force, right? And I think it's really incumbent upon

people that are running for office to be very clear about that because if not, you're really

selling a bill of goods to the left because they're going to want to see something. And also,

you're setting yourself up for a major hit, major hit from the right. And in this time and in this

world, where elections have consequences, real consequences, your duty is to win an election.

I wanted to ask two questions that we got from reporters. We talked to an advance of this

interview. We talked to Caitlin Dickerson, immigration reporter at the Atlantic, and she pointed

out how some Senate Democrats, including yourself, supported the Lake and Riley Act in 2025,

which gave ice new powers to keep people in detention. And you've seen so many prominent Democrats

go back and forth between assailing even these basic aspects of immigration enforcement when

they're done by Trump. And then at other times, in response to what they perceive to be public

opinion turning against immigrants, go and vote for very restrictive legislation that makes all

these problems they've been complaining about worse. I guess that thinking about your kind of

message of reforming ice now did some Democrats like yourself supporting Lake and Riley help

empower the same out of control ice we see right now. No, I think the 175 billion dollars,

the fact that you have Stephen Miller that's leading versus the DHS secretaries, you have

Judge Kavanaugh saying racial profiling is allowed. And then just in a general attitude from

this administration that have zero accountability standards, whether it's investigations,

holding people actually accountable, jailings from these ice agents, showing mass, showing ideas,

things of that nature, that is the actual full scope of what they're doing right now.

We also talked to an Arizona reporter locally ahead of today. And one of the things that came up

in that conversation, and she was talking about community pushback against data centers,

that the construction of data centers has caused some organizing efforts and

caused some resentment against some more establishment politicians who've supported them.

So I cover local government a lot. I think it has made people think about how they want

government to talk to them and share information with them. That was a big issue here,

how the data center was brought forward that people didn't know about it or didn't share about it

publicly. And I didn't see another issue galvanized people at quite the same level in their

relationship with local government. You've called data centers a quote necessary evil. I guess my

question is why are they necessary? Well, two things, the necessary evil doesn't necessarily mean

that you can blank check. Uh-huh. But the future of this economy, no matter where you are,

is going to be driven by AI. The question is, how do we tame it and how we regulate it? If I

can find a way to do it, uh, at the federal level, we will, we will do it. Number two,

there's some areas that shouldn't go because just because they have cheap electricity,

does not mean that we have cheap water, cheap air or cheap neighborhoods, right? And so we need

to get going to stay with water shortage just exactly. Yeah. So we need to give more control

to the states and to the localities to regulate them. There are places where they're, they,

they should go. It does not necessarily mean it has to be in Arizona. It does not mean it has to

be in the cheapest land that these data centers can find. So if I hear you correctly, it's that

the question of AI is like centrality in our work economy is, you're saying that's without question.

Right. It's important. And so it's only a choice between whether we proactively tax these data

centers or give them a place in our shared economy or focus the more workers, rather than what's

happening now, which is kind of an untamed wild west. Correct. I mean, I guess they're just feels

like such a big gap between the certainty that, uh, uh, political groups, you know, tech groups,

like I would say kind of elite society has about the centrality of AI and people, right? Like we

know that that backlash is driven by, uh, a sentiment that folks don't necessarily agree that AI

should kind of hold a central place in their lives going forward. Because I guess far it hasn't

really, it hasn't, they haven't seen the benefit of it. So I mean, I could totally understand that.

Right. Well, they see as their kids, you know, being glued to their phones and then AI lying to

them, companies mining their data and selling them. Uh, and so, uh, you know, this is a something

that I think the both policymakers, but also it's upon the AI industry that they need to show what

the benefits are. Uh-huh. Because right now there is no yet massive skill benefit to society when

it comes to AI. We heard Bernie Sanders say to us a couple weeks back that that was a reason for

a moratorium on data centers. Why don't you support the moratorium? Well, number one, because I think

that we're, we'd fall severely behind. Uh-huh. And then we start losing the future wealth,

jobs, and growth that comes from AI. Number two, I think states need to lead also. Um, there's,

you know, when it comes to zoning, things of that nature, if we could do the federal, we absolutely

should. But like, you know, it is incumbent upon a lot of states to actually understand what's

going on. People do have legitimate arguments. They have legitimate rage. There's areas of,

of Phoenix where they're, you know, it's the middle of an urban area. They're going to put a data

center all because it's cheap lands. And they think because it's a black and brown area that

there's going to have, they're going to have let's push back to do it. After the break, we speak to

Senator Gallego about the recent allegations concerning Congressman Eric Swalwell and how to

eliminate predatory behavior in Washington. And just a quick note, we spoke to Gallego prior to

Republican Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna's formal complaint against him alleging misconduct.

A spokesman for Gallego said quote, these are right wing conspiracies.

Support for the show comes from Odo. Running a business is hard enough. So why make it harder

with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odo. It's the only

business software you'll ever need. It's an all in one fully integrated platform that makes

your work easier. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, and more. And the best part? Odo

replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of

businesses have made the switch. So why not you? Try Odo for free at odo.com. That's odo.com.

Hi everyone, Cara Swisher here. We just won the Webby Award for the best interview show in

news, business, and society. And I've had some great guests on my podcast on with Cara Swisher.

Here are some you don't want to miss. Tristan Harris, the co-founder of the Center for Humane

Technology. I talked to him about his biggest worry when it comes to development and deployment

of AI hint. It has something to do with the CEOs and how they stand to profit. I interview

Documentarian Louis Theroux, his latest documentary into the manosphere focuses on the incredible

and horrifying influence this group of individuals has, especially on young men and boys.

And recently I caught up with Katie Kirk, Amy LaRaca, and my brother, Jeff Swisher,

to debunk some of the fads and misinformation behind the billion dollar wellness industry.

And we talked about the important medical tests that are actually worth your while.

All of these conversations are available now. You can find them on YouTube or wherever you get

your podcasts and get plenty more lined up for the summer. So be sure to subscribe to On With

Cara Swisher to catch them all.

Well, we haven't practiced this, but if I asked you right now in this moment, let's say what is it?

You know, spring 2026. Why is it important to support journalism right now?

Well, Sean, the world is a little overwhelming at this moment. There is a lot going on.

It can be a little scary. It's also kind of beautiful and it's worth explaining.

Yeah, I would argue, in addition to that, there's a lot of trash information out there.

Like people even want to rely on AI, but AI isn't being fact-checked. It's just

pulling from a bunch of places. And sometimes you've seen it giving you the wrong information.

We fact-check our show. You hear at the end of the show every day who fact-tracks the show.

We put a lot of effort into making sure that we are bringing you the most accurate information

possible. And you can support that effort.

That's right. If you believe in the journalism that we do, as much as we do,

you can become a Vox member, Vox.com slash members.

30% off. Can you believe it? Let's go.

Your first year sign up now. Thank you.

I don't want to go too much longer without asking about the recent

spread of sexual assault allegations against Congressman Eric Swalwell, who had called you his best

friend. You chaired his 2020 presidential campaign. You were financially involved in his AI

startup. Did you have any knowledge of these allegations of misconduct, or had you heard rumors

of predatory behavior on the hill? I wanted to ask you directly. No clue, no knowledge of any of

the allegations or predatory behavior. That was definitely not what any of us. And look, we're

all been having conversations since we're all actually going back. Who do you mean by we?

Friends, members of Congress, other supporters. We're all talking to each other to see what did we

do wrong? Why would you not see? I want to just follow up, though, because it seems as if

the scale of the allegations makes that... I guess it causes a gut check on that, because it seems

as if this was a known thing among someone in the hill. The seems as if, certainly there was a

community of women who were organizing around this. You hadn't heard anything about any of that.

Not about the allegations we're talking about, the sexual assault, predatory behavior.

There is a culture in DC that is certainly existing. We're not just him, but many other politicians.

We heard of someone that being flirty, but never inappropriate, never predatory, never towards

staff and things of that nature. But look, this is the kind of thing that makes all of us

relook at what we have been accepting versus not accepting. Part of the reason some of this has

come back on you, though, is that you went out of your way to defense while, well, just this month,

riding recently on X that Eric is a fighter, considering now what you know, or considering that

you're saying you heard him maybe having rumors of being flirty, why proactively defend him?

Well, for two reasons, because we had heard this about him, about other politicians for a long time,

and nothing had ever surfaced, right? Number two, he exactly knew what to say to me,

because I had just kind of a very hard 2024 campaign, where I had some of the worst things

said about me on commercial to tens of millions of dollars that my kids have to see, and they,

and some of his staff pushed that button on me. And it was a mistake. I mean, without a doubt,

it was a mistake. Let's be clear. And knowing now everything I know of, we'd never have done it,

but knowing now everything I know, especially of the Secretary of Secretary, we would not have

had the relationship that we had. There has been some that have said that this is also a question

of your judgment. I wanted you to respond to that. I mean, you've been kind of openly embracing

the question of a 2028 race. Well, do you say to someone who's said, who looks at this situation

and causes that to question you? To be 100% is, you know, I am more human first than a politician.

And my judgment was off because of a many reasons, but number one, because I knew this man,

it's a family and first. We weren't just work colleagues. Our families ate dinner together.

Our kids were in camps together. And I have to learn from this. And I will learn from this.

But, you know, for me, it's not a 2028 question. It's about what it means to be a better first boss

in my office and also a better center to my constituents. I was reading some 2025 texts of yours

that were leaked. And in them, you complained them about, quote, Democrats not allowing men to be

men or women to be hot. You were, you lamented that Democrats, quote, are the not fun party and no

longer embodied things like sex, drugs, and rock and roll. I also recently read a report that you

use the F word the most out of any center. They're by a wide margin. If I put those two things

together, is there something of like a, a broy-ness or something that I feel like is a connective tissue

in your brand of politics? Or why is it necessary to communicate in that way? It's not, it's just how I

communicate. It's just, yeah, it's just my, like, I, I, yes, I went to Harvard, but most of my real

collective experience is being in the Marines. And, and, you know, and growing up in the society

Chicago, like, and every person, yeah, and every part, person, every part, back of the yards,

I was always surrounded by working class people, right? And working class people, you know, we are

rough around the edges. And I think I am representing, I, I think I'm, you know, just factually,

just being who I am. But it doesn't mean, again, that, that, you know, as a human, we should

obviously try to improve. And that's what I'm going to try to do. Yeah, I mean, I, I, I asked the

questions, but I know there's been a big talk in Democratic politics about the need for authenticity.

So, you know, it does feel as if like I'm not asking folks to not be who they are and not think that

that's something an elect official shouldn't have space to do. I was just wondering about if we,

if there's any like a reflection about what that means, particularly, you know, as the question of

masculinity and its place in Democratic politics has become more prominent. There needs to be a way

to be masculine without being, you know, what people would consider toxic. And I think there has to be

a way for Democrats to understand that, you know, men can be part of our coalition. We need to

talk to them as like we want you part of our coalition. A lot of times we deemphasize men in the

Democratic brand and the Democratic coalition. And, you know, I think there's a way, and this is

really talking from my experience running for Senate and right for Congress, where we can, you know,

make sure that, you know, women feel that they're protecting our community that we are as Democrats,

that we are looking out for, you know, the status when it comes to rights, economics, growing

the economics, things of that nature. And still also be to do the same thing with men. I don't think

there is any, I don't think they conflate each other or they counteract each other. When you talk to

an everyday Latino or African-American, even woman, and you tell them like, you know, I'm going to

make sure you have great wages. You know, I want to make sure that, you know, we take care of,

you know, maternal deaths, you know, bringing them down. And then you ask them like, and I want to

make sure that, you know, young men, especially young Black and young Chinaman, they're not doing

well statistically speaking, have an opportunity and they feel, you know, that they're part of our

society. They don't see that as like, well, you are deemphasizing me. For some reason, the voters

don't see it. For some reason, when it gets kind of up to the top policy level of a consultant level,

that doesn't happen. And like, you know, some of it's like very simple stuff. I remember talking

after I won my 2024 election, some Democrats asked me, how did you do so well with the male vote?

And I said, look, we did some things that were specifically designed to get the male vote

out to reach out to them. And, you know, like, do you have any ideas and nice, you know, for this

one politician, I'm like, yeah, you know, Father's Day is coming up. You should have a Father's Day

appreciation branch all around your district. And that one politician of swing district, I don't

think I can do that. I'm like, why can't you do that? I don't understand that. He's like, oh, I'll

get hit from the left of you. I'm like, I don't think that's true. And I think that's true.

Right. Yeah. I think you think that's true. Yeah. And I think there's people around you that are

worried about this mythological left that's coming to hit you. But it's not true. And there's this

certain overlevel of self-policing that is creating this environment where we're not reaching out

to men and not just, you know, black and Latino men, but we don't even approach white men anymore.

And I think we, if we're going to have a national party, if we're going to be able to win in places

that we need to win order for us to even have a chance to ever have the mature again, we had to

feel comfortable also reaching out to, you know, white men within our own values. But, but not just

be afraid. You know, I too necessarily think that there aren't necessarily spaces, particularly in

politics where we talk to men directly and things like that. But sometimes I think there's

a difficulty there because the things that men can bond on can sometimes feel like they don't

necessarily seem or look like democratic values, right? Like that, you know, what's bonding

men could be things that are semi-message mystic or semi-violent or semi-all of those things,

even that things like sports culture or things like that, can Democrats create a space that encourages

men to come in while retaining their values, you know, I'm saying, or is the bond between men

itself at odds with those values? I think if you're a Democrat, you can't actually go and have those

conversations and be authentic enough to actually, you know, create that bond, especially if you

have to even such a mistake. It's not going to happen, right? If it's not in you, it's not in you,

nor should you be a Democrat for your misogistic. Yeah. Number one. Number two, you do have to accept

that they're not going to be perfect. You as a politician need to be near as perfect as possible,

right? You have to be able to, you know, hold your values and still be able to communicate

on the areas that you have agreement with. Where are those bonds? So like, I do find the bonds

over sports, sports that I particularly love, you know, for example, boxing is a big thing for me.

And when I go to the boxing gens, when I go to the boxing tournaments, I, you know, hosted a

boxing tournament recently, I don't talk politics, right? I'm just there. And a lot of why I do that,

if number I'm just a lot of boxing, but I think of the way it's effective is because the voter

doesn't just see me as this elite elected official, because the fact that I'm there with them,

right? And I think that that still can happen. I think Democrats, when they feel authentically,

you know, excited about any type of sport should go in sports. Go to sports, right?

I get what you're saying that there's a way that like if you just show up to it as yourself,

then, um, and you don't ask that voter to check off every box on the list,

then you're doing that. Don't overthink this. And also, but don't do it. Don't do it in a campaign

season. It also comes off as an authentic, but you're just like, like, oh, the sudden,

I'm really into like, you know, the NBA playoffs and like you've never talked about the NBA playoffs.

No. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I can certainly feel it when a politician feels like they're dipping into

something as a means of outreach or all of a sudden when they all be like Iowa fans at March

Matt and this. Right. But if you feel it, yeah. Well, nobody, that's the problem. If you look at,

you know, Donald Trump goes, you see fights, because I think he actually does like UFC fights,

right? But he also uses, use that smartly to get into the, the streams of a lot of men that were

basically not following politics. You know, he did it just recently. In the middle of a war,

he goes, so you have to fight with Marco Rubio and sit down and, uh, and does it for two reasons.

Number one, he knows his numbers are lagging with Latinos horribly with Latino men, especially.

What are they watching right now? It's not CNN. It's not even seeing a spinoid. Sorry,

seeing a spinoid. I love you guys. But this is happening right now. Yeah. But they are watching

UFC. But that's definitely the thought process. Yeah. I wanted to end kind of thinking about

something that you talked about openly, which is a decision process about thinking about

wrong for president, about 2028. I referenced it a little bit earlier. You just got to the

Senate in 2024. Uh, I wanted to know how did you go from that point of that arrival to getting

to this type of open decision making process? What was it in those steps in the way that made you say,

hey, uh, maybe I should take a step up here. Well, number one, he's like, again, and had

many decisions and, and we're very far from any decisions. Yeah. Yeah. The most important thing,

cause which thing right now is that we need to win elections, right? Democrats, we need to both

win in 2026 and 2028, really to, and hold to be able to change the direction of this country.

And the direction of this country is not going to be going well if we are stuck with Republicans

in power or be able to obstruct because they're going to have control over the Supreme Court. They

could still have, uh, you know, a lot of strength within the Senate, even if we take out the House

and have the White House. I get that, but I'm saying the question of what is the unique lane and

unique voice that you think you're bringing to that discussion? That can't be replicated maybe by

others around you. Do you think there's one? Well, I certainly think that I have a unique lane,

especially when it's coming to working class people, uh, Latinos, uh, you know, veterans can

other people replicate that? Maybe that's why you have all these years to figure that out. That's

why you have campaigns and stuff like that. I don't think, uh, yeah, I'm certainly not naive or

considered enough to think that I am the only person that could win this, right? That's, that's

not how the world works. We certainly will make a decision, first of all, based on my, my family

situation, but secondly, uh, based on, you know, do I, do I fill a particular niche that can't be

filled by someone else that can assure victory for the Democratic Party? Uh-huh. I'm always

wondering about those family talks. Like you mentioned your children, how old are your children?

Nine, uh, almost three and uh, 10 months. I can't imagine, you know, uh, uh, being those age and

my parents, it's Dalin says, Hey, you think I should represent that or that? You talk to your,

you talk to your wife. No, you're talking to your wife. And, uh, because in the end, look,

I just got off a campaign where, you know, my, my, my, my poor wife started the campaign

pregnant and ended the campaign pregnant with two different kids. That's how long the campaign

was. And they're the ones that actually shoulder the burden of this. And so you first have to talk

to them. And then you also have to make decisions about what are you willing to give up? And when

I say what you're willing to give up is when you have young kids, you're giving up some memories

that may not bother them, but it will bother you. And, and, you know, if you're thinking about

what do you want to remember on your deathbed, it's not going to a rally. It's not going to a

fundraising dinner. It's like, I got to see my kids recital. I got to go to my kids, you know,

little league game. I got to take my, my kids on vacation, not be bothered by people around me

or anything else like that. You know, for someone like me, it does, does bother me. Like I,

I grew up without a dad. And I kind of want to have the, still have the full experience of being a

dad. Senator Gallagher, thank you so much for joining us. Yeah, thanks for that. America actually

will be in your feeds every Saturday with an interesting interview in politics or culture.

You can also watch these episodes every week on the Vox YouTube channel. Just go to youtube.com,

slash Vox or click the link in the show notes. The best way to support this show is by becoming a

Vox member. Members get a bonus segment on Patreon every week and they also make our work possible.

Just go to Vox.com slash members to join. This show was edited by Kausha Brasalya,

fact checked by Esther Gamm and mixed by Shana Mahoney. Christopher Snyder is our video editor

and Kun-Nui is our senior art director. Our executive producer is Christina Valis and our theme

music is from Break Master Syllinder. Additional support from Miranda Kennedy, David Tadashore

and Nisha Chattal. I'm a Stadherndon and this is America actually.