[theme music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. If you live in New Jersey, it's Call Your Senator day. Wait, people from other states can call, too. Hi, it's our monthly Call Your Senator segment. My questions and yours for Democratic New Jersey Senator Andy Kim. 212-433-WNYC. Some of the things we might get to today, a possible rescission vote in the Senate tomorrow that could claw back money already appropriated by Congress for USAID, foreign aid, USAID, where Senator Kim used to work, and also for public broadcasting. Senators from both parties coming to terms with the new Donald Trump when it comes to Russia and Ukraine. What? Yes. Suddenly, Trump is denouncing Putin and supporting more weapons for the Ukrainians. Relevant to the whole world and relevant to Senator Kim, who used to work for the State Department and the Pentagon as well as USAID. Is there also a new Trump position on FEMA after the flooding in a largely Republican area of Texas? There was also flooding in New Jersey last night, as many of you experienced. We'll touch on that.

What about yesterday's Supreme Court ruling allowing the president to dismantle the Education Department? What new implications for schools in your community? We'll see what else. There's a little governor's race going on in New Jersey, too. You might have noticed. That's going to be partly a referendum, I think, on the big Trump policy bill. Senator, we always appreciate your time, and the listeners appreciate your access for their questions. Welcome back to WNYC.

Senator Andy Kim: Yes, good morning. Thanks for having me.

Brian Lehrer: Again, listeners, it's Call Your Senator, Senator Andy Kim, but you don't even have to be from New Jersey. 212-433-WNYC. You can call or text a question to 212-433-9692. Can I ask you first about the flooding in New Jersey last night? This was obviously no Texas type situation, but did you hear anything worth describing this morning in terms of what people might need or in policy terms?

Senator Andy Kim: Yes. Look, it was tough and caught a lot of communities off guard. I heard from so many folks just texting me, sending me pictures of the flooding outside their homes. We see some particularly hard hit areas in Somerset and Union counties and elsewhere. We're still assessing, in terms of injuries and harm, understanding what comes next, but it really-- this coming after what happened in Texas really hits home the problems that we're facing and why it is that our government needs to be working to be able to address these challenges.

I mean, this is not the first time we had these issues here in New Jersey. We had Hurricane Ida, Superstorm Sandy. So many families have suffered. We got to get better at this.

Brian Lehrer: Now, emergency response is, of course, one of the main functions of any government. I know you're the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security subcommittee that includes disaster management and FEMA. Have you seen DOGE cuts or funding cuts in the big budget and policy bill that might be affecting the response in Texas or preparedness for the new hurricane season anywhere?

Senator Andy Kim: Yes. Well, look, first of all, we have an incompetent acting administrator for FEMA right now, who didn't even know that there was a thing called hurricane season, which is terrifying. I've asked repeatedly for FEMA and DHS to be able to provide the hurricane plan for this season and I'm hearing nothing back from them. This worries me about the preparedness that we have. Yes, we've seen cuts to staffing at FEMA, gutting of experts who have responded to so many disasters, but what we also see is just this absolutely appalling policy by Secretary Noem that requires any type of grant or any type of resource over $100,000 to be able to get her personal sign off.

Her policy specifically says it could take a minimum of five days to get approval. Well, look, we don't have that kind of time when it comes to crisis response to FEMA. Yes, we've heard reports that that policy could very well have delayed and slowed response and resources down in Texas. We're looking into that, but I've called upon her to rescind that policy of hers so that we can ensure that we're not adding more layers of bureaucracy. I mean, that's what the administration keeps saying. They're trying to make things efficient.

No, they're actually making things worse. Adding bureaucracy by having a single person have to sign off on any major expenses. That's the kind of stuff that we're trying to change right now.

Brian Lehrer: Relevant to that, I'm going to read a few lines from a New York Times article that was published on Sunday on this topic. It says, "Among the shuttered labs would be one in Miami that sends teams of so-called hurricane hunters to fly into storms to collect critical data. The proposed budget would also make major cuts to a federal program that uses river gauges to predict floods. The president is also envisioning a dramatically scaled down FEMA that would shift the costs of disaster response and recovery from the federal government to the states.

The administration has already revoked $3.6 billion in grants from FEMA to hundreds of communities around the country, which were to be used to help these areas protect against hurricanes, wildfires, and other catastrophes." That from The New York Times. So, before we get to the next rescission bill you might be voting on tomorrow, looks from this like they already revoked $3.6 billion in FEMA disaster prevention grants to American communities. Were you aware of that or do you have thoughts about the possible impact?

Senator Andy Kim: Yes, we've already seen huge cuts, including ones-- there's a fund called BRIC, which is about Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities. It's literally about helping communities mitigate and get ready for catastrophes. If you look at what happened in Texas, I mean, Texas is one of the most resource rich states in our country, and they struggled with this. The idea that all 50 states are going to be prepared for any possible disaster at all times and have their own resources ready, it just makes zero sense. I say that as someone who's worked in crisis management and response before. There's a role for the federal government.

I admit, yes, there is room for reform with FEMA. Everyone should be able to say that. We saw brokenness in the response in terms of getting resources out after Superstorm Sandy, other things. I'm ready to be able to work in a bipartisan way for those reforms, but that doesn't mean you're gutting it and cutting it. It isn't just about hurricanes and natural disasters. FEMA puts out grants for communities when it comes to tackling antisemitism and the rise of other problems that we face in our communities, whether it's the protection of religious institutions or other sites.

I've asked for dramatic increases in that type of funding, as we're seeing the rise of antisemitism and other challenges that are out there, and the Trump administration rejected my proposals. Those are the types of things that we should be pushing forward on, and I hope that the American people see as important.

Brian Lehrer: That notion in The Times article that I read that they're shifting the cost of emergency response more to the states. Are you feeling that in New Jersey yet in any way that you can quantify or describe?

Senator Andy Kim: Well, as I've talked with the OEMs here, I think that there's just less communication with FEMA. Some of the concerns is just like, they don't know who to call, because people keep changing, the staff keeps changing. I mean, look, I'm going to be going out to the shore this weekend to talk through hurricane preparedness. I'll have a better sense of that after that visit because, again, I'm trying to get a sense of, is FEMA going to be there for us if we need them? Is the federal government going to be there? Because it's just a matter of when, not if, we get hit by another storm.

Weather service is saying that we can upwards of 19 named storms this season, of which up to 5 of them could be Category 3, 4, or 5. This is going to be a very active season. Last year was dramatically challenging. Over 300 people killed, over $190 billion in damages. We have to be ready, and I can't tell you that I feel that FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security is ready.

Brian Lehrer: About Texas, The Times also reported that, "According to documents reviewed by The Times, as Texans began to grapple with damage wrought by the flood, on July 5th, FEMA answered more than 99% of the 3,027 calls it received. Contractors for four companies at call centers picked up the vast majority of them. They answered 99% of the calls." Then it says, "The next day, after contracts with the companies lapsed, FEMA answered only 36% of the 2,363 calls that came in," the documents say, "and on July 7th, the next day, FEMA answered only 16% of 16,000 plus calls." From The Times. Now the president says he wants to remake FEMA, not dismantle it. Is that a meaningful change of tune as you see it?

Senator Andy Kim: I hope he moves in that direction, but what I'll say is I just continue to hear from Secretary Noem and others that they want to abolish FEMA, is what they've said to my face. Yes, I hope we can change course. We've seen the president change course in the past, when it came to the early steps of tariffs, but now we see him going back on that. I don't, obviously, trust what he's saying right now. We need to be able to see that in real action, because as he's gutting the Department of Education, and State Department, and elsewhere, we very much see a very extreme agenda.

I keep saying this, of saying, "Let's focus in on what is it that the government can do that no one else can do? Let's focus in on the things that we know are important. Certainly, I hope we can all agree that one thing that we need the government to do is be there on our worst days to make sure that we are there. That the government is there to be able to help support in the time of crisis, whether that's in Asheville, North Carolina, or down in Mantoloking, New Jersey, or down in Texas. We need to make sure that when a crisis hits, that Americans get the care that they need.

That should be a baseline of what we do. That's what I'm going to continue to push for. I'm, again, engaged and ready to work on reforms to FEMA to be able to make it work better, but I will stand firm against any effort to abolish it.

Brian Lehrer: We have some texts coming in on this topic. One listener asked, "Why did Andy Kim vote to confirm Kristi Noem? I can't trust a word he says, because he contributed to this chaos. Please ask."

Senator Andy Kim: Yes. Look, no, it's a fair question, and one that I've responded to before. For me, I certainly had a lot of disagreements with her, but I was trying to think through, I'm on the Homeland Security Committee, I'm trying to-- over 50% of my constituent calls that I get are with the Department of Homeland Security. So I was trying to build a working relationship. I do think that New Jersey needs someone in the federal delegation that can engage with her and can engage with the department. Look, I'll be very honest. It was a bad decision. I should not have voted in that way.

It was early in my time in the Senate, and I was trying to figure out how I can engage with the department better, but her performance and her actions are abominable, and honestly, is a real disgrace to that job and to this department that was set up to protect America, not be weaponized against people living in America.

Brian Lehrer: Another listener asks, "Please ask Mr. Kim, why should someone living in Montana pay for the cost of disastrous flooding in either his state of New Jersey or in Texas?"

Senator Andy Kim: Yes, because, look, we're all in the same boat here. We're part of something bigger than all of us, and we have crises that hit every single corner of our country. So, whether there are droughts or fires out west, or other challenges that are out there, every single state gets resources from the federal government. We're able to make sure that we're looking out for each other in different ways. That's actually how we can keep the costs down. Yes, you really need to make sure that you're ready, because you never know when a crisis is going to strike, or when a disaster is going to strike.

Asheville, North Carolina, they couldn't have imagined that a hurricane would affect them so far inland and so high in elevation, but we're seeing that. We're seeing fires, wildfires, spreading all throughout the America West. Those are major challenges that we're facing, and we want to make sure that we're treating each other with respect in that way. We're all Americans.

Brian Lehrer: Here's a caller who disagrees with that texter who asked, why should people in one state pay for disaster relief from other states? Joan, in Manhattan, you're on WNYC with Senator Andy Kim. Hi, Joan.

Joan: Hi. That's so interesting. That's exactly the attitude I wanted to react to. I think that the federal government not paying for things like disaster relief or education leads to a further splintering of our country, where we don't perceive ourselves anymore as one country. We'd be just 50 separate states with no obligations to each other. That's exactly the attitude that we shouldn't have. We should have the sense that we are, as Senator Kim said, we are in this together, we are our brother's keeper.

I like the idea that when Texas is in trouble, or Louisiana is in trouble, that some of the money I send to the federal government goes to help them. I want to help them. We're not a collection of 50 states and a bunch of separate people in 50 separate states. We are a country. We are a people, and we need to help each other. I think it's important psychologically as well as financially.

Brian Lehrer: Joan, thank you very much for that call. I guess it kind of raises the question of, what risks and what expenses do we socialize? Right? Meaning, not just put them on those who are directly affected. I guess FEMA is a classic example of that, because when something like the Texas floods, let's say, hit, or some equivalent in some other part of the country, it's just so expensive. Just speaking about the monetary implications, it's just so expensive. It's the reason that we have private insurance as well.

Why do we get homeowners insurance? Because if something like that hits your home, it's going to overwhelm the ability of any individual family to pay for it, but the insurance system, "socializes that cost." A lot of people pay in, and then some people need to pay out, right?

Senator Andy Kim: Yes, absolutely. I mean, look, in our Constitution, it often talks about common defense as a core function of our government. That is not just against military threats, but it's just about protection of every American. In the Declaration, this idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I really applaud that last speaker who-- and the sentiment that she brings. That's what we need. I mean, look, we're less than a year out from the 250th birthday of our nation. I really do hope that we take this next year to really recommit ourselves to this shared purpose that we're a part of.

I really do believe we need to reanchor ourselves, reignite a sense of public service. Have another ask not what this country can do for you kind of moment. I do worry, because I feel like we are slipping into becoming a more transactional society. That it's just about, what can I get? what can I protect for me? I don't think our democracy is going to be able to function in the way that we need if we continue to go down that path. My youngest son just celebrated his eighth birthday the other day, and I got a nine year old as well. I worry about what kind of America they're going to grow up in.

I certainly hope that it's an America where people will look out for each other and be able to be there for each other on their toughest times. That's something that I still believe in. That's what I'm fighting for here in the Senate.

Brian Lehrer: One more on this topic. Listener texts, "Agree with Trump cutting FEMA for people living in places too dangerous to live." Have a thought on that? This even might apply to the Jersey Shore, in your state. Where people might sometimes say if there's going to be more flooding, because of climate change or whatever, why socialize the cost of letting people rebuild there?

Senator Andy Kim: Yes. No, that's a very legitimate question. It's one, in terms of this idea of, what happens when we're building in flood prone areas, in areas prone to wildfires? I do think that that is a very serious conversation to be had. That is something that I want to make sure we're pushing on. Now, if we're going to have that conversation, then I need the government to be able to have the LiDAR mapping for us to have the latest, most up-to-date maps when it comes to flood prone areas. We need to invest in the hydrological modeling that's needed for us to understand what areas have problems because of the topography.

Those are the types of resources and the data we need, but we are having outdated flood maps, we're not engaged in the research, and bringing in the experts for us to be able to have that kind of assessment. So, I agree with it, and I hope that we build the resources so that we can have that exact conversation.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take some phone calls on some other things. Then we have some really big breaking news on foreign affairs to get to with Senator Kim, who used to work for the State Department, for the Pentagon, for USAID. It's a Call Your Senator segment, first priority to people in New Jersey, but you don't have to be in New Jersey. 212-433-WNYC, or text, as in all the texts we've been taking so far. 212-433-9692. Same number. Daniel in Newark, you're on WNYC with Senator Andy Kim. Hi, Daniel.

Daniel: Hey, how are you?

Brian Lehrer: Good.

Senator Andy Kim: Hey, how are you?

Brian Lehrer: Yes, what you got, Daniel?

Daniel: Yes, it's great. Yes, thanks for taking my call. This is probably not the most pressing issue, but as a resident of Newark, I like to be outdoors and ride my bike. There was supposed to be a Greenway project where they were going to do a bike path from Montclair to Jersey City. It was going to pass through where I live. It's just so dangerous, like when we're outside. I live near Branch Brook Park, and it's kind of like a racing strip for cars. I was just really hopeful that this thing would actually come to fruition, but I don't see any construction.

Now they're saying they're only going to do like this small little segment from Broad street. Anyways, I just wish you guys can find a way to speed that up. I think it would really be beneficial to this area, because a lot of people in the towns further up, like Glen Ridge and Montclair would also probably like to access Branch Brook Park, and it might be good for just getting people out more and not risking their lives when they're-- Yes.

Brian Lehrer: Daniel, thank you for that question on the Greenway. Is this something you deal with in the Senate?

Senator Andy Kim: Yes.

Brian Lehrer: I don't know if that's a federal government issue, but maybe it is.

Senator Andy Kim: Well, we work with every level guy. I love the question. I just rode my bike into work today. So, this is something that I care a lot about. Not just in terms of within towns, but like connecting. Having that interconnection. Look, I mean, I want to make sure we're preserving our green space as well, so it's sort of a win-win here, where we can have and continue to preserve the beauty of New Jersey and states around this country. Yes, through the Department of Transportation and others, I have engaged in providing federal resources back to communities to be able to build connected bikeways, be able to preserve parks.

I think that this is important. I'm glad that we were able to stop the Senate Republicans from pushing forward efforts that would sell off millions of acres of public lands and reverse so much of what we've been making progress on. I hope that we can stop these cuts to national parks and to other types of investments in our green spaces in this country. As so many people cherish our great heritage and our great riches when it comes to our national parks and other places. Yes, this is something that the federal government can and should get involved with and work with local governments to do.

Brian Lehrer: Here's an interesting text that came in. This is kind of a footnote to the previous stretch of conversation, Actually, it's responding to something that I said when I compared FEMA. When the earlier listener asked, "Why should people in Montana pay for flooding in New Jersey and Texas?" I said, it's like homeowners insurance. We socialize the risk. Everybody pays in something, and then some people need that big payout.

Listener writes, "An interesting comment that's not quite true." They write, "Insurance privatizes and capitalizes the risk. FEMA, if actually allowed to do what it's supposed to do, would be an actual socialization of the risk, where everyone contributes taxes and is equally entitled to coverage. Insurance is not for everyone, as people have to pay in. The rate they pay is different per their risk profile and their wealth." So, it's a detail, but an interesting, I think, nuanced correction to something that I was saying. I think it's-

Senator Andy Kim: Look, just one thing to add there. Look, we see in down in Florida and elsewhere, like private insurance doesn't want to get involved in homeowners insurance disaster response, because they theme the risk too high, because they're thinking about a bottom line here. These are for profit companies. So, who's going to be able to be there when the for profits say, "Oh, this is too risky here and there." People are going to be left holding the bag. That's a place where the government can be able to provide some help and support.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. That also touches on another thing we talk about a lot on the show, which is, if we have a government now that wants to downplay the impact of climate change, just look at the insurance industry, right? They're in the business of quantifying the risk, because it's going to come out of their bottom line as the risks in various climate sensitive areas increase. So, yes, they want to look at markets? Let's look at the insurance market to see what the effects of climate change and the anticipated effects of climate change really are by the people with vested interest.

Senator Andy Kim: Yes. That's a good point. One other aspect there, Brian, is, in the haste by this administration to just try to reverse anything that resembles climate change efforts, they are hurting us when it comes to energy production. Our nation is producing so much energy right now. More than we ever have in the past. Yet the president is pulling back on the support that we've been providing to supercharge renewable energies. He's doing that in a way that's only going to allow China to further dominate and hurt us geopolitically, but it's also just going to raise prices for the American people.

He's doing this just to kind of own us. Just to kind of say, "Hey, look, I'm fighting against all this stuff that Democrats were pushing for." All he's doing is going to be raising costs for Americans and setting back our innovation and our manufacturing and letting China win the game. It's just the kind of self sabotage and the shooting ourselves in the foot just for political gamesmanship. That's the kind of stuff I can't stand.

Brian Lehrer: Susan in Plainsboro, you're on WNYC with Senator Andy Kim. Hi, Susan.

Susan: Thanks for taking my call. I wondered if Senator Kim could address the decision that Chuck Schumer made in the spring to vote for the budget bill. His rationale was that the court system would effectively be unable to counter some of the Republican measures if the government was shut down.

My question is, given the rescission bill coming before Republicans, and given that this would hijack the appropriations process in which obviously Democrats would normally participate, and also given the recent Supreme Court decisions that have supported Trump in many of the things we've been discussing already today, as well as many other things, do you think that it's appropriate for the Democrats to consider a government shutdown if the rescission bill goes through and basically claws back money that has been appropriated in a bipartisan manner thus far?

Brian Lehrer: Interesting question, Susan. I don't think the rescission bill presents the opportunity for a government shutdown like the budget bill did in the spring, but, Senator, I do want to ask you about this rescission bill likely coming up tomorrow. What do you have to say to Susan?

Senator Andy Kim: Yes, I hope people are paying attention to this, because again, the Constitution gives Congress the right to be able to set the budget. Here we see this administration trying to weaponize this process called rescission. First of all, it very rarely happens. Trump tried it and failed in his first term. George H. W. Bush used it successfully for one purpose back in his presidency, but that's it. So this is not some usual thing. What we know is that this is the first tranche, about $9 billion they're trying to cut out, and we know that if they're successful, they're going to use this for other means.

Look, the listener there has every right to be concerned about this and what this is going to do for our actual appropriations process, because if we can appropriate and come to agreement, then the administration can just say, "No, I don't like this." Then what is the point of Congress? What is the point of us working together to be able to set the course and trajectory for this country? That is a real concern. Yes, with the Republicans controlling every aspect of the government right now, both chambers, Congress and the executive branch, this is their mess of their making. I hope the American people see that.

Brian Lehrer: Well, the rescission bill that might come to a vote tomorrow, clawing back money already approved by Congress for USAID, where you used to work, so many people say lives are literally on the line with a sudden cutoff of foreign aid to medical aid programs and things like that, and also for public broadcasting. That's in this rescission bill. Obviously, this station is an interested party there. I hear the vote might happen or might be postponed. What can you tell us?

Senator Andy Kim: Right now we're not positive if it's going to move forward. I know Senator Thune, still trying to work the angles. There are some real issues at stake here that my colleagues have problems with. Whether that's PEPFAR and the efforts that our country's done to be able to tackle in such a significant way millions of lives saved when it comes to HIV/AIDS in Africa and elsewhere. Public broadcasting, I mean, New Jersey, our public broadcasting channel is the only channel on TV that is across our entire state. Doesn't come from the New York or Philly metro areas. That's something that we're proud of.

I certainly grew up on Reading Rainbow and Sesame Street. I got my little kids enjoying programs. I hope that the American people can add that pressure. If you've got concerns about this, call your senators today and let them know. It's just really important that we try to stop it. I don't know. I mean, we see Trump has put enormous amount of pressure, threatening to have primary challengers against those that are opposed. Again, it's just this effort to just try to dominate and just this complete abdication of this belief of separate but equal branches of government. I find it to be just really depressing to watch and to see so many in Congress just bowing down when many of them know better.

Brian Lehrer: You mentioned New Jersey Public Television. We are, of course, New York and New Jersey Public Radio. Regular listeners hear me read off that list of New Jersey frequencies. That's part of our stream. At the top of the hour, we will have Nancy Solomon back on tomorrow night interviewing Governor Murphy with their weekly or monthly call in. As New York and New Jersey Public Radio, just chiming in on our presence on that. Members of Congress and the New Jersey delegation and anywhere else will decide what they do. All right. We're going to continue with Senator Andy Kim.

In just a minute, we're going to do a foreign affairs stretch of conversation with him. Some very interesting developments. Like, is there a new Donald Trump when it comes to Vladimir Putin? All of a sudden? Stay with us.

[theme music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC, a few more minutes with our monthly Call Your Senator segment, with New Jersey Senator, Democrat Andy Kim. You are, I don't have to tell you, America's first Korean American member of the Senate. Interested in foreign affairs, you used to work for the State department, the Pentagon, USAID. Last week, the president threatened a 25% tariff on South Korea and also talked in a public cabinet meeting about charging them $10 billion for the 28,000 or so US troops stationed there. Here's a little of that from the president regarding the troops.

President Donald Trump: South Korea is making a lot of money and they're very good. They're very good, but they should be paying for their own military.

Brian Lehrer: One more short bite.

President Donald Trump: I said, "You know, we give you free military. Essentially, very little, and I think you should pay us $10 billion a year."

Brian Lehrer: Is the president wrong on this, Senator? The Korean War ended in 1953, and we've had tens of thousands of US troops there ever since. Trump and the political right see this as them taking advantage of us. Frankly, many on the political left see this as US imperialism. Why do we have US troops all over the world being the boss of everyone else? What's your view of that?

Senator Andy Kim: Yes, look, I think we benefit from this as well. This is not charity. This is not what it was 70 years ago with the US and others coming to the aid of South Korea. We have a national interest in fighting or in trying to deter and stop North Korea aggression, which right now is getting worse and worse as we see them and Russia having a tighter bond. We actually have North Korean troops in Ukraine fighting, which is mind boggling to me to think through. Also, look, our greatest strategic competitor right now is China. We want to make sure that we are taking the steps, whether security-wise or economically, to be able to counter this.

This idea that Trump has that we are there solely for the protection of South Korea is wrong. It's just wrong. If he pulls our troops out, it will just make us weaker in the region. It'll damage our relationship with a key ally that is now a top 10 GDP country in the world. We can benefit from working together on investments, on innovation, and other things. Same thing he's going after Japan right now. We just had the Japanese prime minister issue a very alarming statement just the other day, where he was basically saying, "Look, we're at the point now where we need to reduce our reliance and dependence on America."

I hope that people understand what's happening, is that in this whole effort with the tariffs and other things that we're doing that are antagonizing some of our closest allies, what we're doing is we're seeing the manifestation of this America first policy, really meaning America alone. We're going to end up just being by ourselves. The rest of the world right now is just in shock about what is happening here, and they're just working as hard as they can to distance themselves from us. That's going to hurt American global leadership in the long run.

Brian Lehrer: On President Trump changing his tune on Russia's war against Ukraine. NPR this morning, on Morning Edition, played a sequence of Trump sound bites about the war from the last year. I'll just reair the first and the last of those. This was Trump on the campaign trail.

President Donald Trump: Before I even arrive at the Oval Office shortly after I win the presidency, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled. I'll get it settled very fast.

Brian Lehrer: This is Trump yesterday, on his various phone calls with Putin.

President Donald Trump: I always hang up, say, "Well, that was a nice phone call." Then missiles are launched into Kiev or some other city. I say, "That's strange." After that happens three or four times, you say the talk doesn't mean anything.

Brian Lehrer: With your experience at the State Department and the Pentagon, Senator Kim, do you think Putin's been playing Trump for all these years, or is Trump faking disappointment with Putin as a way of enabling him? I honestly don't know what to think.

Senator Andy Kim: Yes. Look, in my experience in foreign policy, leadership is so much connected to reliability and consistency, of which Donald Trump has neither. I think that this is something that is hurting us. Yes. As I said, our allies and our partners don't trust us. They don't think we're going to be there for them, so they don't want to be there for us. As a result, we're going at this alone against Russia, against China, against Iran, et cetera. All this is doing is continuing to bolster these authoritarian leaders around the world. When we're gutting, I was there. Just-- go ahead.

Brian Lehrer: Well, I was just going to say the president did announce new weapons for Ukraine, something he had campaigned against. Some of his MAGA base doesn't like this. Is he sending anything that matters to Ukraine's defense, in your opinion?

Senator Andy Kim: Well, look, all these resources help. I'm not going to discount that. The thing is, is that it's just on a whim. When we see them pausing shipments before, now they're going, now they're sending. Who knows what's going to be there tomorrow? When I hear from leaders around the world, they ask me this question. They're like, "Is America a reliable nation?" I think that for many of them, the answer is so clearly no. They are all building up their efforts to be able to not have to rely on us. I think we're going to see a big diminishment in American global leadership going forward. The indispensable nation will be no longer. Instead, we'll be the unreliable nation.

Brian Lehrer: Well, I guess that would be your answer to the question I was going to ask, that any American on any political side might ask. When we're cutting people off Medicaid and raising the national debt to dangerous heights, how many hundreds of billions should we be spending to defend a country in another part of the world where we may have an opinion about right and wrong, but where US national security is not actually at stake?

Senator Andy Kim: Yes. Look, I mean, I think we need to be careful in terms of where we're investing. We can't be everywhere, nor should we be. Yes, for places where there are strong national security interests, that is important for us. I do think we gain from being a global leader. I hope everybody listening would agree with the idea that it's good for us. We benefit from being the world's most powerful nation. That is not something we can just take for granted. This is a situation where, whether it's foreign assistance, I'll just say, that is not charity.

That is a means by which we can mobilize and try to persuade other nations to be able to work with us, to be able to engage with us. It opens up markets for their economies, for our businesses to come into. These are the types of things that we're engaged in. As I say, if we're-- we can't think about it as just zero-sum in that way, because if we are, then we also need to keep in mind that we're giving these tax cuts to billionaires that have so much money they have their own personal space program.

If we're talking about where it is that we need to be thinking about in terms of resources, I think that we need to think and take a hard look at ourselves and how we're dealing with just the extraordinary wealth inequality in this nation. That is something that's getting worse and worse every day.

Brian Lehrer: Sara Lee in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC with Senator Andy Kim. Hi, Sara Lee.

Sara Lee: Hi, there. Hi, Senator Kim. Thank you so much for supporting the joint resolution of disapproval on new arms shipments to Israel. I wanted to ask whether you would be willing to ask the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate Friday's murder of an American citizen by Israeli settlers. He was literally beaten to death. He is the seventh American, since 2022, to be murdered by Israeli security forces and paramilitary groups. Including a New Jersey child, Amer Rabee, a 14 year old Palestinian from New Jersey who was killed on April 6th, 2025.

There has not been accountability in one single case of these murders of Americans by Israeli forces. The US government, no one in the US government has offered any condolence or demand for accountability from Israel for these murders, including the one that happened on Friday. Is it time to be defending the interest of Americans and demanding that Israelis stop killing Americans?

Senator Andy Kim: Yes, we need to be making sure that we're standing up for Americans everywhere. I talked with the family of Amer, who was a 14 year old American child from New Jersey killed in the West Bank. Just hearing just the family recount how he was just out there with friends playing, and getting shot. Yes, I've called for an investigation with that, I will continue to call for investigations to make sure that we are protecting all American. Thank you for raising this. It's important, and it's something that we need to make sure that we're keeping up with. Our main duty.

As someone who worked at the State Department before, it was such an important part of our mission to make sure that we are keeping Americans safe abroad and certainly at home. That doesn't-- if it's in the West Bank or anywhere, that is where our mission needs to be. So I will push for continued investigations and try to make sure we can get closure and justice for these families.

Brian Lehrer: A follow up question on that, and then we're out of time. I know you got to go. Do you see Trump changing his tune on Netanyahu at all like he's changing it on Putin? Trump has been trying to get a ceasefire and hostage return in Gaza without getting Israel and Hamas to yes on that, at this point. You voted against new arms for Israel this year, as the caller mentioned. Any indication Trump is going to start speaking out against Netanyahu continuing his war for his own purposes, as many see it?

There was a big New York Times article on that this week. Thwarting Trump's peace proposals. I realize Hamas is an obstacle, too, not to minimize their role, but Trump's ally is Netanyahu, also not accepting these deals.

Senator Andy Kim: We've seen Trump take a number of different angles when it comes to Netanyahu. Some of the steps of ending some of the actions that we were doing against the Houthis on our own, engaging in diplomacy with Iran earlier on. Again, like everything else, like what we were saying with Putin, it's very fickle. So, I don't know where that's going. I tried to work positively with this administration when it came to getting Edan Alexander freed from captivity.

We in New Jersey are so happy he's reunited with his family, but there continues to be these hostages that are held, and that needs to be continued. A priority on that front to be able to free the hostages and be able to bring this conflict and violence to an end. I don't know, Trump keeps changing his tune, but Netanyahu's not. He's continuing to stand in the way. So I hope that we can continue to press and try to find a diplomatic breakthrough here, because that's really is going to be what it takes.

It's going to be what it takes to be able to provide security and safety for everyone, including the Israelis, having a diplomatic agreement there that can try to be able to put forward a durable peace. That's what's important at this stage.

Brian Lehrer: Our monthly Call Your Senator segment, with New Jersey Senator Andy Kim. Listeners, thank you for your calls and your text. Senator Kim, we always appreciate it. As you can tell from the response, just so many texts, so many calls when you're on, the listeners obviously appreciate the access. Thank you very much.

Senator Andy Kim: Thanks so much.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.