Title: Call Your Senator: Sen Gillibrand on Election Results, Israel, and More [MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning again, everyone. Now, our monthly Call Your Senator segment, my questions and yours, for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. 212-433-WNYC. The New York Democrat was just elected to her third full term, defeating her Republican opponent by 17 points, outperforming the top of the ticket. Kamala Harris beat Donald Trump in New York by 12 points, so a five-point difference there is the number that I have, and I've also seen it as seven points. But either way, Harris did not do as well as Gillibrand in New York State.

The Senate is where a lot of the early action is since the election, right? Trump's first major challenge to the Constitution and the norms of democracy has been to ask the Senate to give up its constitutional right to have confirmation power over his nominees. Matt Gaetz and RFK Jr., Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, fracking executive Chris Wright for Energy Secretary, will they all get their jobs without even a hearing in the Senate? It's a first big test to see if we're headed toward fascism, the word that three of Trump's former top national security officials have warned about how Trump wants to govern.

On that and much more, Senator Gillibrand, congratulations on your reelection and welcome back to WNYC.

Senator Gillibrand: Thanks so much, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, this is our Call Your Senator segment. If you're anywhere in New York State and Senator Gillibrand is actually your senator, you can call or text 212-433-WNYC. We can take calls from the other 49 as well and from around the world for that matter. 212-433-9692. Call in or you can text a question to that number.

Senator, your party is obviously licking its wounds over losing the presidential election and majority control in the Senate. Why do you think Kamala Harris lagged your margin of victory in New York State as much as she did?

Senator Gillibrand: Well, I think I can talk about what worked in New York because I spent a lot of time focused on that. We focused on being in the community about two years ahead of time talking to voters, particularly voters who stayed home last election. We talked to them about what issues mattered most to them. The top two salient issues for New York was public safety related to immigration, related to fentanyl, related to gun violence, and the economy. The cost of things, the cost of food, the cost of eggs, milk, meat, the cost of gas, healthcare, those are the things that people seem to be most worried about.

In New York, we organized on those principles and we ran our campaigns on those principles, and we were able to, in seven battleground districts, win five out of seven. That was our goal because we wanted to win back the seats we lost last cycle because voters stayed home. I think engagement in communities directly with voters about the issues they cared most about is what a winning campaign looked like this cycle.

Brian Lehrer: I guess you are referring there to the House seats. I agree. I think that's an underreported story. We've mentioned it here, but it's not the thing that gets the headlines. If New York lost five congressional seats that got flipped by Republicans in 2022, they've taken back four of those five, if I've got my count right.

Senator Gillibrand: Correct. We had two incumbents we were trying to protect and five districts we were trying to flip. We flipped three, we protected two incumbents, so we got five out of seven.

Brian Lehrer: On the national level though, your colleague Chris Murphy from Connecticut, also just reelected, said on Morning Edition last week, "We claim to be the party that represents working people, poor people, and yet as you saw in this election, they're moving to the Republicans in droves. I think this is in part because we aren't listening to what's really driving people's emotional center right now." Do you agree with that idea that the party isn't listening to what's driving poor and working people's emotional center?

Senator Gillibrand: I don't agree that we're not listening. It depends on the individual person. Our whole approach was to be in the community two years out, to be in the Black community, the Hispanic community, the AAPI community. We went to every college campus and organized young people on 16 college campuses in these battleground districts. We were listening and we were campaigning on those issues. I do think perhaps what Senator Murphy was referring to is that the salient narratives of the national campaign at the end were about broader principles like democracy and equality. I think if you're struggling to feed your kids and heat your home, those aren't your top two issues.

It really comes down to where are you meeting people on what issues, and I think the Democratic Party stands for working people. We're the only party that's trying to raise the minimum wage. We're the only party that's been trying to get prescription drug costs down and to make things like housing, healthcare, and food more affordable. We are focused on that, but I think sometimes we get so focused on many, many issues that it doesn't break through that we're putting these kitchen table items top-of-mind.

I think for candidates that did that, they won, and you saw that in the Senate seats. You saw that in these battleground states of Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, our Democratic colleagues won. In the couple races where they didn't won, they highly outperformed the national ticket. Look at Sherrod Brown. He outperformed Harris by 12, I think.

Brian Lehrer: He lost. He got unseated.

Senator Gillibrand: No, no, by seven. By seven. Yet nobody outperformed Harris by seven, and Tester outperformed Harris by 12. The Senate candidates were talking about the kitchen table issues, and that's why they won or outperformed the top of the ticket. The couple that lost were in deeply red states. Pennsylvania is still in a recount. Those candidates were talking about the kitchen table economic issues that working people are most stressed out about.

I just think we have to be louder on these issues and not get distracted by what the Republican Party puts on the stage, because they want to pick the most divisive issues, the most hate-filled issues. When we get dragged by them down to these issues that aren't affecting most people at their kitchen tables, then those people assume we don't care about them.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take a phone call. Brian in Washington Heights, you're on WNYC. Hi, Brian.

Brian: Hi. Thank you guys for taking my call. Thank you both. Senator Gillibrand, I have just a couple questions, if I could get your answer. Number one, Elon Musk. The man has-- he has ties to autocratic regimes: Saudi Arabia and China. He has amplified Neo-Nazis and disinformation on X. He openly joked to Tucker Carlson about facing arrest if Trump lost, and seemed aligned with a plan to destabilize the US Economy. Why haven't Democrats taken action to investigate or hold Musk accountable? We have 60 days before Trump takes office. I'm begging you if you could use your connections with the DOJ, FBI, or White House to demand urgent action against him.

Number two, on Trump and democracy, before the election Democrats have been warning that a second Trump term would mean the end of US Democracy, but since his very narrow victory, Democrats seem quiet. Where is the leadership? Where is the confident resistance we need to counteract Trump's existential threat to our democracy? Finally, on media and messaging, the far-right dominates the algorithm, with Rogan, Ben Shapiro, and Candace Owens topping platforms like Spotify. Meanwhile, Democrats are stuck in postmortem mode instead of roaring back.

How will the Democratic Party step up to fight this imbalance and inspire resistance, especially when we've seen this election was as close as it gets? Thank you.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you for those questions. Senator.

Senator Gillibrand: I share the caller's concerns about the perspectives of Elon Musk and some of his actions, activities, and the way he sees the world. We do not have the capacity at this point in time to investigate Elon Musk. We don't have the power of the House right now, and we're not going to have the power of the House next cycle at all. I don't think that is an approach that will work. He has freedom of speech, as you know, and he has the right to have perspectives that we do not share.

I do think at the end of the day, this is what our democracy is about, and we have to win the next election. We have to win a majority in the Senate. We have to win a majority in the House. We have to win the White House in four years. The outcome of this election was deeply sobering because voters didn't hear our message clearly. They didn't understand what we were fighting for, so we have to do a lot better job of communicating our values and what we care about and try to bring this country back together again.

I think that what the people expect of us is to get things done for them. To solve the crisis of affordability of housing. I don't know if you've been in many communities across New York, but housing prices are skyrocketed. It's hard to even rent an apartment. If we're not focused on these life-and-death issues for New Yorkers and for the country, we're not actually doing our job.

My goal is to work as effectively as I can on a bipartisan basis to help people and to speak truth. I will call out outrageous statements by-- whether it's Elon Musk or any other of the very bizarre cabinet picks of President-Elect Trump. I will fight to strengthen our democracy and to make sure that we have a democracy, and those are all things we can do in Congress. At the end of the day, this is the impact of an election.

Brian Lehrer: On democracy, I mentioned in the intro, President-Elect Trump wanting the Senate to forfeit its advice and consent function that's in the Constitution and not hold hearings or confirmation votes on his nominees. You know Senator Thune, who will be the new majority leader. Do you think he'll give up those constitutional checks and balances?

Senator Gillibrand: I don't. I think Senator Thune will protect our Constitution and will protect our democracy and protect the role of the Senate. I think Mitch McConnell has already said that he will not permit these recess appointments and the abdication of the Senate's role. I think the leadership in the Senate will be in one purpose, to maintain our function and maintain our role that the Constitution gives us of advice and consent. I think you can look to just the leadership election alone.

The Republican senators chose not to support the Trump-backed candidate and they supported somebody who had been their whip, somebody who's been in leadership for a long time, someone who is seen as reasonable and bipartisan. I think we will be able to outmaneuver President-Elect Trump in this issue.

Brian Lehrer: You're on the Armed Services Committee, so here's a clip of one of those nominees. He's nominee for defense secretary, Fox News host Pete Hegseth, who wants to take away another women's right, the right to volunteer for combat duty. Here he is on that.

Pete Hegseth: "I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn't made us more effective, hasn't made us more lethal, has made fighting more complicated."

Brian Lehrer: Hegseth also said this.

Pete Hegseth: "You got to fire the Chairman of Joint Chiefs and you got to fire this-- I mean, obviously you're going to bring in a new secretary of defense. But any general that was involved - general, admiral, whatever - that was involved in any of the DEI woke [beep] has got to go."

Brian Lehrer: Your reaction, Senator Gillibrand, to either of those clips?

Senator Gillibrand: Well, I have deep concerns about his nomination. I don't think he is well-informed, and his comments make him appear quite unserious. Women have been extremely effective in the military and in combat roles. They are extremely lethal. If he studied some of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of the best missions were conducted by women in combat units where they were sent into communities to talk to women who couldn't talk to our male soldiers and our male personnel. They could find the location of terrorists, they could find the location of ammunitions, and they were able to be fundamentally important to some antiterrorism missions throughout the war on terror.

I don't think he's knowledgeable about the role that women have played in combat and how effective they are. I also think that the secretary of defense has a much broader role. He's in charge of the safety, security, and well-being of more than one million active-duty service personnel, and nearly a million civil servants who are not active-duty civilian service, and he has very little experience in managing anything more than a handful of people.

It's a big organization, and there's a lot of people's lives who dedicate themselves to our national security that he would be responsible for. I have just grave concerns that he doesn't have the background or training or knowledge base that he will need to be a successful secretary of defense.

Brian Lehrer: Also relevant perhaps to your role on the Armed Services Committee, Rosie in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC. Hello, Rosie.

Rosie: Hi. Thanks for taking my call. I'm a little bit nervous. I am a Jewish New Yorker, and I'm calling because there will be a vote on Wednesday on Senator Sanders' joint resolutions of disapproval to stop a $20 billion weapons shipment to Israel that has already been approved by the Biden administration. More than 40,000 Palestinian people have been killed, at least 16,500 of them children. Now more than 2,400 Lebanese people have been killed. For me as an American Jew, a person who cares about human rights, just a person, this is a huge tragedy. It's a tragedy for the Jewish people as well.

I'm disgusted that so many of these murders were carried out with weapons from the US that were paid for with my tax dollars, which could be spent on anything else, like the issues that you're bringing up of housing and affordability. I'm really worried that once Trump enters office, the bombardment will only escalate until the Palestinian people are literally wiped out. Already, such extreme violence is taking place with my tax dollars. I'm curious how you intend to vote on this and why.

Brian Lehrer: Senator.

Senator Gillibrand: Well, I just want to thank you for your very thoughtful question. I can hear from your voice how important this is to you, and I can hear from your voice and many New Yorkers and many Americans that the loss of innocent life is crippling. It's something that is so deeply heartbreaking and is a tragedy. One of the challenges that Israel has is it's fighting a war on three fronts, and these are not insignificant wars. What Hamas accomplished on October 7th was brutal and disgusting, including sexual torture, killing of children, of elderly, including taking of hostages. That's one incursion.

Then you add to that the continued attacks by Hamas, and you add to the attacks from Hezbollah from Lebanon in the north. Then you add to that the hundreds of missiles that Iran has showered all over Israel. They are in a war, and the challenge of being in a war is it's very hard to fight a war where innocent people don't die. I fully understand that you don't want your taxpayer dollars spent on war because of the outcomes of war.

One of the challenges that we have is that Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East, the only democracy in the Middle East. We don't want Israel destroyed, we don't want Jews destroyed, and we don't want Israel to be wiped off the face of the map. That is an American position, it is my position. I have always supported Israel and I will always support Israel in defending itself from these attacks on all three fronts from terrorist organizations. Their goal is to destroy Israel and Jews.

I do hear you. One of the things I've been working on is trying to get the Israeli government to pivot to a long-term peace agreement, a long-term ceasefire to get the hostages returned. To create a regional defense alliance with the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Jordanians, the Egyptians, and other Abraham Accords countries so that together they can push back terrorism collectively so that, for example, Saudi Arabia could be in charge of security operations in Gaza so it can be an Arab face, it can be a Muslim face that is trying to defeat terrorism.

I can tell you the people that live in Gaza and in Lebanon are exhausted because they have terrorist groups that have so much power in their countries and start wars like this. They would like those terrorist groups to be removed from their countries so that they can live in peace too. I think having an Arab and Muslim faith on that effort to break down terrorism, to restore peace, to have a long-term peace agreement is what Israel needs for its long-term existence. It also needs it for the world community, and American citizens need it because they want to see peace in the Middle East and they are heartbroken by the loss of life.

Brian Lehrer: One follow-up though, because as those negotiations take place or really bog down, I know Qatar just pulled out of negotiating between Hamas and Israel because they say neither side is serious about a ceasefire. Even in the context of Israel's right to defend itself after terrorist attacks on multiple fronts, there are standards of war. The resolution that the caller asks about, proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders, I see Senator Elizabeth Warren has also signed on, is about, and I'm reading from The Guardian now, "Whether they're violating international law by depriving people in Gaza of humanitarian aid."

As you know, the White House last month gave Israel an ultimatum of 30 days to improve conditions or risk losing military support, so this is on the Biden administration's radar as a problem. The State Department did conclude that it would not take any punitive action, insisting that Israel was making limited progress and not blocking aid, and therefore not violating US Law. Again from The Guardian describing the US position.

The issue in this resolution is not whether Israel has a right to defend itself. The issue is standards of how you fight a war, even if it's a just war.

Senator Gillibrand: The Biden administration shared those concerns obviously, and wanted to push Israel to do more for humanitarian assistance to Gaza throughout the conflict. This was an example of successful diplomacy by the Biden administration to use its leverage to get Israel to do more for the humanitarian situation in Gaza, including the delivery of more of the essential assistance that people need to survive. Israel did open a border crossing and increased aid. I think this is a role the US can continue to play and can continue to push Israel to do more to relieve humanitarian suffering. We can keep insisting upon that, and we should keep insisting upon that.

The reason why I will not support Senator Sanders's resolution is because without our military support, Israel can't defend itself. We can use that relationship to get them to be better at delivering humanitarian assistance. I personally believe we should pivot entirely away from military action within Gaza at this point because we have enough military success. Hamas has been deeply degraded. I think if Israel did this regional defense alliance with Saudi Arabia, the Saudi military could create operational controls in Gaza to deliver the aid so Israel doesn't have to do it.

I think that would be more effective. I think it would have a longer benefit towards restoration of peace, and it would allow for ultimately the rebuilding of a Palestinian state. I think that's what needs to happen. That will take many, many years, but with these allies it's feasible. Without these allies, I think it's near impossible. I think now is the opportunity to do that pivot to declare that long-term regional defense alliance, long-term ceasefire and get the return of the hostages. You mentioned, Brian, what happened in Qatar. Well, it's because Hamas has not been serious in the negotiations on that permanent ceasefire to return the hostages.

Brian Lehrer: They said neither side has been serious.

Senator Gillibrand: Well, I just know that they kicked Hamas out of the negotiations, which is just deeply emblematic of the fact that they don't want a ceasefire. They don't want the war to end. They started the war because they want 100 years' war. Their intention is to destroy Israel, so a ceasefire is not in their interest. If you know anything about this conflict, Hamas doesn't care about the loss of innocent life. It's why they place their batteries in childcare facilities. It's why they place their operations underneath the hospitals. It's why during the conflict they continue to start and deploy their forces and operations in shelters, in places where people have been asked to go to avoid the war.

It's a very hard war for Israel to fight because Hamas wants more innocent death. That's the challenge when you are fighting a terrorist organization.

Brian Lehrer: Joe in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Hello, Joe.

Joe: Yes. Hi, Senator. As you're aware, there were great House hearings both last year and last week on extraterrestrials. The Senate hearings have been terrible, frankly. Your witnesses just say there's nothing there. Maybe drones, maybe birds. I know that you're privy to closed-door hearings. Marco Rubio, Chuck Schumer have alluded to that. There have been 80 years of UFO denials. When does the dam break and you finally tell us the truth, because you know so much more that you're not telling the American public?

Brian Lehrer: Thank you. Your chairing, Senator, such a hearing this afternoon, aren't you?

Senator Gillibrand: I am. Thank you, caller, for your interest. I appreciate it very much. A couple of things. I worked over the last few years to establish this organization within the Department of Defense and within the intelligence community called AARO, the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office. Now, the purpose of AARO is to look at all unidentified aerial phenomenon historically and in the future, and to create more detection devices so that we get more data and information. I'll explain why this is so important. As you know, we have a lot of adversaries around the world, and we also, on top of that, have a lot of sightings of things that people think are unexplained.

The combination of those two, in my opinion, creates a lack of domain awareness, and it creates a great deal of danger for our pilots who are flying in the airspace where they witness this unidentified aerial phenomenon frequently, and we don't know what they are. Some things can be identified. We created AARO to use scientific and the state-of-the-art detection, and the ability to use multiple data sources to assess what are these things. They can figure out some things. If they've had about 800 sightings over the past few years, they've probably figured out about 400 of them.

The 400 they figure out, they can say, well, we know this is a balloon because when you see it from this angle and this angle, we can see it. We know what the weather patterns were that day. We know it's flying in the same pattern as a balloon would be flying, it's a balloon. Or they can see something that looks like it's going through a wave and looks like it's flying between waves and going underwater and then up. They can assess over time that maybe what it was was actually an air aircraft that was flying so far away that it looked like it was going in between the waves. Now we have FAA information to tell us it was an aircraft exactly on that flight pattern.

They can take something that looks very strange and figure it out, which is good that they're doing. They can also look at drone activity that is very concerning and try to assess, is this an adversary's drone? Is this tech that we don't know anything about? What is it? For example, another example that disturbs me is what happened over Langley. It's been publicly available that there was a drone incursion that took over two weeks, where these drones that are very big drones, like the size of a room, would come over Langley in the middle of the night undetected, hover for a while, and then leave.

They did it for two weeks straight. We couldn't see them coming and we had no authority to take them down. That's probably a drone from China or Russia or Iran. We don't know their tech. We don't know how they did it, but it's very worrisome. We have to figure that out because we can't have our adversaries spying on us whenever they want.

Back to your question about otherworldly, unknown sightings. AARO did a report that's public, and you should read it. It's fascinating. They did a report February 2024 about all the historic reviews by the military and the US government over the last 75 years. A cursory read of this, you'd read it and say, "Well, it says they didn't find any aliens." Well, that's not really what the report says. What the report says is that all these different agencies and committees and secret reviews took place over 75 years in different places in the government. Some in the Navy, some in other parts of the DOD, some in intelligence circles.

They were always staffed by the smartest scientists and the most well-versed people in telemetry and space and every other discipline. What it says is no matter what year any one of these things was created, they could figure out about half. For somebody like you who really wants to know is there stuff out there that we don't know, this actually documents that, yes, we can figure out about half. That leads me to believe that there's a lot out there we don't understand and we don't know and we can't figure out.

What I can do prospectively or going forward is I can require us to track it, trace it, and figure it out, put on the sensors to get more data and information, because I've not been read into any secret programs that you'd want to know about. I have no basis to say it exists. What I do have a basis to say is we now have the ability to begin to get the data and information. The great thing about AARO is a lot of our whistleblowers, at least several dozens of them, are now feeling very comfortable to go in and tell their story about what they feel they saw, what they feel they knew, what they worked on, and what they were told.

Now we have people who can figure out what exactly what program does that fit in, or is there some unknown program that they have yet to uncover. It just gives us more information. I am in this to protect our pilots, to protect our personnel, to destigmatize the reporting of these sightings because they're dangerous and they're problematic for our service members and for our bases. I mean, if it's just simple spying, it's very bad for us. If it's something other, that's also bad for us. We need to know.

I'm going to spend a significant amount of time getting transparency, accountability, and knowledge so that the public, like you, can participate when you have data and information about programs or sightings. We're going to be able to create a lens where AARO can review all the publicly available data and information and take that testimony and push back, and then give Congress at least some insight and oversight into things that have been going on that we don't know anything about.

That's my hope, but I am very much allied with your perspective that we have a right to know and we have a right to have transparency. No pilot and no military member who sees these things should be stigmatized because they report it. They have to report it so that we can protect our secrets, but also protect our personnel who are running into these objects all the time, and it's very, very concerning.

Brian Lehrer: Very interesting. We'll see what comes out of your hearing this afternoon. We have about three minutes left. I know you got to go. I want to try to touch two more things. One is going to be this recruitment effort that you're doing that is a path to free college for some New Yorkers, but I do want to ask you one mass deportation question because that obviously is a whole huge other topic that we could spend a whole segment on.

Do you see a role for yourself in protecting any New Yorkers from mass deportation, and do you think Mayor Adams has a conflict of interest now with Trump's ability to cancel the mayor's indictment? Maybe you saw that the mayor refused to say last week that he would fight mass deportation, just saying some New Yorkers are against it but some New Yorkers are for it. Maybe he should even resign over that conflict of interest, I don't know, but what do you think?

Senator Gillibrand: Well, first of all, let me address your Cyber Academy because that's very important and I want your listeners to know about it. We've created a program within the Department of Defense and intelligence community where kids can go to college for free if they're willing to do public service in cyber, in any defense role, non-military. We have 26 schools in New York that are already part of the program. We have 600 across the country that are part of the program. It's an ROTC-type program. I visited a bunch of campuses on Monday and Friday who have these programs. Places like Stony Brook and places like Pace, NYU, lots of schools across the state. A bunch of community colleges as well, including CUNY.

Brian Lehrer: Did you mention Maya Al Mamana, SUNY Albany? You're up there too, right?

Senator Gillibrand: SUNY Albany is part of the program, and it's so good. We were in New Buffalo, which was great. It's all good. It's really good. These kids who are already techies, already cyber experts can get their college paid for, advanced degrees paid for, PhDs paid for to serve because we have 28,000 open jobs right now in the military and the intelligence services for cyber roles. For the caller who cared about AARO and detection, those are cyber jobs. There are so many fun, exciting jobs you can do that are non-military all across DOD and Intel. Very exciting. The applications are due February 1st. You can go to gillibrand.senate.gov/cyberacademy to get the details about how to apply.

Then about the mass deportation issues, obviously we need comprehensive immigration reform. It has been such a heavy, weighty issue. New Yorkers are stressed out. They're stressed out for multiple reasons now, but they are stressed out because there's been no rhyme to the reason, and our immigration system has been so deeply broken. They don't want to see people waiting around on street corners, and they don't want to see people who aren't working and integrated in part of the community. We've been living under a lot of stress for a while.

I'm going to do everything I can for comprehensive immigration reform. I'm going to try to pass the Bipartisan bill that fixed the asylum program so people could be adjudicated in two to three months, not two to three years, about whether their claim is valid. I do not think that Trump will be successful in creating a massive deportation force. It is absurd. It's not even implementable, that's not even a word, but it's something that can't be implemented. If he wants to focus on violent criminals, I'm sure there's lots of people who will support that.

I don't think the mass deportation is something that the United States or people in general think would be wise. There are so many people who have been part of America for so long, who pay their Social Security, who pay their taxes, who are working and thriving in our communities. It would be alarming and deeply worrying if President Trump tried to send 14 million people somewhere that many of whom have not been for 20, 30, 40 years.

I get why he campaigned on it, because it's a divisive issue that scares people. We need comprehensive immigration reform and fix the system so it works, because we need immigration in this country. Our economy works because we have immigrants from all over the world with all different levels of expertise. Without that, we have a less strong healthcare system, a less strong agriculture system, a less strong tourism and restaurants and hotels industry. We need workers. We have in New York, last I heard, 200,000 open jobs that we would love to be filling with people who have the skill sets that are needed for these jobs.

Brian Lehrer: On Mayor Adams, who doesn't speak like you just spoke on the issue, and just said last week some people are for it, some people against it, mass deportation, while he's visiting Trump at his Madison Square Garden, the recent event the other day, and could have his indictment lifted from him. Conflict of interest affecting the mayor's policy?

Senator Gillibrand: I don't know if he has a conflict of interest. I do have faith that Mayor Adams will not participate in a mass deportation force. I just don't think that's in his character or his background or anything that he's ever said. I don't like the rhetoric he's used over the last year. I think it's divisive and unhelpful and doesn't aid New York, so I don't support that rhetoric. I don't think he'd be part of something that President Trump wants to do in that regard. I really don't.

Brian Lehrer: Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, thank you so much. We really appreciate it.

Senator Gillibrand: Thanks, Brian. Be well.

 

Copyright © 2024 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.