[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Now, our monthly Call Your Senator segment. My questions and yours for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. With so much going on that I know many of you will want to ask about, we'll open the phones right away at 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, call or text. Senator Gillibrand with your questions will mostly favor actual constituents of hers in New York, as we always do, but other people may call or text with your questions, too. 212-433-WNYC, 433-9692. Senator, always good of you to be accessible like this. Welcome back to WNYC.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Thank you. How are you?

Brian Lehrer: I'm okay. Thank you. I see you just became a member of the very important Senate Appropriations Committee, in that context then congratulations. Do you have an opinion about ways that the Trump administration has been unilaterally canceling funding streams like foreign aid and others that were passed by Congress and signed into law?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: I think what he's doing is actually illegal. Congress has the power of the purse. We, on behalf of our constituents, make decisions about how to invest in our states to make sure that people who are hungry get food, to make sure people who need affordable housing can get housing, to make sure our law enforcement and our firefighters have the equipment they need. So far, this attack on all these investment programs is going to hurt people directly, whether it's through the SNAP Program, which gives hungry kids and seniors food like Meals on Wheels, or whether he's attacking early childhood education like the Head Start Program. Parents and kids are going to be struggling because of it.

These are very harmful efforts he's been making. To literally decide what program gets funded or doesn't, it's not his job. When he's unilaterally making the decisions in such an uninformed way, he's really hurting New Yorkers.

Brian Lehrer: Without a Senate majority, what can you do about it? Many Democrats who call and text us want their reps to turn up the temperature more than they've been doing.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: There's a lot of things we are doing and things we can do and things callers and listeners can do. First of all, when you're structurally changing our democracy that you need to file a lawsuit. Our attorney general and other attorney generals in blue and purple states are filing lawsuits to say you cannot defund programs that Congress has already allocated funds to.

When I make sure that our synagogues and our churches and our community centers have resources to protect against terrorism, they don't get to unwind it because they don't feel like it. When we've decided that hunger should be eradicated in America and we want to make sure our seniors and kids have food, they can't just defund that. Those lawsuits are very important because that will use the court system, which is an equal branch of government, hopefully, to restore. So far, it's worked.

That first decision that was made to stop funding to all these programs helping people, our AG filed a lawsuit. She got a temporary restraining order. They're filing another lawsuit this week to try to get a permanent injunction. That is the best lever. What senators in this instance can do is point out through the news media, through every platform we have, the harms that are being created by these policies. For example, on Sunday, I had an aid organization that helps our seniors.

She talked about how the money that puts railings in buildings, the money that offers Meals on Wheels, the money that helps seniors with lighting and programs that keep them being able to age in place, all of those are being at risk and might and might not be invested and it will harm our seniors. We had Joel Berg from Hunger Free America talk about how if we don't invest in our food banks and we don't invest in the SNAP Program and school lunch programs and after-school programs, who goes hungry and how that hurts long term our physical well being, but also our ability to grow the economy and have a vibrant society.

My job is then to lift up the real stories of how these policies affect New Yorkers and how the harms are being done. Then in terms of the callers, they can amplify those messages. When they hear someone say something in a way that persuades them, they should be actually reposting that, amplifying it in other ways. Stop attacking people who are fighting on the same side as you and start attacking the people who are harming you would be my best advice.

Brian Lehrer: We're getting a lot of texts about Elon Musk. I'm going to read you two of them that have come in in the last few minutes. One says, "Please ask Senator Gillibrand why no one has blocked Musk. It's not just the stuff he's doing, but since when can a private citizen, no matter how wealthy, walk through all these doors and enforce so many changes so fast with some little group of 18 to 24-year-olds? Another one says, "What do you recommend that citizens do right now to resist the actions of Trump vis a vis placing Elon Musk in a position of non-elected power?" How do you respond to those listeners and others who are asking similar questions?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: I think there is a legal claim in there because I do think giving Elon Musk the power to review and see and get access to all the IT of the Department of Treasury is likely illegal. I don't know what his actual employment status is. I think he is part of the Trump administration. Whether he receives a salary or not is irrelevant. I think he is part of his administration. Again, a lot of this requires various levels of security, background checks, and I don't know if those issues have been violated. We don't have access to that information, but I do believe lawsuits should be filed.

I believe lawsuits are going to be filed by attorneys general because often they have standing through the fact that states receive Medicaid payments, Medicare payments. They therefore have the standing to sue. They should be suing and they are suing on behalf of their states. Again, my job is to provide the oversight and accountability over the Trump administration by calling out the outrageousness of these actions that I have deep concerns that they are illegal, but I have even deeper concerns that they're just harmful.

I feel like he's trying to gain the tools he needs to ultimately just stop funding for any organization that he doesn't approve of, whether it's Catholic charities helping immigrants or homeless people, whether it's a Jewish helping organization that's feeding the homeless, whether it's a Lutheran organization that's providing beds to people with drug addiction. If they just decide they don't like a religious group or decide they don't like a not-for-profit or decide they don't like a mission, it sounds to me that that's what they want to be able to do, to take those funds and then what are they going to do with those funds?

They want to then give those funds to billionaires, which is the most disgraceful, outrageous idea that you could possibly be putting forward. People in this last election wanted a president who would care about them, that would care about their concerns about the price of food and the price of housing and price of heating and transportation, and care about their children's public safety and our school systems.

I don't think President Trump has done one thing yet at all to address any of those concerns the American people had. I think he lied to the American people and I think he has them captured into believing that he's going to fight for them. He is literally not doing one thing yet to fight for them.

Brian Lehrer: Another series of texts and calls that we're getting that I'll sum up is a number of listeners are not happy that you voted for some of Trump's nominees. One text says, "Does she regret voting in favor of Scott Bessent's nomination to head treasury when he's given Musk employees access to the US Government's payment system?" Another one says, "Simply, I would like to ask Gillibrand to vote no on every Trump nominee." We're going to let Jeff in Long Island City on as a caller on this thread, who I think has an even more specific ask. Jeff, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Jeff: Thank you for having me on, Brian. Good morning, Senator Gillibrand, I'm very interested in knowing why either yourself or your colleagues haven't placed holds on nominations like Senator Tom Cotton did for the nomination of Cassandra Butts or Azita Raji, or Samuel Heins. There are things you can do, again, whether it's you or your colleagues in the Senate, but you don't do it. You often ask about us, meaning citizens, to fight and resist. Frankly, where is that grip from you, Senator? When you wanted to push out Al Franken, one of the most effective senators in the United States Senate, to bolster your presidential aspirations, which were frankly nil to begin with, you had no problem doing that.

When it comes to playing dirty or playing rough and tumble, like the GOP, like Tommy Tuberville holding up nominations, I'm not saying that's right, but he did it and it was effective. Where are you? Where are your colleagues? Why aren't you showing the same grit and fight that you're asking of us and that your counterparts in the Senate are showing?

Brain Lehrer: Senator?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: I would just start addressing the caller that unfortunately you're deeply misinformed and I would be very careful where you get your information from. You may be unwillingly a soft target of adversaries who are trying to harm the United States. First of all, let's start with misinformation. Tommy Tuberville, when he held up the nomination, did so because Congress has the right to approve people's promotions. He held up all promotions of all military leaders until he got his way on one particular nomination. He never got his way. He wasted his time.

He wasted everybody's time for months and months. It was a very narcissistic effort to get attention on the issue he wanted, and it was unsuccessful. Senators cannot hold Cabinet nominations anymore. It is now a 51-vote threshold to be able to vote for a Cabinet nomination. All we can do is not consent to shortening the amount of time we look at. We have done that. We have not consented to shortening the time to look at any nominee. We've used every time. We've made them burn all the time possible. We then have a choice of either voting for them or against them.

If the Republicans want these nominees, they can have them. That's why the focus substantively has been on, are there Republicans willing to vote against a nomination? One of the nominations that I worked very hard on trying to defeat was Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense. The reason why we wanted to defeat Pete Hegseth is because he was entirely unqualified and had very derogatory views against women serving in the military, against mothers in general serving at all, not allowing women in combat, not allowing LGBTQ members of our communities to serve, not allowing anybody who has progressive, liberal, or any ideas that are different from his.

He made derogatory comments about them. Our big question was-- That was just one line of questioning. You also have, has he ever managed anything? The Department of Defense has three million people that he would be responsible for. When he did have a management role, they had a lot of accounting and filing mistakes and lots of challenges to actually running organizations. Each senator had a line of questioning on various aspects of whether he was qualified or not. We tried very hard in that effort.

We got three Republicans to vote with us, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitch McConnell. We needed a fourth, and we were unable to get it because the Trump MAGA machine is powerful. They are aggressive. They are nasty. They issue death threats. They threaten people. They threaten them with retaliation. They have really gotten under the skin of a lot of Republicans who are unfortunately now unwilling to stand up to Trump, which is highly problematic. I would urge you to focus on that lack of leadership and that lack of courage than taking aim at people who are trying to do the things that you want done in this country.

I don't even think your comment about Senator Franken deserves a response because it's so deeply uninformed.

Brian Lehrer: We are in our monthly Call Your Senator segment with New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. One more on nominees, and this one comes from our Newsroom's Transportation desk, which says they think that you'll be the one or one of the ones grilling whomever is nominated to head the Federal Transit Administration. With a set of Republicans set on killing the program, is Senator Gillibrand going to go along with them or push back on the value and necessity, and apparently popularity of the Federal Transit Administration? Are you aware of this?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: I'm not aware of a vote on a nomination for the Federal Transit Administration, but if that is something that's going to come up, I will be informed on it, but I don't know anything about it as of today.

Brian Lehrer: Also on transit, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, you've been an opponent or a skeptic on congestion pricing. Maybe just summarize your position very briefly as of now. Would you be in favor of President Trump trying to use executive authority to cancel the program?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: There's many reasons to debate congestion pricing and many reasons for it and many reasons against it. It was a debate our legislators started with Governor Cuomo 20 years ago. The thinking back then was that we needed to fund mass transit, which I fully support. Now that I'm on the Appropriations Committee and am responsible for transportation and housing as my subcommittee, I'm going to do everything I can to get more money for mass transit, because I think it has to be a national priority.

I think that that is our job to fund mass transit. I do not support President Trump interfering. It's not his job.

This was a decision that our legislature came up with with the help of the then-governor, and this is now being implemented today. Funding mass transit is a priority of mine. The second reason to look at congestion pricing is to improve air quality for the area where you are going to have less congestion. That's something we won't know whether we succeed or not for probably several months.

We don't know the traffic patterns yet for the city. I know people who live in Lower Manhattan are delighted because they have a lot less traffic, but I also know people in Queens and the Bronx are seeing more traffic and are less delighted. I haven't yet gotten any data or information about whether travel times on things like the West Side Highway or the FDR are better or worse. Again, those things will be assessed, whether we are improving air quality, whether we are improving traffic patterns for the whole city, or if just a unique population is benefiting.

The third consideration when you think about congestion pricing is who's bearing the burden. This is where I have specific concerns. I'm trying to make sure that this MTA council that is responsible now for deciding on waivers can inform themselves. I'm very concerned about our firefighters. When they come into the city, they drive in with their equipment in their cars that have toxins on them, that have forever chemicals like PFOA. If they had to take mass transit into the city, they would be bringing their equipment on a train where they would be leaving forever chemicals in the seat they place it for the next pass to get a carcinogen all over their clothes.

That is not safe. If you don't provide a waiver for them, then what will have to happen is we'll have to spend billions of dollars to build them new facilities somewhere in New York City for them to have large lockers, to have places to store their equipment. That doesn't exist today. They'd have to build that, and that costs a lot of money. That would be a class of people, for example, that are bearing a burden that they shouldn't be bearing and they should have a waiver.

I also think there's probably a whole number of people who are first responders or critical workers or nurses in our hospitals and other public servants who are frontline and critical workers that may need waivers as well because they don't get paid enough to pay this burden every day. Public transportation isn't as readily available. For example, if you live on Staten Island, they don't have access to a subway system. I just think this was a plan that was put in place 20 years ago. I was certainly never part of those debates. It's not my responsibility to decide. This is a legislative and gubernatorial decision.

I'm going to make sure that the communities that are being burdened, like deliveries for restaurants, truck drivers, for different groups of people that are bearing this burden, that should not be the target of the burden because they are certainly not creating a harm. They are doing the things that our city needs. I just think we have to be very thoughtful in how we approach this issue.

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

Greg: Hi, Brian. Longtime fan. Senator Gillibrand, I really appreciate that you do this call in. To echo the earlier caller, I heard you say, "Don't get angry at the Democrats who are trying to fight for us." I am appalled to hear that you voted for four Trump nominees. What I want to say is that I hear Democrats talking as if they think there are going to be more elections. It took Hitler 53 days to dismantle democracy in Germany. Personally, I don't think you have to worry about running for reelection because I don't think there are going to be elections again. Trump, he doesn't want-- Yes, he wants to give money to his billionaires. He's a fascist.

He wants to become a dictator. That is what he wants. He's giving money to billionaires because that will get him his goal faster. This is the reason we're angry. Four of the nominees? I just have the sense that you don't understand the threat of the situation. I'll take my answer offline. Thank you.

Brian Lehrer: Greg, thank you. Senator, hang on for one second because I'm going to take another caller who I think has a very different take on the 2024 election and looking forward to the 2026 election. David in Englewood, you're on WNYC with Senator Gillibrand. Hi, David.

David: Hi. Long time no talk to. I just wanted to ask her why did the Democrats lose the 2024 presidential election. All the stuff that you all are talking about, Kamala Harris never talked about the environment. The things that I hear you're talking about, the election of the DNC chair, it's all the same old stuff. It's all keeping the status quo when this was people wanted change, telling people that Biden was so competent, Schumer getting on TV, talking about, "Oh, I talk to him two or three times a day."

The polls were showing that you were way off base. I don't hear anything that you have said or Jeffry and this guy that was just on the program talking about fascism and there won't be any more elections, do you understand how out of touch these things are? I just think that you're living in the liberal fantasy land.

Brian Lehrer: David, thank you. We've got Greg on one side, David on another side. Senator, why did the Democrats lose the 2024 elections, in your view? To 2026, I see that you're the head now of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which means it's your job to lead the charge to take back the Senate for the party so you can add to their questions. What's your approach?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: In New York, we did much better than certainly the top of the ticket nationally. It's because I believe we were in the community two years before the election talking to voters about what they care about. Just what your second caller just mentioned. People have been struggling to put food on the table. They have not been able to deal with the high cost of eggs, the high cost of meat, the high cost of fruits and vegetables, the high cost of housing. A lot of people haven't been able to move or find a rental apartment that they can afford.

They've had to live with family members. There's been a lot of enormous instability because of the cost of food, of housing, and medicines. Democrats worked so hard to get caps on the cost of medicines, but those new prices don't start until next year. All that great bipartisan negotiating to help people on the cost of their medicines just isn't actually in effect today, except for the cap on insulin at $35 a month, which people really appreciated.

The second issue voters in New York cared most about was public safety. They were very worried about the fentanyl trade coming across the border and how many kids were dying of fentanyl overdose. They were very concerned about the presence of a lot of migrants who weren't working and wondering, are these migrants creating disorder or are they participating in crime? You saw the cover of the New York Post every day was another young migrant punching a police officer. That made people very uncomfortable to let their kids walk to school, to let their kids take a subway, to let their kids cross the park in the city.

Then if you lived outside the city, they didn't want to go to the city. There was just enormous anxiety about public safety and the cost of things. The candidates that focused on those issues won, and the candidates that didn't lost. To your second caller-- Was the second caller's name David, or was that the first caller?

Brian Lehrer: Yes, David. The second caller was David.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: To David's point, he thought your first caller was out of touch because he's concerned about fascism, and he thinks that what people should be concerned about is the cost of groceries and public safety, at least is what I assessed from what he said. You lose elections when you're not talking to voters about what they care most about. The voters we lost nationally were a lot of people who used to be part of the Democratic coalition, a lot of our labor union members, a lot of men across all racial backgrounds, young people. We lost a lot of young men.

We lost votes in all these different areas because they didn't hear their concerns in our narrative, and that's it. You could say, "The communications are bad. The messaging's bad. The brand is bad." There's reasons for that too. We can get into all the nitty-gritty of when the presidential started and should have it started early and different characteristics of the Biden administration, and should he have been bolder on immigration and other issues? We can debate all those issues, and I'm sure we'll find lots of critiques there.

Then, with our top of the ticket, she didn't distinguish herself. Those were challenges that we had, but we won in Senate campaigns across these red and purple states and outperformed the top of the ticket significantly. That's why we were able to have Senate candidates win in Nevada and Arizona and Michigan. Candidates like Elissa Slotkin, Ruben Gallego and Tammy Baldwin, and Jacky Rosen, they were able to talk about the real challenges that people that they were hoping to represent are facing and what they would do, and what they had done to make a difference in their lives. That's what campaigns are about.

To your first caller's concerns about the nominees that I voted for, we have no ability to stop any nominee because Republicans aren't standing up to President Trump. I visit each nominee and talk to them on the merits about what they want to do in their position, what positions they hold, and I assess if they have anything that is in line with New York's goals and New York's priorities. For example, Mr. Burgum who was going to be the interior secretary, he was endorsed by every native tribe in the Western region.

He has a relationship with those issues that I think are very important for New York and very important for the nation. He also supports wind energy, something that I support and most New Yorkers support. When I make a decision, I make it based on can I work with this person to help New York in a meaningful way? Now, I understand President Trump may overrule them, and I understand that President Trump is going to do horrific things to people in New York and has been doing those horrific things, but I still every day need to get things done for New York, and I need to be persuasive.

If I can persuade a cabinet secretary to work with me on things that benefit New York and perhaps go to Trump and say, "You're wrong, and this is why we should be funding this program or that program, whether it's mass transit or whether it's clean air and clean water or whether it's food and security issues", I will work with those nominees. If I meet a nominee who either is so harmful to New York or does not meet the basic qualifications, like Hegseth, then I'm a hard no and I will try to convince every Republican to be a hard no.

That's how we do it, and that's how I do it. If you're unhappy with that, that's your right. Working on a bipartisan basis is the only way you're going to pass a law and the only way you're going to protect and help New York. You have to do that even when you lose a presidential election.

Brian Lehrer: Senator, last question, then we're out of time. This is about tomorrow being the deadline for federal employees to accept the eight months of salary buyout if they leave their jobs. You probably know some union leaders and commentators have urged workers not to leave so as not to voluntarily cede control of the civil service to Trump's politicization of it. Are you asking federal workers to make one choice or another? Part B, many people have expressed concerns that Trump, who they argue has a history in the private sector of not paying all his debts, won't even be good for the eight months necessarily. Do you have any reassurances to offer on that point or any position you're taking on what federal workers as a group should do?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: I would urge workers to be very careful. President Trump is well known for not paying his bills. Elon Musk has faced lawsuits after refusing to pay severance to Twitter employees who left. They have a record of stiffing the people they make promises to. I think it's another attempt by Trump and Musk to decimate the federal government.

I don't think there's any guarantee that people will get a payout since that is something that Congress would need to actually authorize. I don't know that the Republican House or the Republican Senate will be willing to do that. I would just urge people to be very careful and maybe seek legal advice, but I see no guarantee that they get their payouts.

Brian Lehrer: That's our monthly Call Your Senator segment with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. We always appreciate that you come on and take a lot of calls from listeners, sometimes tough questions. Thank you very much for today.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Thank you, Brian.

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.