David Remnick: Right now in Washington, both parties are experiencing a crisis of leadership. Last week, when Donald Trump threw up his hands and told Republicans to vote on releasing the Epstein files, it was a humbling defeat for him, an admission that, at least on this one issue, he had lost control of MAGA. He tried to sideline Marjorie Taylor Greene, and so far, that hasn't worked either. The movement is just deeply conflicted over everything from the Epstein affair to whether or not it's okay to be allies with the likes of Nick Fuentes, a white supremacist and an anti-Semite.

At the same time, if the Democrats are going to mount any resistance at all to the Trump administration, they need unity, and that continues to escape them. Whatever you may have thought of the government shutdown as a political strategy, the end of that shutdown, the defection of eight Democrats who voted with Republicans, really deepened a sense that the leadership is flailing. Calls for Chuck Schumer to step down as minority leader are now a commonplace.

I sat down recently to talk about all of that with Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. Van Hollen began serving in the House in 2003, and he went to the Senate in 2017. He's trying to steer a path between the left of the party and the party's establishment. He's used the word spineless to describe some of what he sees from his Democratic colleagues.

Senator Van Hollen, we have to begin at the beginning here. The Epstein case keeps charging along, and now both houses of Congress have nearly unanimously passed legislation ordering the release of those files, the Epstein files. How can we trust that the Trump White House and the DOJ will, in the end, provide all the information?

Senator Chris Van Hollen: I'm not sure we can trust them. In fact, I don't think we can, which is why we have to keep pressing to make sure that they turn over every document. After all, Donald Trump has had the power to release these documents on his own since he was sworn in, and he didn't do it. It required an act of Congress to make him do it. Clearly, this is not something he wanted. After all, they essentially took some House Republicans into the Situation Room at the White House to try to convince them not to move forward. We know they don't want them released. We are going to have to really keep the pressure on to make sure that we get every single document.

David Remnick: Just to be clear, and we're speaking on Wednesday, November 19, just to timestamp things. Who has these files in their hands? Is it just the DOJ, or are there Democrats that have them? Is there any way to match up what gets released by the DOJ with the sum total of what exists?

Senator Chris Van Hollen: There are some documents that have been released. They're in the custody of the House Judiciary Committee and others. There's no doubt that the Department of Justice still retains lots of documents. That's what would be subject to this passage of the legislation, which is on its way to Trump's desk. Now, I should say we are also seeking documents from the Department of Treasury related to the Epstein financial transactions. Those documents are not necessarily covered in the scope of this legislation. I think that the House should consider a discharge petition, potentially, on those files, because we really do need the complete picture here.

David Remnick: What prevents the DOJ, which has not proved to be independent in the traditional sense? What prevents the DOJ from either destroying or suppressing details that might be incriminating or embarrassing for Donald Trump?

Senator Chris Van Hollen: The only impediment to that is whether or not they are worried about being sued or actually criminally prosecuted for failing to respond to congressional legislation. Of course, the big challenge that we have in this administration is it's supposed to be the Department of Justice itself that brings those kind of criminal actions. I will say, though, in this situation, it is possible that people who swear an allegiance to uphold the law in the Constitution, whistleblowers, would come forward if they know that there are documents that are not being handed over. They do have to worry about people of principle who want to follow the law.

David Remnick: Now, how concerned are you that Trump and the DOJ might use the excuse that this is an ongoing investigation and they have to stall releasing the information?

Senator Chris Van Hollen: I worry a lot, David, about the scenario you just raised, which is, Trump ordered the Attorney General to begin to have the US Attorney's Office in New York look into the connection of certain individuals to the Epstein files and Epstein's terrible actions. They could try to use that as an excuse not to release some of the documents. All hell will break loose if they do that. I think the American people, and especially the victims who have been traumatized by these really, really awful criminal acts of Epstein and his associate, are going to make sure that these documents, ultimately, are released.

David Remnick: I would posit this to you, and it's more a phenomenon of the second term than the first. Every day brings, as Dorothy Parker once said, some fresh hell. Something so extraordinary, it's either said or done. Some norm is broken that nothing sticks. How does the Democratic Party, and how do you, as a member of its leadership, as in the Senate, how do you break that pattern that's now been going on day after day for a year?

Senator Chris Van Hollen: Some people argue that we should just, no matter what Donald Trump does or says, just always come back to the economy and prices. Of course, we should be very focused on the economy and prices and rising healthcare costs as we have been. To suggest that we should look the other way in the face of all these other outrages is, I think, a mistake, because I think the American people are tiring of Donald Trump. I think the polls indicate that. Hopefully, the chaos will be clear to the American people.

David Remnick: You have been witness to this kind of thing, working the persuasive capacities of the Trump administration. You voted yes, for example, to push forward Marco Rubio as Secretary of State. I assume the reasoning was, "This is probably the best you're going to get." Then you encountered him not long ago in a hearing room where you, with great fury, I must say, read out a bill of particulars of how he had gone wrong, how he had gone, I guess you could call it MAGA in the most extreme way.

Marco Rubio: We deported gang members, gang members, including the one you had a margarita with. That guy is a human trafficker. That guy is a gangbanger. The evidence is going to be clear. In the days to come-

Senator Chris Van Hollen: Mr. Chairman--

Marco Rubio: -we're going to see who you went to [crosstalk]--

Senator Chris Van Hollen: Mr. Chairman, he--

Chairman Jim Risch: Senator, please. Secretary Rubio has the floor.

Senator Chris Van Hollen: Mr. Chairman, he can't make unsubstantiated comments like that.

Chairman Jim Risch: [gavel bangs] Senator, Secretary Rubio has the floor. You had your time.

Senator Chris Van Hollen: Secretary Rubio should take that testimony to the Federal Courts-

Chairman Jim Risch: Senator?

Senator Chris Van Hollen: -of the United States because he hasn't done it under oath.

David Remnick: What has happened? It seems like no one, as opposed to the first term, has any capacity or inclination to stand up to the President of the United States in the Republican leadership, including the Senate majority.

Senator Chris Van Hollen: You're absolutely right about my vote on Marco Rubio. I voted for him based on his record of statements in the United States Senate. He used to take to the Senate floor and talk about the importance of human rights and rule of law and democracy. We agreed on a values-based foreign policy, imperfect as it's been implemented. Then he had a total Trump lobotomy. I will say, David, that's the last Republican nominee I have voted for, because my lesson was learned, which is, no matter what they say at the confirmation hearing, they will ultimately do what Donald Trump orders them to do.

David Remnick: Let's talk about matters closer to home in the party sense. At least 11 Democrats in Congress have called for Chuck Schumer to resign as party leader. They are beyond frustrated that he couldn't keep a group of Democrats from voting with the Republicans to reopen the government after the government shutdown went on for weeks. What's the mood in the Democratic caucus right now? What's your mood when it comes to your own leadership in the Senate?

Senator Chris Van Hollen: I think, David, that there will be a discussion in the Senate Democratic caucus. I'm confident that there will be about how we maintain our unity.

David Remnick: What do you do about it? Do you replace Chuck Schumer? Are you for that?

Senator Chris Van Hollen: I have not been calling for the replacement of Chuck Schumer.

David Remnick: Why not?

Senator Chris Van Hollen: I think it goes beyond one person in our caucus. I see him as having been effective during the Biden years in terms of helping push through a very important agenda. I see that after the March debacle, when he got a lot of pushback for not joining many of us to resist the Trump budget plan at that point. I do think that our caucus of what I say is the no business as usual caucus in the Senate has grown considerably. The separate question, of course, is how do you make sure that all the Democratic caucus members stay on the same page even when things get bumpy?

David Remnick: I think it's fair to say that party discipline is not what it was in the era of Mike Mansfield and Sam Rayburn. Those are bygone days. Nevertheless, is there a potentially more effective leader for this moment in time? Not the Biden administration, but the second Trump administration. Is there anyone in the Democratic caucus who might fill that role with greater strength, cohesion, and purpose?

Senator Chris Van Hollen: I voiced my frustration very clearly with Senator Schumer, Chuck Schumer, in another situation with respect to the mayor's race in New York City.

David Remnick: Meaning his refusal to endorse the new mayor, Mamdani.

Senator Chris Van Hollen: Right. Because Mamdani won the primary. He became the Democratic nominee. My view was that was a moment where Democrats should unite.

Chuck Schumer: All I can tell you is I'm going to continue talking to him.

Dana Bash: What's the holdup?

Chuck Schumer: I got to continue talking to him. That's what I'm going to do.

Dana Bash: Is part of the calculus that if you endorse a Democratic socialist, you're worried it will be damaging to your party? Maybe it had been your chances of winning back the Senate?

Chuck Schumer: I'm going to continue talking to him. Dana, you can ask me again. [chuckles]

Dana Bash: All right.

Senator Chris Van Hollen: The Democratic Party should make room for lots of different opinions. Those opinions may be different in a state out west than in New York City, but when we have a Democratic nominee, we need to back them.

David Remnick: Understood. I think in Senator Schumer's case, that was a very parochial issue. In other words, it was a New York issue. He is the elder statesman of Jewish politicians in this country. There was a lot of pushback from many Jewish voters in New York City against Mamdani and things he has said either recently or in the more distant past. I think he couldn't bring himself to make that endorsement principally on that basis.

Senator Chris Van Hollen: There were a lot of people in New York City who have been longtime supporters of Chuck Schumer, who I know were against Mamdani. If we are going to call for a big tent party, which I agree with, that means we have to accept the diversity of views. We had members like Joe Manchin who are part of our caucus. It cannot just be a big tent when it seems to be politically convenient or personally convenient.

David Remnick: It used to be said in the first term of Donald Trump's that your Republican colleagues would confide in you in these so-called cloak rooms and they would let on that they knew how crazy things were. You get that in the second term much?

Senator Chris Van Hollen: You still get members of the Republican caucus who will confide in the total nuttiness of this administration.

David Remnick: Why don't they act otherwise?

Senator Chris Van Hollen: Because of their political fear of Trump's retribution.

David Remnick: The worst thing that can happen is they lose a re-election bid. Is the job so good?

Senator Chris Van Hollen: I'm with you on this. My view is this job's not worth it if you can't look yourself in the mirror in the morning and tell yourself that you're doing the right thing. Obviously, people need to make choices, and there are political compromises that people have to make along the way. Surrendering your entire vote and soul to Donald Trump is something that, it seems to me, is simply not worth the job.

David Remnick: Incredibly, we're facing another potential shutdown fight in January. How should we expect things to play out under this administration two months from now? Less than that.

Senator Chris Van Hollen: By then, we'll have learned whether or not Donald Trump and Republicans will do anything to turn off the ticking time bomb on healthcare costs. We'll have that in the rearview mirror by then. We'll fight to try to achieve our objectives. Things are in too much flux right now to be able to decide at this moment what the plan will be for January 30th, other than to say whatever it is, we need to come up with it together and stick with it.

David Remnick: I assume the question of the filibuster is not part of this discussion, although, during the shutdown, Donald Trump was openly asking to eliminate the filibuster, which some Democrats have wanted to do for years. Do you think it should be removed?

Senator Chris Van Hollen: Maybe with the exception of the Epstein files now, it's the one thing that Senate Republicans have resisted in terms of Trump's demands. It's because they know that the filibuster serves the purposes of Republicans and their agenda much more than Democrats, that there are many more things, I think, Democrats would like to do that are obstructed by the 60-vote requirement than Republicans. Things like the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.

Republicans have been able to enact their agenda through reconciliation. They're mostly interested in big tax cuts for rich people and cutting things like Medicare and Medicaid. They can do that through the rule in the Senate that allows you to end-run the 60-vote requirement. I'm for extended debate. I want to make it clear. I served in the House. I enjoyed serving there, but I don't want to turn the Senate into the House. As soon as you have a majority, you can shut things down. I do believe at the end of extended debate, it should be a 51-vote. There are important policy changes we need to make to our country that they don't want. The super-majority requirement has been an obstacle to getting some of those important things done.

[music]

David Remnick: I'm speaking with Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. This is The New Yorker Radio Hour, and we'll continue in just a moment.

[music]

David Remnick: This is The New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick, and I'm speaking today with Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. Earlier this year, Van Hollen traveled to El Salvador to try to secure the release of Kilmar Ábrego García, a Maryland man who had been sent to the notorious CECOT prison by American authorities. Van Hollen himself comes from a government family. His parents worked in the State Department and in the CIA, and he was born while they were stationed in Pakistan. Chris Van Hollen was in his 20s when he began working as an aide in the Senate.

Senator Van Hollen, you made a lot of headlines when you met with Kilmar Ábrego García, a man who was sent to a high-security prison in El Salvador, who was never charged with a crime. He's since been returned to the US, but now, the administration wants to deport him, this time to Liberia, most probably. Do you check in on him? What was your initial goal in meeting him? What's the relationship as it continues?

Senator Chris Van Hollen: It was one of the early signs that the Trump administration was prepared to trample over people's constitutional rights. President Bukele met with Donald Trump at the White House, so you probably--

David Remnick: Of El Salvador.

Senator Chris Van Hollen: Yes. This is the guy who calls himself the coolest dictator in the world. He comes to the White House, and I wrote a letter to the El Salvadorian ambassador saying I wanted to talk to President Bukele when he was here about Kilmar Ábrego García. They blew me off. I put in that letter that if I didn't have a chance to do it, I was going to go down and try to meet him because we didn't even know if he was alive. He hadn't talked to his wife, he hadn't talked to his family, nobody. These are gross violations of international law in themselves.

I did a press conference in San Salvador, the capital. I got a call, and I got to see him, and he had no idea, David, that he was the subject of a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling ordering the Trump administration to facilitate his return. I was able to call his wife, Jennifer, that evening and say he was alive. The Trump administration did relent in the sense that they had said they would never bring him back on US soil. He's now back in the US court system. He is now being vindictively prosecuted, and he has a claim, actually, in front of the federal courts for vindictive prosecution.

David Remnick: What's he being prosecuted for? If I recall correctly, Marco Rubio, in that confrontation you had with him, referred to him as a gang banger and much worse.

Senator Chris Van Hollen: Yes. What I've said is they need to put up or shut up in court because every federal judge that has heard these claims has, in their written opinions, said that they have provided no basis of evidence for this claim of MS-13. What happened was when they brought him back, they decided to bring a charge that had never been leveled against him for taking people who are here illegally across state lines, driving them across state lines. He has argued that this case has been brought against him to punish him for exercising his due process rights.

The federal judge says there's lots of evidence to support his claim of vindictive prosecution. This is where the Trump administration is trying to use the threat of sending him to Liberia or somewhere far away, as opposed to Costa Rica, where he said he would be willing to go.

David Remnick: How many such people are there that have been deported this way that you either know or presume to be deported unjustly?

Senator Chris Van Hollen: Oh, I think there are now thousands of people. There are people who've been deported overseas, and then there are others that are just locked up in detention centers all over America. We had a guy who was a pastor on the Eastern Shore of Maryland snatched up. We had a small businesswoman. She was a Vietnamese American woman. Been here for 25 years, had a nail salon in Hagerstown, Western Maryland, scooped up. Now, we have gotten them at least temporarily released, but their cases are still pending. There are so many more that are still locked up.

David Remnick: One of the things that continues to prop up Donald Trump's popularity in a generalized way is the difference between him and Joe Biden on immigration. I watched the president being interviewed the other night. Maybe it was Laura Ingraham, I can't remember. He said, "Look, anytime you have a big operation like this and you're trying to achieve something ambitious, wait for it, mistakes will be made. There will be extremes and mistakes in the process, and we'll correct them." Overall, the great overall is this is very effective. The indication was, as well, popular.

Senator Chris Van Hollen: The cruelty is the point here of his policy, in my view, and I don't think that that's popular. I know for sure that violating people's due process is not popular, because when I went down to El Salvador, I got backlash, including among a lot of Democratic pundits who said, "Don't do that." As it turned out, people across the political spectrum, including Joe Rogan, did care about being deprived of your liberty without due process. What is more American than having your constitutional right to due process protected?

I have to distinguish between the American people rejecting the extremes of the Trump policy, certainly rejecting the violations due process, which is very different than a point where I agree, which is, I do think that the Biden administration did not do enough when it comes to border security, and certainly the way they talked about it. I've always taken the position that we need immigration reform and border security. I talk about those together. There's a big difference between that and what Donald Trump is doing, just rounding people up and violating their due process.

David Remnick: Senator, I want to ask just a couple more questions and return to the state of the Democratic Party. You're starting to see potential candidates emerge. You're starting to see Governor Newsom in California emerging. You're hearing all kinds of names. How do you assess the field? What kind of candidate do you want to see the Democrats put forward?

Senator Chris Van Hollen: Oh, David, I think it's way, way too early, at least for me to begin to decide who's the best and strongest candidate. I think our focus does need to be on 2026 and winning the midterms. What, clearly, the Democrats failed to do in the last presidential election was to indicate to people that we were the party of change in breaking the status quo. It is extraordinary that a guy like Donald Trump, this billionaire from New York, became the guy who was going to take on the status quo. I do believe the biggest issue we have in our country is this huge gap in wealth and income.

As you know, the last election was on the whole issue of affordability. Americans, they're going paycheck to paycheck. Democrats did not answer that question last election. We better have a damn good answer for it in the next one. I have some ideas that I want to be very much part of the debate as to where the Democratic Party goes.

David Remnick: Part of the debate to the extent of maybe running for president?

Senator Chris Van Hollen: My focus really is I got invited to go out to the Iowa state cry, and people began to ask me that question. All I can say is that my goal at this moment, really, is to stiffen the spine of the Democratic Party. That means not just resistance to Trump, it also means taking on very powerful special interests that I think have had too much sway in both the Republican Party, for sure, but also in the Democratic Party.

David Remnick: I've heard firmer nos in my time.

Senator Chris Van Hollen: [chuckles] Look, I just want to say that is not my thought process. It really is not my thought process at the moment here.

David Remnick: Doesn't every hundred members of the Senate go to bed at night thinking they can be a good president?

Senator Chris Van Hollen: [chuckles] That may be a different question.

David Remnick: [laughs]

Senator Chris Van Hollen: Again, speaking of looking in the mirror, I think, again, my view, and I think Democrats need to uphold this as well. This job really is not worth it if you can't be true to your values. That's true on domestic politics. It's true when it comes to foreign policy. It's true across the board. Let people know where you stand, and they'll let you know where they stand.

David Remnick: Senator Van Hollen, thank you so much.

Senator Chris Van Hollen: Thank you.

[music]

David Remnick: Chris Van Hollen is in his second term as senator from Maryland.

 

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.