- Democrats hope to make inroads in this year's midterm elections.

Issues like immigration and the economy may boomerang to hurt Republicans, but President Trump still has almost three years left in office, and he's shown little appetite for restraint.

One person with a front-row view on all this is US Senator Jack Reed, who first won election to the Chamber 30 years ago.

So how does Reed assess the impact of Trump's second term?

Can Democrats do better at winning elections?

And at 76, how much longer does Reed see himself serving?

I'm Ian Donnis, and that's just some of what we talked about in this in-depth conversation.

(light music) US Senator Jack Reed, welcome to "One on One."

- Thank you, Ian.

A pleasure to be here.

- You're among the Democrats who voted against a bill to fund the US Department of Homeland Security.

What is the next step in these negotiations?

- Well, the next step is negotiations.

The White House and the leadership, both sides, Congress and the Senate, are talking.

We made very specific, clarifying comments to the White House.

They've been vague responding.

We have to get ICE to behave like a law enforcement organization, not a gang of thugs.

They can't go through masks, no identification, no body cameras.

They can't suppress First Amendment rights of expression.

And they certainly can't kill without justification American citizens who are exercising their constitutional rights.

- Let me ask you this.

You say you want to change the behavior of ICE, but a limited shutdown will not affect ICE.

It has about 70 billion, with a B, dollars in funding, and Republicans seem pretty dug in.

This is an election year.

What is the minimum that Democrats like you will need to get in terms of changing ICE to support funding Homeland Security?

- It's not just Democrats, it's the American people.

They are outraged about what they're seeing in Minneapolis.

And they want, as we want, to have ICE operate as professionals, respecting the Constitution.

And this is the leverage point we have.

Frankly, if we had not stopped for about 40 days the last attempt to get the budget through, we wouldn't be sitting back here now with no leverage on the White House.

- You talk about leverage.

We've seen on some of these previous spending battles, Democrats have had a tough time maintaining party discipline.

Republicans have been able to peel off some Democrats and Independents, and Democrats have not always stuck together.

Why will it be different this time around?

- It will be different this time around because we've all seen the brutality of ICE and the almost totalitarian nature of it.

I mean, this country's not used to, quote, you know, "Federal forces going into homes, taking American citizens out in their underwear, and throwing 'em into a van, making 'em disappear."

That's not in America.

And that's what the American people are telling us, you know, "We can't tolerate this, and you shouldn't tolerate this."

And so we have to stand our ground.

And because what they'll do, clearly, is they know they've exceeded their tolerance by the American people.

They'll just pull back.

But they'll have, in reserve, these forces to deploy at election time or other times.

We can't allow that.

We have to put in guidelines right now that if ICE deploys, no face masks, body cameras, no roving patrols, you have to follow the Constitution.

You can't break into a home without a judicial warrant.

And if we don't do that, then we're losing what generations have fought for.

Our Constitution.

- Clearly, immigration was one of the issues that animated support for President Trump in 2024.

What do Democrats need to do to turn that issue into an advantage for your party?

- Well, yeah, right now people are appalled, because they're seeing the effects.

This is not a thoughtful attempt to arrest and deport criminals who have come here illegally.

This is a giant abuse of the Constitution of the United States.

And what I think people are asking for is secure borders, which we want.

And those people who are here illegally and posed a danger to their community, they have to be, through legal procedures, removed.

That's what we want.

You know, here's the thing.

We had, two years ago, before the election, legislation that was being on a bipartisan basis.

Chris Murphy of Connecticut, I think James Lankford of Oklahoma, left, right, coming together with legislation that would provide for reform, secure borders, give people a pathway to citizenship, make our system much more responsive.

And they were basically told by Trump, "Knock it off."

In fact, I think Senator Lankford was censored by his party in Oklahoma for even thinking about bipartisan negotiation.

This has always been an issue for them that they wanted to exploit.

They've never really come to the table and say, "Listen, this is a problem for America that we have to work on together and fix."

That's what we have to do.

- This limited shutdown could affect non-essential operations of the Coast Guard.

What do you say to fishing and nautical businesses in Rhode Island and Massachusetts that might be affected by that?

- Well, the responsibility lies with the president, the leadership in the House, and the leadership in the Senate.

It's all Republican.

They're sitting back saying, "Oh, it's not our fault," et cetera.

If they want the government to operate and function, and they want to respond to the American people, which overwhelmingly says, "Fix ICE," then they've gotta come up with suitable language that we can accept and go forward.

- Midterm elections are coming up in November.

Your party has high hopes of making some changes, but Republicans have a huge financial advantage heading deeper into the election year.

How will that affect Democratic efforts to pick up ground?

- What we're seeing is the Republicans, and not surprising, amassing a huge amount of money and also influencing media.

I mean, we're seeing the concentration of media into hands of people who are friendly to the Trump administration.

- Is that gonna undercut Democratic efforts that Republicans have more than a two-to-one advantage in funding?

- I think it's gonna make it a tougher climb for us, but the American people are understanding that this administration is not serving their best interest.

In fact, it's undermining their best interest.

Yeah, this past week, three polls came out and said, frankly, Joe Biden is a better president than Donald Trump.

That's the American people saying, "We don't like it."

Affordability is a crisis of the moment.

They're looking around the globe and seeing our position undermined by our own administration.

And when you claim that you're gonna attack and take over Greenland, you know, good goodness gracious, that's a NATO ally.

They're beginning to understand how both irrational and shortsighted and destructive this administration is to the American family.

- If Democrats are able to retake the US House of Representatives this year, what would that mean for President Trump's ability to exercise his agenda?

- Well, it would mean he will have a check.

He has no checks.

The Republicans have essentially given him everything he wants, which is an abdication, I think, of their responsibilities as senators and congressmen.

We have constitutional roles, and we have forfeited those roles to the President, and we can reclaim those roles if we have the House.

First of all, the power of the purse.

We will not tolerate, I don't think we'll tolerate, President Trump going in and stopping programs that have been authorized and appropriated.

We have the ability in the House particularly to call members of the administration forward and investigate them publicly.

There can be subpoenas, which they have much more power than the Senate does, but they can challenge the President, and ultimately they can bring to the forefront the issues that are plaguing the country and bring pressure on the President to change.

- President Trump does have a low approval rating, but the Democratic brand has been pretty damaged.

We saw how the Biden administration was slow to respond to voters' concerns about inflation and immigration.

Republicans have outplayed Democrats in reshaping the US Supreme Court.

What does your party need to do differently to win more public support?

- Well, I think we really have to reconnect.

I believe there's three pillars that we have to emphasize, because these are the foundations of working middle-class America, which we should be helping.

One, you've gotta get access to good healthcare, because without that you can't function.

And frankly, the Trump administration is sabotaging our healthcare system, particularly here in Rhode Island, with their cuts to Medicaid and other programs.

Second, you have to have good education, because we're in an world in which information, research, innovation is key, not only to economic success, but to national security success.

And then you have to have access to housing.

We have to emphasize these elements and get into the game again and make sure we can deliver.

You know, it's interesting, as I mentioned before, now people are saying, "Boy, President Biden was a really good president compared to this guy."

Yes, because he was trying to do things that would help us.

For example, the Inflation Reduction Act.

It's the first time we took on the drug companies and started lowering drug prices by negotiating with Medicare.

Alternate energy.

We took on the oil companies and said, "Okay, we're gonna go ahead and we're gonna invest in solar, we're gonna invest in electric vehicles and all those things."

What Trump did is come in, basically told them in the campaign, "Oil barons, you give me a billion dollars and I'll fix it."

And guess what?

You know, we are in a situation now where they're gutting all of the electric vehicles.

Just this week, the President ordered the Department of Defense to start buying more coal.

Now, if you want to ruin the atmosphere quickly and move backwards, not forwards, buy coal.

- You talk about the choice facing American voters.

Are you concerned about the integrity of the vote this year?

- Yes, very much so.

They're trying to push this SAVE Act, and this SAVE Act is clearly designed to suppress voting.

And also, we saw just last week.

They sent FBI agents and Tulsi Gabbard into a voting records site in Georgia, because he's still refighting the 2020 election.

But they have the ability, and they want to suppress voters, because, in fact, a lot of these demonstrations with military troops in Democratic cities is like, you know, we can go in there and we can call 'em forward.

I'll give you some other- - What is the answer for Democrats, if you're correct that the Trump administration is trying to suppress the vote.

What can Democrats do about that?

- Well, I think our answer is we have to go up on the mountaintop and say, you know, "This is wrong."

But I think the American people, as I said, are beginning to sense this, but, you know, sense and action are two different.

We have to be the connective link.

Lemme just give you some other examples, 'cause this is not just some type of coincidental.

This is a deliberate strategy.

In his first few days in office he went into CISA, which is the cybersecurity infrastructure security administration.

They're the ones that work with state election officials, like Secretaries of State, to protect elections from cyber intrusions.

He eliminated that aspect of CISA.

In fact, the gentleman who ran it under Donald Trump, Chris Krebs, he was the one who came out and said the 2020 elections was the most secure election in history.

Trump's trying to indict him.

- We've talked many times over the years, you've never, before President Trump, been one to engage in fiery rhetoric, but even you have elevated your rhetoric in President Trump's two terms in the White House.

What kind of lasting effect do you expect from his current term?

- Well, Ian, that's an excellent question.

What he is doing intentionally, and sometimes just instinctively, is lowering the bar on discourse, on respect for the Constitution, on custom, on tradition.

You know, no other president has walked in and made several billion dollars by exploiting his position in the history of this country.

He have.

And the danger, as you suggest, is that we all go down that path.

So there's a conscious effort, at least on my part, to say, "You know, we can't surrender the customs and tradition, but we also can't sit back meekly and say, 'Okay, whatever you want, Mr.

President.'"

So we have to balance going after people.

And I've tried to do it in a way that's not only constructive, but also it has a purpose.

For example, you know, when they nominated Secretary Hegseth, the secretary of defense, the worst possible nomination.

And he's proven that, I think.

And I had to speak truth to power.

Right to his face I said, "You're unqualified, you're unprepared, you're not gonna lead the department where it should go."

And that wasn't easy, but it was part of my job to stand up and protect the country and the Constitution.

- During an interview last year, you told me that if President Trump breaks the law, it's up to the courts to restrain him and be a check on his power.

It seems like he's not pushed the boundaries super far as far as court decisions.

Do you expect that to change and there to be a constitutional crisis before his current term ends?

- Well, I think the Supreme Court has been really supine when it comes to Trump.

First of all, they, several years ago, ruled that this president is immune from any liability, criminal liability, et cetera, if it's his official duties.

Which means it covers practically everything.

And I think Trump has taken that as a license to do some of these outrageous things he's done.

You know, we're still waiting for a decision on the tariff case.

That's been pending for months and months and months.

It's a critical issue, and the court's just kicking the ball down the road.

- Do you expect the president to precipitate a constitutional crisis at some point?

- He very well may, but, you know, again, I think if the court, I was frankly hoping that the court, in some of these cases, for example, sending regular troops, Marines, into Los Angeles, would get them to stand up immediately and say... And violating the laws, as he does left and right, to find a very good case and say, "You can't do this, you can't do that, you can't do that."

And they haven't.

- Senator Reed, President Trump likes to play with this notion that he might not leave office when his term expires in 2029.

Do you think that's a real possibility?

- I think it's a possibility.

I think that's one where I hope the court would stand up immediately and say, "You can't do that."

But here's I mean.

He's not gonna, I think, instinctively and politically, he is not gonna passively let a successor be someone he doesn't choose.

And on January 6th, he incited a mob to come and attack the Capitol, but more importantly is one of his first actions was to pardon all of the rioters.

So he's prepared, I think, to mount a much more subtle and hopefully, unhopefully, I guess, but a much more substantive and orchestrated way to prevent the choice of the people, if it's not his choice, from becoming president.

I think we have to be very conscious of that.

- Work is continuing on the Revolution Wind offshore project, but that remains under siege by the Trump administration which is very hostile toward wind power.

Are there any tangible steps that you plan to take to ensure that that project gets completed?

- Well, immediately when it was announced it was stopped for national security.

I called the deputy secretary of defense and said, "What is going on here?

This has been vetted over several years by the Defense Department, et cetera, you know, et cetera."

Clearly, that was an excuse, not a reason.

There was nothing behind that.

And the courts found that out very quickly.

And all the court decisions have said, "You can't stop this project.

It's duly authorized.

It does not pose a national security."

Again, do they have the appetite to come back a third time?

I hope not.

This project is probably 90-plus percent complete.

And here's one of the ironies.

The landing point for all the power coming off those wind turbines is at Quonset Point, Rhode Island, and who is one of the consumers of energy in that region?

Electric Boat, one of our key national security.

So I pointed it out to the deputy secretary that, you know, "You're driving up the price of submarines if you do this.

This is not national security."

- You're the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

I'm sure you are keenly aware of how drones have reshaped the battlefield in Ukraine.

Here in the US, some of your colleagues in Congress might still prefer to support old weapon systems, battleships, because they create a lot of jobs in hometown districts.

Is the US military doing enough to modernize with changing technology?

- Yes, they're trying to do that, and Ukraine is the major reason.

Every day we're learning different aspects of drone warfare because of the Ukrainians.

They're fighting a courageous battle against the Russians, and we have to do more to help them.

But we are learning quite a bit.

But what we're facing is the cultures of the military, which I've seen over many years.

Navy pilots don't like unmanned, you know, I'm being sort of generalizing, but they prefer manned aircraft, et cetera.

So we have to break through those cultures.

But there is a recognition at the highest level, both the uniformed and civilian, that the next conflict will have significant autonomous vehicles in every sphere, not just in the air, on the sea and under the sea.

And Rhode Island is playing a leading role in developing those autonomous technologies.

And it's a combination of many things.

Our success with composites going back to sailing ships, our location of the Naval Underwater Warfare Center.

And we are gonna be a big part of that.

But what you're gonna see, it's the combination of autonomous vehicles, AI, artificial intelligence, and new factors that will transform the battlefield.

My sense is, I was talking to a Marine general and said, "When I was a kid in the army, the mantra was shoot, move, and communicate.

Now it's communicate so you can shoot and move.

That's why when we talk about satellite positioning and space, et cetera, all of that is about being able to communicate.

- You mentioned Greenland earlier.

Clearly, our traditional European allies have been concerned about the direction of the Trump administration and the changes to the post-World War II NATO alliance.

What kind of long-term fallout do you expect from that?

- I think it's a grievous error, fundamentally.

NATO has been the most coherent buttress against totalitarianism and aggressive behavior by nations, not just in Europe, but they've signaled around the world that this is the norm, this is how we have to behave.

And I would point out for the record, the only time that NATO has invoked Article 5, which means we're gonna go and fight with you to protect, is 9/11.

They went into Afghanistan with us.

In fact, you know, many of the European countries lost more troops per capita than we did.

And now the president's delivery is taking apart NATO.

Within the first days of his administration, the secretary of defense went over to Munich and said, "Well, you guys aren't that important," in a sense and I'm not quoting directly.

And the vice president was there too, disparaging the Europeans.

And what we've done now is we are signaling that we're not, you know, committed to helping you guys.

And that's translating into the Europeans saying, "We might be on our own."

And one of the consequences of that, which could be absolutely catastrophic, is nuclear proliferation.

We have been the nuclear umbrella for NATO for many years, and then the Brits have nuclear weapons, and France for a while did, et cetera, but it's been the United States.

- You are 76 years old now.

- Yes.

- You're running for reelection this year.

If the voters return you, do you see yourself running for another term in six years, when you would be 82?

- (laughs) Well, nowadays that's young, Ian.

No, I think what I'm gonna do is, you have to sit back and make a very difficult and careful decision.

One, based on your health, based on your effectiveness, based on your ability to engage.

And I'm, you know, feel ready to go another term.

That's sitting back three years from now and saying, you know, honestly to yourself, can you do the job as well as you want?

- You were first elected to the Senate 30 years ago in 1996.

What stands out for you in looking over that long span of time?

- Well, first of all, I have had the extraordinary privilege of serving with wonderful colleagues, Senator Pell, Senator Chafee, superb Americans.

Now Senator Whitehouse and my colleagues in the House, brilliant and very constructive people.

It's very difficult to look back and sense and say, "Gee whiz."

For example, if John McCain was still here, one of our most courageous senators in every dimension, we would've not had Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense.

He would've called the White House, I think, and said, "I'm sorry, he's not qualified, et cetera.

I want somebody who's qualified."

That's changed because the Republicans are so docile compared to their predecessors.

The other thing too that changed is communication.

You know, when I first got elected, television was a big deal, but it was, you know, the six o'clock news and that was it.

Now it's constant, with social media, with telephones, et cetera.

And that has taken people away from, you know, the old-fashioned television news and papers that really dealt in facts, not semi-facts or falsehoods.

And you had a factual context, which most people operated under.

Now you don't have that.

You know, people don't really read newspapers.

They have their telephone and their favorite websites.

And most people wanna hear what they wanna hear, not what is different, et cetera.

- People used to say, "You can have your own opinions, you can't choose your own facts."

- Exactly.

And now people choose their own facts.

- All right, we've gotta leave it there.

US Senator Jack Reed, thank you so much for joining us.

- Thank you, Ian.

My pleasure.

Thank you very much.

- Thanks for watching "One on One", with me, Ian Donnis.

You can find all of our past interviews on the YouTube channel for Ocean State Media.

We'll see you next week.

(light music)