Senator Tom Tillis expresses deep concern that the Trump administration's perceived incompetence and poor execution in key areas, particularly regarding the handling of federal agents' actions and disaster relief, are jeopardizing the Republican Party's electoral prospects in upcoming elections.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
I'm about having Republicans in
majorities and we are teeing ourselves
up for a disastrous electoral outcome
>> Hello, hello, and welcome to the
conversation. [music] I'm Dasha Burns,
Politico's White House bureau chief. And
every week on this show, I invite one of
the most compelling and sometimes
unexpected power players in Washington
and beyond in [music] for a chat to find
out how they're navigating and shaping
this incredible era of American
politics. This week, I sat down with
Republican Senator from North Carolina,
Tom Tillis, and he did not mince words.
Tillis is in a vocal minority of Senate
Republicans who are criticizing the
Trump administration for its handling of
the fatal shooting of 37year-old Alex
Prey by federal agents in Minneapolis.
In the wake of this incident, Tillis is
calling for DHS Secretary Christy Gnome
to be fired. And he told me that he
thinks White House Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven Miller is quote equally
incompetent. Now, while he's got strong
words for Trump and his allies, Tillis's
bigger concern is how these events
reflect on the Republican party in the
long term and what that means for the
midterms. And meanwhile, Trump is
weighing his options for Fed chair
nominee, and the administration is still
eyeing Greenland. So, Tillis and I
covered a lot of ground. Here's my
conversation with Senator Tom Tillis.
Senator Tom Tillis, thank you so much
for joining the conversation.
>> My pleasure. First, I got to ask, how
are you fairing with the weather this
week? I think it's it's one of the top
things on the minds of everyone here in Washington.
Washington.
>> Well, you know, I I was just talking
with some of my staff about uh the
people in western North Carolina. You
know, they're still digging themselves
out of a deep pole and out of a halen
and now we've had the the rain and the
ice adding to that. So, my heart goes
out to everybody, but especially the
people in western North Carolina. We
kind of dodged a bullet in Charlotte. We
got enough ice, but uh no major power
outages and I think we fared well. Uh
looking over in Tennessee, family in
Tennessee and over western North
Carolina, they got a lot bigger dose.
>> Well, I'm glad to hear you are doing
okay. Hopefully all the folks in North
Carolina and across the country make it
out of this thing. I think there might
be some more coming this weekend. So,
>> yeah, we're supposed to get a bomb
cyclone or something this weekend. It's
like it never ends. I'm looking forward
to I I keep telling my wife though,
we're only about 6 weeks away from the
uh the daffodils coming up.
>> So, you and your colleague Lisa Marowski
have called on Secretary Gnome to be
removed from her job as a result of
what's been going on in Minnesota. Are
you calling on the president to fire her?
her?
>> I've made it very clear she's uh she is
definitely suffering the Peter
principle. She is way out of her depth.
She's had no large organizational
management experience. and she had some
time in Congress, managed a small
business, medium-sized business. She's
demonstrating a lack of executive
insight and experience. She seems to be
as interested in getting on camera,
riding a horse, and building up her
image as taking care of the people of
Western North Carolina who are suffering
from a storm and getting push back. She
has failed compared to President Trump's
first administration on every measure.
You can see the chaos in Minnesota. and
I my heart goes out to ICE and a number
of other people who are having to work
under her leadership. But she's also
failed in disaster recovery. There is no
comparison to this homeland security
FEMA response and the president's first
administration when we were dealing with
Matthew and Florence. She's failed on
every measure and she's not qualified
for the job. She needs to move on.
>> Yeah, that's the other piece I've been
hearing about. You know, right now the
focus is on Minneapolis, but uh in the
wake of these storms, there is a lot of
need uh on the FEMA front on disaster
recovery, on funding and these emergency
declarations. I mean, how big of a
challenge, especially in North Carolina
where you guys have been hit by by a
number of natural disasters recently?
How big of a challenge has it been to to
work with Secretary Gnome and and FEMA?
I've tried my best to maintain u my
composure in light of what I just think
is gross incompetence, but there comes a
time when county governments have to
make their budgets work and when they're
being held up for millions of dollars. I
did enterprise transformation for a
living as a partner at Price Waterhouse
Coopers and they're pretending like this
doge process is some wellexecuted plan.
Far from it. They're asking people to
resubmit paperwork. um for things that
should be very straightforward and they
should get the money to the local
government as quickly as possible.
Things like debris removal and and risk
mitigation. So, it's clear to me that
Miss Gnome has no senior executive
experience because if she did, she would
have a dashboard in place that could
explain to Congress what all these
warrants are about. The operation in
Charlotte called Charlotte's Web. If if
we had an experienced executive, I doubt
seriously that we'd be in doing two cute
by half pictures of alligator Alcatra
and Operation Catch of the Day in Maine.
That is sophomoric, amateurish, fun to
be had in a very serious role. And she
is absolutely incompetent and proven it
time and time and time again. And she's
aided and abetted by an equally
incompetent person in Steven Miller.
Steven Miller told the president before
anybody had done an incident report that
they had a terrorist brandishing a
weapon. We saw the statement that is
doing the president a disservice. That's
why I've continued to tell the
president, you've got to get the
amateurs out of the Oval Office for his
own sake, for his legacy, but for the
sake of Republicans. These people are
adding up to what will most likely be a
wave against Republicans in next year's
election because they're so lousy on
execution. Now, there are many people in
the administration I have the utmost
confidence in. These two people happen
not to be on that list.
>> Should the president remove Steven
Miller from his role? Would you call for that?
that?
>> Absolutely. Look, Steven Miller is just
riding the wave of this president. Does
anybody really believe he's going to
dedicate the rest of his life to him? or
is this 40some gonna go get on elect
Christy Gnome for president or someone
else. You've seen his loyalty. You see
what he did to Jeff Sessions after Jeff
Sessions did the right thing to try and
recuse himself. He just rode another
wave. I see these people every day.
They're political mercenaries looking
for their best position and their
spotlight. I don't have a lot of
patience for those people. I have tried
my best to keep this under the radar.
But honestly, if we let these rookies,
these amateurs continue to advise
president on these failed policies like
where we're having to backtrack on
Greenland, what we're having to do to
deescalate in Minnesota and a long list
that is going to be a horrible outcome
for Republicans in November. And that's
what I'm concerned with.
>> You certainly are not mincing words here
in your criticism of of Gnome and
Miller. I think it was Cornin that said
that you are now quote untethered uh
given you are not seeking re-election.
You're out here saying this stuff. Are
you hearing any echoes of what you're
saying from other Republicans?
>> Look, John's a buddy of mine, but people
should keep track and take a look at
what I said in the Trump Trump's first
administration. It's not like I've
suddenly found legs since I decided not
to run. It's just that I no longer have
to worry about the press, for example.
You know, if I decided not to run and
the press notices that I support the
vast majority of the president's
policies because I think they make
sense, the press would just say that's
because he's running. He had to cop out
and support the policy. I support the
vast majority of the president's policy.
So, I've taken that argument away from
the press and now I can actually do
everything I can to try and help this
president be successful. And it's not
because it's Donald Trump. It's because
he's a Republican president. I believe
Republican conservative ideals are best
for the United States. That's why I want
to make them successful.
>> Well, I don't think you um would be
surprised to hear that you are probably
one of the most, if not the most
outspoken senator, when it comes to
calling out the administration on things
that you you think are are wrong.
>> No, I agree. I agree.
>> What I wonder is, as you know, there are
plenty of people who are afraid to do
that publicly, don't want to come out
publicly against the president. What are
you hearing behind closed doors from
your Republican colleagues? uh
particularly in this moment about no
about Miller.
>> I see this administration and some of
their adviserss making exactly the same
mistake that Obama and his adviserss
made back in 2009 when I was convinced
when everybody else thought that Obama
was on the rise and it was the end of
conservatism, the rise of liberal
progressivism. I saw an overreach before
anyone else did. So much so I quit my
job to run the campaigns to get us in a
majority for the first time since the
Civil War because I saw an overreach.
And what we're seeing right now are
people who aren't elected who are
advising this president that either
don't care or don't have enough sense to
know that they are combining in bad
decisions to make this one of the most
devastating political seasons for
Republicans in the 20 years that I've
been in office. We've got a situation
right now where President Trump is at
odds with the Senate Leadership Fund in
supporting incumbents. He's silent in
Texas. He's endorsing someone in
Louisiana. He actually thinks he can win
in Maine when Susan Collins has
outperformed him 18 points in an
election when they were both on the
ballot. I'm just trying to tell
Republicans I'm about having Republicans
in majorities and we are teeing
ourselves up for a disastrous electoral
outcome this November.
>> You talk about his adviserss potentially
guiding him in the wrong direction, but
at a certain point doesn't the buck stop
with the president.
>> These reporters that are saying, you
know, Tillis is just not criticizing the
president. The president's going to be
the president for the next three years,
folks. So the best thing that you can do
is try and get advisers around him that
are going to guide him in the right
direction. I get people in the liberal
media and other people thinking that
they just want me to become a Adam
Kinzinger or Liz Cheney and disavow the
Democratic party. I want to make the
Republican party stronger. I was a
Republican trying to get us majority in
North Carolina in 2009 and 10 when
President Trump was a Democrat. I've
made a long-term commitment to the
Republican party. I don't like anything
that threatens the Republican party,
particularly in North Carolina, across
the country. I've seen what liberal
overreach looks like, and I know that
some of this is frustrating that we're
dealing with now. We should go back and
look at the overreaches of the Biden
administration, the Obama
administration, and recognize I'm doing
everything I can to prevent their
ascendancy and the damage that they will
do to this country if they win. In
response to your criticisms of Gnome in
particular, the president was asked
about those comments and he said uh of
you and and Mowski, quote, "They're both
losers. You know what I can tell you?
They're terrible senators. One is gone
and the other should be gone." How do
you respond to that?
>> Well, it thrilled me. Uh because
>> it thrilled you.
>> Yeah, it did because that means I'm now
qualified to be Homeland Security
Secretary and senior adviser to the
president because they're both losers.
And so, look, I'm not going to deal with
that sort of stuff. That that that
nonsense. They can save that for junior
high school and arm farts.
>> But you want the president to listen to
you. I mean, that's what you're saying
is you're calling this stuff out because
you want to make his administration stronger.
stronger.
>> I want this president to be the most
successful Republican president in the
history of this country. [snorts] Not
because it's Donald Trump, but because
he's a Republican and his success is
intrinsically linked to the success of
Republicans this November. Look, I I
think many people, whether they'll say
it out loud or not, all but believe that
the House is going to be lost.
>> Do you believe that?
>> Yeah, I I I think if the election were
held today, there is there is time to
turn this around, but you only turn it
around when you recognize the problems
you're creating for yourself. The
president has people in the
administration that are skating where
the puck are. I'm skating where the
pucks are going to be. And in November,
if anybody thinks that we're not going
to have to deal with the slow trickle of
Ebstein files, if they that we're not
going to be looking at affordability
issues, that we're not going to be
looking at this overreach by Homeland
Security Secretary, I think a lot of
people believe that those will be
distant memories. Chuck Schumer is going
to have a war chest of over a billion
dollars to target many of my colleagues,
you know, who are running for reelection
or running in open seats. and they're
going to bring all of this back and
they're going to have it ad nauseium. I
would think in the state of North
Carolina, Michael Watley will probably
have a half a billion dollars spent
against him. So, if we don't start
turning the course, I'm just saying that
my Republican colleagues are at risk.
That's avoidable, but we've got to
course correct soon. Uh, and if we're
still having this sort of discussion by
June, I actually believe the Senate
could be in play. And that's the last
thing I want to have happen. It's
interesting to hear you say all of this
because it it it echoes stuff that I've
heard behind the scenes, but you're
actually saying it on the record. I
mean, do you feel like you've kind of
become the guy who says out loud what
other Republicans are thinking but
aren't willing to say?
>> I'll let my colleagues speak for
themselves, but I I do believe if I were
waving a wand, I would ask the
president, don't go after Bill Cassidy
and potentially target a great member
that I've known we came in together. uh
be strong and understand that John
Cornin is an enormously valuable member
of the conference and Paxton will be an
empty suit. We've got to have these
discussions because when we work with
the White House, we win and when we work
at odds, we lose. And I'm afraid that
that is a is a real risk for us if we
don't get our act together and have the
people in the White House recognize that
we are a co-equal branch. I do not work
for them. They cannot fire me, nor can
any of these other members. And when
we're at our best, we're working in lock
step, and they're respecting us over
some of these unelected bureaucrats that
he has driving the show now that are
driving his reputation into the ground.
>> Have you been able to have any of this
conversation with the president himself?
Like, have you spoken to him directly
about it?
>> I'm not going to get into when and and
how, but I've uh I've I've maintained uh
you know, a pretty good communication.
In fact, this loser comment that he's
made probably the first time he's ever
make it made a negative comment about
me. I couldn't care less about it
because I'm still going to focus on
what's most important to me and that's
good electoral outcomes in November. I
wish the president would too.
>> As many people in the press know,
oftentimes what the president says
publicly and kind of his demeanor
privately can can differ. I mean, how
would you characterize your relationship
with the president at this point? I
think it's been generally uh positive.
And like I've said, I want to continue
to have a positive relationship with the
president, but that's entirely up to
him. What I'm not going to do is let
anybody take a pass on what I think is a
cheap shot or a bad idea. That's what I
do. It's what I did for a living. I know
I tell my staff I may be a victim of my
upbringing. I spent most of my career in
management consulting trying to improve
the performance of large complex
organizations. And when I see amateurs,
we used to replace them when I was a
partner of Price Waterhouse. People that
came in and tried to help organizations,
didn't know what they were doing. So
when I see poor execution, it just makes
me angry because it's undermining what
this president can do for this country
and people that were growing up like me
in it that need help.
>> You mentioned Miller and Gnome. Are
there others that you think the
president should consider removing? You know,
know,
>> I want to stay focused on uh on that.
There are other people that I think are
uh they're just not operating at a level
that I would think. People like Gabbard,
I don't know if she's in like the FBI
witness protection program. I haven't
seen her for months, you know. Um so, do
we have a real director of national
intelligence now? I don't know. That'd
be a question to raise at some point.
We're having a hearing right now about
section 702. I'd like to have somebody
there who would actually speak to the
importance of it, but she's gone. I
really don't know where she is. Haven't
seen her for a while. And Kennedy, I'm
I'm really curious what Kennedy's
position is on this measles outbreak. in
South Carolina and his position on
vaccine. Is it the same? Is he putting
his foot on the accelerator? So, those
are questions that I would ask of
people. They're not people that I'm
focused on right now because right now,
I think the the main thing is a Steven
Miller who's not fit to do the job and
doesn't care about the president's
legacy and Christy Nolm who's clearly
out of her depth and experiencing the
Peter principle.
>> Another role that's going to be filled
soon or or replaced is um the role of of
Fed Chair. You said you would stand in
the way of any Fed chair nominees coming
out of the banking committee until the
Powell probe is resolved. What does
resolved mean?
>> You know what I said is not only the Fed
chair, but I will not vote to confirm
any Fed nominee until this uh matter
that the Department of Justice
apparently pursued that the president
said he wasn't even aware of the
investigation on the Sunday night that
the news broke. And so looks like the
left hand and the right hand aren't
talking with each other, but they've
actually taken up what I believe is
ultimately going to be viewed as a
perjury trap over a minor part of the
Fed chair's job. And it has to do with a
building and uh whether or not there
were cost overruns. Well, my goodness,
if we want to get to that level, then I
want to see the details of the East Wing
cost, how the funding actually occurred,
maybe even the cost of the cutter jet
upfitting it to be a fake Air Force One.
I mean, we can go all over the place if
we want to start talking about
efficiency, but does it really rise to a
level to where you're trying to create a
perjury trap to undermine the perception
of the Fed's independence? The reason
why I went quickly to say that I would
not move on any Fed chairs before that,
and thank goodness other members chimed
in on Sunday night, is I was worried
about what the market reaction would be
if the world financial system suddenly
thought that we that we had a Fed board
that served at the pleasure of the uh
the president of the United States
because I'm thinking about President
Warren, okay? I'm thinking about other
people who would use this in the future
and the markets would as well. So, I'm
I'm in a position right now. DOJ got us
here apparently without the president's
knowledge, but now they've got to finish
this investigation. Until it is
completely done, then I don't think it's
appropriate to consider any board composition.
composition.
>> What does completely done mean?
>> They can follow it through to adjudicate
it to see if he's innocent or or guilty
or they can withdraw it because they
don't have sufficient basis for a
prosecution. But it can't be quies. I
mean, I want finality behind this.
Hopefully they can do that sooner rather
than later. Like to get a Fed board put
into place and uh and I know that Chair
Powell is prepared to to move on.
>> The president apparently has a pick in
mind for Fed chair. It's reportedly Rick
Reer. Is that someone you'd be willing
to accept?
>> I can't get to the person because I'm
focused on the process. Do you worry
given the investigation given the
pressure that the president has put on
Powell that the damage to the idea of
the independence of the Fed has already
been done?
>> No, quite the opposite. I think I am
proving the point that as long as
members understand the role that they
can play in the article one branch that
this is clearly a position where one
senator can object to what a president
or an administration is attempting to
do. So, I think it's quite the opposite.
I think it's kind of a stress test to
show this is how the branches work and
they deal they deal with the tug and
pull. And to be honest with you, I don't
begrudge the president trying to get
control over the Fed board, right?
Because the the whole basis of our
democracy is that ambition setting off
against ambition. I don't have any
problem with him trying to do it. I have
a problem people being quiet on our side
when we definitely can stand in the
breach and prevent it from happening.
And that's what I'm doing. That's a
typical tug and pull.
>> How far are you willing to go to to
stand in in the way?
>> Look, I grew up in a trailer park and I
like a good scrap. And if these people
want to be unprofessional, I'll match
them. If they want to be professional,
show some respect for the co-equal
branches, then we can resolve this
fairly quickly. But if anybody wants to
rare their backup, then what other
option do I have than to do the same?
And I did that in the first Trump
administration and I will do it in this
one if it's necessary to help this
administration from itself when they're
pursuing bad ideas.
>> I want to go global for a moment because
you've been very outspoken on the uh
issue of Greenland and the president's
desire to to acquire it. When it comes
to that issue and our alliances,
particularly NATO,
do you think long-term damage has
already been been done? Even though the
president has taken military action off
the table, he's walked back some of the
tariff threats. I remember on liberation
day, so-called liberation day last year,
I came into my office and I told my
staff that number one, some of the
tariffs didn't make sense because we
were imposing them against countries
uh who have a trade surplus with us. But
I said, "What I really worry about is a coordinated
coordinated
multilateral response." And I expected
it to maybe occur a little bit sooner,
but that's now what we're seeing. So now
we're conflating national security and
economic security. Right? The president
is undermining right now. Uh and I don't
know if it's a negotiation tactic or a
deeply held belief, but anybody who
thinks that NATO is pass and should go
doesn't understand the democratic world
order. So we're taking a shot at NATO
countries. We have Steven Miller who was
saying, you know, it is our right or
whatever he said some sort of manifesto
like comment to the public on how it is
our right to have Greenland. Well, the
the Kingdom of Denmark and the
Greenlanders think a little bit
differently. So, we've got a scenario
now to where we're imposing tariffs on
countries that have trade surpluses with
us. We're encouraging countries like uh
Canada to build uh major ties into
India. We've got the EU looking around
to diversify. That is exactly the
multilateral coordinated response that I
was concerned with and it's playing out
now. It looked like the tariffs by
themselves were not enough to do it. But
now that our adversaries like China or
wouldbe adversaries have an opening,
you're beginning to see that that
coalescing of a multilateral coordinated
response that could be longer term uh
not beneficial to the United States. But
having said that, anybody that thinks
the United States is not going to be the
800 pound gorilla in the room is silly.
We've got the economy. We've got the
military might. and to people that I
deal with frequently as as the
Republican lead of the lead of the
Senate NATO observer group. I hope that
they understand that we have uh
presidential elections every four years
and this posture is the posture of the
current administration and three years
from now there will be a different
administration and they should view the
long game. I told many of them in Davos,
any reasonable organization's going to
do a risk assessment the and they're
going to have the the best case or worst
case spread there. I don't think that
they should project the worst case
occurring in terms of relationships with
the United States, but they should look
at the medium case and other risk
mitigation measures like I'd advise any
client and and act accordingly. What
else would they do or what else would
they should they do if they're getting
good advice? I mean, yeah, the US is the
800 pound gorilla and and that's what
the president has been using. Do you see
any benefit to to this strategy of
pushing our our allies? I mean, there
was a lot of praise of the president
getting NATO members to to step up
financially, right?
>> 100% responsible for that happening and
I applaud his leadership and making that
happen. And I also tell my European,
this is the other thing you have to do
for context. We're here. And I think
part of the president's frustration is
for the first 20 years of this century,
our NATO allies shorted the NATO
alliance by $2 trillion with a T. One
wonders if those countries had paid the
2% minimum. Would Ukraine have even
happened? What would $2 trillion in
modernization and industrial base look
like? I get the president's frustration
and I'm thrilled that he held these
people accountable and they should be
embarrassed and insulted because they
should have never put us here. But take
the win. He got them on track. They are
paying more and they're willing to step
up even more. Why we would run up the
score and question NATO and create an
economic opportunity for China, the
nearpeer competitor, potential
adversary. why we would be enabling more
discussions with Europe Europe and
Canada just doesn't make sense to me
long term.
>> The Secretary of the Treasury, Scott
Besson, I sat down with him last week
and he he continues to argue that
tariffs are not leading to price
increases. But when I asked about why
voters are still so frustrated,
he said that basically what the
administration has done hasn't caught up
to the kitchen table and that prices are
are just hard to to bring down. What's
your take on on what the secretary is
doing and and and the administration as
a whole?
>> Well, the secretary is an economist. I'm
a management consultant, so I'm not
going to try and match up with them, but
I will tell you this. I've had people uh
talk about the possibility of codifying
these tariffs and my immediate response
is so you want me to codify a value
added tax. I mean Scott can say this
isn't inflationary but most people
should understand that tariffs aren't
paid when you impose a tariff on Brazil,
a 50% tariff on Brazil who has a trade
surplus. The Brazilian government's not
paying that tariff. the consumers and
the businesses who are getting exports
from Brazil are paying that. Now, can
they absorb it and not pass the cost on
consumer? Maybe. The question with a
tariff is does it become a business tax
or does it become a consumer tax? Most
tariffs, if you if you look across the
history, if you impose about a 10%
tariff, most businesses are going to
absorb it for competitive reasons. But
when you get 25, 30, 35, 50% tariffs,
it's it's nonsensical to think that the
consumer isn't ultimately affected by
that. Now, whether or not in balance
it's inflationary, I'll leave that to
the economist. But look, look, let's
just be real. Somebody has to pay them.
And we're not sending a bill to Brazil
or the UK or India. We're just putting a
note down here. I had a I had a a small
business uh last year or January was
talking about something that he ordered
in January. Then we had the
announcements of the tariffs. Uh this
was a piece of equipment he could only
get from Hong Kong. It ended up this
$5,000 piece of equipment now cost him $7,000.
$7,000.
Hong Kong didn't pay that. This small
business, this jeweler in this case, had
to pay it. So at the end of the day,
folks, the money's got to come from
somewhere. And when you go too far on
tariffs, either a business is going to
pay it, it's going to reduce their
performance, or a consumer is going to
pay it, which is going to increase their cost.
cost.
>> You've been in this long enough to know
that the economy is often a huge driver
at the ballot box. How worried are you
about all of this impacting Republicans
in the midterms?
>> That's what everybody should know. I
have not become a Democrat. I have
become I have always been
>> No one here is claiming that, sir.
>> wanting to get Republicans reelected.
You can't go out there and say
affordability is a hoax. I if you can go
to Nashville, Tennessee, if you ever get
to Nashville, Tennessee, go down I 24,
get off of Haywood Lane, and then go to
Richard's Road, there's a trailer park
there that I grew up in, and I bet you
if you go door todo there and say, "Is
affordability a hoax? Are you just fine
here? Are you enjoying your life here?"
My guess is the polling's not going to
come out very well. You've always got to
be thinking about the people who are
affected, who are least resourced, most
affected by swings in policy. And I'm
telling you, because I do visit that
trailer park frequently when I get over
to Tennessee, these people are
struggling. And they're struggling in
large part because of the failed
policies of Biden. So why don't we just
talk about the things that we are trying
to improve that are instructive to those
folks who are having affordability
problem. They always do. It's just a
matter of scale. But I mean to say that
it doesn't exist coming from the mouth
of somebody who's never won it for
anything in their life doesn't have a
lot of credibility with voters at that
end of the socioeconomic spectrum.
>> There's the Biden policies, but then
there are policies that that you just
said that the Trump administration is
implementing like the tariffs that are
also painful for everyday Americans. So
what do you think that the
administration should do quickly because
we are in 2026, we are in the midterm
year now.
>> I think we have to play team ball. I I
think we have to stop this nonsense
where the administration is supporting
one candidate, the Senate conferences
are supporting another. This is team
ball. I firmly believe that a
conservatively led America is a more
prosperous, safer America. We've also
got to get rid of things that that
simply I'm not buying. I'm not buying
Elizabeth Warren's 10% cap on credit
card fees.
>> That's the president's cap on credit
card fees.
>> But no, this is literally the policy of
Elizabeth Warren. I'm not buying the
policy on outlawing corporate ownership
of homes. That's a Bernie Sanders
policy. I think they policy. I'm not
buying mandatory impacts or mandatory
pricing on pharmaceutical companies
without getting everybody in the room
and doing something sustainable. Biden
>> again now a Trump policy. Biden did that
in the inflation reduction act and it
had a 60% drop on small molecule
resource research because the money has
to come from somewhere. So I'm saying
let's just go back to core conservative businessfriendly
businessfriendly
limited government policies. That's what
gets us elected and that will that will
be is what gets us elected in November.
But if we stray down this path where you
can't tell a big difference between
Elizabeth Warren and President Trump's
policies, that's a problem for
Republicans and a a gold mine for Democrats.
Democrats.
>> These are the sorts of policies though
that the the president is using to try
to rally his base. You know, so much has
shifted, particularly economic policy
under this administration.
I think both the Republican and the
Democratic party are at quite an
inflection point and I think the
midterms are are going to be a clarifier
for the direction that these parties are
heading and then of course 2028 will be
a real defining moment. But in the
context of everything we've been talking
about, I mean, where do you see the
Republican party heading?
>> I think we have to obviously stipulate
that we're we've been in a populist era
since uh Obama first got elected. You
know, Obama created this populace error.
Remember, I have my phone. I have my
pen. He was trying to make the executive
branch more powerful and basically
dismissing u uh the article one branch.
Trump comes in, puts populism on
steroids. I am a Republican and I am a
conservative. I have consistently been a
conservative and my track record in
North Carolina and votes here, I would
stand up against anybody who thinks that
they're truly a conservative. How can
you justify a fiscally conservative
approach to spending billions of dollars
to potentially take over an island in
Greenland that they're prepared to give
us for free access? So, there's one
example of a lack of fiscal
conservatism. In fact, I think for the
first time in my life, I may actually be
a rhino.
>> Well, there's a headline. the the
Republican party has drifted so far away
from limited government, free markets,
and federalism, which are the bedrock of
any conservative thinker. I'm beginning
to sort this out. I know that we're
going through a populist phase. I expect
it to settle down, but Republicans are
at their best when we are talking about
free markets, free trade, federalism, uh
limited government, and we're we're
we're drifting from that. And we drift
from that. We're no different than the
Democrats and that lack of
differentiation causes us to lose elections.
elections.
>> Can you put the toothpaste back in the
tube though? Because the President Trump
has been such a disruptor to this party.
>> Yeah, you can. Look, I mean, I want the
president to be successful. Uh I'm a
business person. I work on a transaction
basis. I could sit down with them and
come up with things that I'd love to
support him on. I think that's the
mistake that some people have made here.
They just get so frustrated that maybe
they realize they weren't Republicans.
So then they become uh backbenchers or
are constantly criticizing. Again, I
support the majority of what this
administration is trying to do. They
have highly competent people and roles
and I'm glad that they're there. But
elections are all around the margins and
we are way out of the margins of I think
proper execution in things that are
going to influence this election if we
don't get our collective stuff together
in the coming 30 60 90 days. If we're
still in this sort of narrative and
chaos in June, then not only do I think
we risk losing the House, but I do
believe that the US Senate could be in
play. and I'm doing everything I can to
prevent that.
>> At what point is President Trump a lame duck?
duck?
>> I don't think President Trump's ever
going to allow himself to be a lame duck.
duck.
>> Senator Tillis, thank you so much. I
know we've taken a bunch of your time on
a very, very busy week. Really
appreciate you joining the conversation.
>> Thank you. Take care.
>> This has been the Conversation with
Dasha Burns. We'll be back next week. If
you want to catch future episodes of The
Conversation, be sure to click that
subscribe button below. Thanks for
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
