Hakeem Jeffries (00:00):
... Republican who voted for the one big, ugly bill should be ashamed of themselves. They aren't helping their constituents. They are hurting their constituents. That's an objectively verifiable fact. The GOP tax scam is a disgusting abomination. It rips healthcare away from up to 14 million people, every day Americans across the country. Hospitals will close. Nursing homes will shut down. And yes, people will die if the GOP tax scam ever became law. It's a disgusting abomination.
(01:04)
The one big, ugly bill would enact the largest cut to nutritional assistance in American history. That's also disgusting. Republicans literally want to rip food out of the mouths of children, veterans, and seniors. Every single Republican who voted for this bill should be ashamed of themselves. This bill that Republicans narrowly passed, it limped out of the House of Representatives. And we're going to work hard to make sure it dies in the Senate.
(01:50)
This one big, ugly bill, The GOP tax scam, hurts every day Americans and rewards their billionaire donors with a massive tax break for the wealthy, the well-off, and the well-connected. And to make matters worse, they will saddle our children and grandchildren with more than $5 trillion in additional debt in order to subsidize the lifestyles of the rich and shameless. Elon Musk and I agree with each other on this particular issue. The GOP tax scam is a disgusting abomination.
(02:44)
Questions?
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Is this Elon Musk yelling on his way out? Do you think this is going to move the needle in the Senate?
Hakeem Jeffries (02:52):
For all the reasons that I just indicated, the bill is disgusting. It's an abomination. It's a disaster for the American people. And as House Democrats, we've been saying it repeatedly, saying it at rallies, saying it at committee markups, saying it before the Rules Committee, saying it on the floor, hour after hour after hour into the early morning. And we'll continue to say it in the United States Senate, the bill limped out of the House of Representatives. They had to strong-arm members of the Republican Conference to even get this done. Many of these Republicans know that they were doing the wrong thing by their constituents, and we're going to continue to expose it. Before Elon Musk decided to weigh in, the American people understood the deal. In every single poll that has come out over the last two weeks, the Republican one big, ugly bill is deeply underwater. It is unfavorable by eight points, 10 points, 15, 16 points. Every single poll across this country that has come out over the last two weeks, the American people have rejected the Republican one big, ugly bill. And we are just getting started.
(04:25)
Hold on, I'll go. I'm sorry. You guys were late on this side of the room.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
Thanks, Mr. [inaudible 00:04:35]. Speaker Johnson implied that part of the reason Musk might be opposing this has to do with getting rid of the EV tax credits. What do you think about those tax credits that benefit this particular billionaire and his company in Tesla?
Hakeem Jeffries (04:52):
The Clean Energy credits that were part of the Inflation Reduction Act actually have had a significant benefit in terms of economic activity all across the country, particularly in red states and congressional districts represented by Republicans.
(05:16)
Standing up a clean energy economy lowers energy costs, helps to protect the environment, and combats the climate crisis with the fierce urgency of now that is necessary, while at the same period of time creating jobs and generating economic activity. Republicans decided that they want to detonate these clean energy credits.
(05:43)
I haven't spoke to Elon Musk. I'm not sure what the reasons are for this extraordinary statement, but we are in complete agreement. The GOP tax scam is a disgusting abomination. And yes, the repeal of the Clean Energy tax credits is one of many reasons why the Republican one big, ugly bill is a complete and total disaster. These extremists can't even defend it. So you have the senator from Iowa say in response to a question that was heartfelt about people dying prematurely because they're going to lose healthcare coverage under the GOP tax scam that everyone's going to die. Yes, Joni. We know, the American people know, that at some point in their lives, they are going to pass away. The cause of death should not be Republican cruelty. The cause of death should not be this disgusting abomination of a bill. The cause of death should not be the reckless Republican effort to rip away healthcare from millions of people and rip food out of the mouths of starving children or veterans in the United States of America.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Has your caucus come any closer to making a decision on how to respond to the Red Line being crossed, of Congresswoman McIver being charged, or the potential threats against other members?
Hakeem Jeffries (07:21):
There are ongoing conversations. First and foremost, what's important is that we stand strongly and firmly behind LaMonica McIver. And that's priority number one, to make sure that she has the first-rate legal representation that she needs to battle these charges. She does. We're going to make sure that she has the resources that she needs to aggressively push back on all fronts against this extreme, reckless, corrupt legal assault on a duly elected member of Congress who was doing her job.
Hakeem Jeffries (08:00):
We have to stand with her until these charges are either dismissed or defeated in court, and we will. And those are the most immediate priorities as it relates to standing up for LaMonica. And that's what we needed to initially put into place. And then of course, there's a more collective response and you can expect some activity and action on that front to be led in part by Jamie Raskin. Thanks.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
Thank you, Mr. Leader. During a discussion on CNN on Sunday, Debbie Dingell was discussing the voting blocs that Democrats lost in 2024. She says, we've got to [inaudible 00:08:56] our agenda for what we're going to do. We need our Project 2028. Do you agree with Dingell's assertion?
(09:01)
And on the related note, it's about a month after your major speech characterizing Trump's 100, you mentioned that Democrats will be rolling out a blueprint, I believe you talked it, a blueprint for a better America. Can you give the American people an update on how that process is going and can they expect something substantive on that front as they start to look towards Democrats' division heading into 2026?
Hakeem Jeffries (09:24):
There are ongoing conversations within the caucus to lay out different elements about our blueprint for a better America anchored in a vision that is designed to build an affordable economy that lowers the high cost of living and makes life better for everyday Americans. That's the foundation. That's our North Star. Republicans are making life worse for you. Our objective is to make life better for everyday Americans, starting with an economy that actually works for hardworking American taxpayers and that actually lowers the high cost of living and makes life affordable in America.
(10:07)
Not a single person ever should be put in a position here in America where they're struggling to live paycheck to paycheck. We need in America that rewards hard work and playing by the rules. So over the next few months, you'll see House Democrats collectively after input from every element of the caucus, the Progressives, the New Dems, the Blue Dogs, the entirety of the ideological spectrum, that is the gorgeous mosaic of the House Democratic Caucus is going to be a part of this process so that at the end of it, we're able to articulate a values-based vision for the type of America that House Democrats are fighting to bring to life.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
Debbie Dingell saying that Democrats need a Project 2028, a response to that?
Hakeem Jeffries (11:02):
Republicans are aggressively trying to destroy America as we know it and end the American way of life. That's what this Donald Trump effort has been all about, which by the way, the American people are rejecting. Despite all of the talk of this so-called big mandate, this guy is the most unpopular president after 100 days in office in modern American history. So much for your mandate. And then your signature bill, this disgusting abomination, is also unpopular before Elon Musk spoke up.
(11:39)
And so Project 2025 is a disaster for the American people. It's a reason why the American people are running away from Republicans. But of course, that's one side of the equation. The other side of the equation, is how do we rebuild the America that Donald Trump is trying to break in record time? And that's an effort that we as House Democrats look forward to being a part of as we move forward. We'll go to the back row. Thanks.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
The crypto industry spent heavily in 2024 a lot of key races across the country, and they're expected to do similarly in 2026. You've seen some internal divisions among Democrats in the Senate and the House around this crypto. Are you concerned at all at the spending and its potential influence on legislation?
Hakeem Jeffries (12:32):
Well, crypto spent both for Democrats and Republicans, certainly that was the case in the House of Representatives because there are allies of the crypto industry on both sides of the aisle in the House. And that was reflected in the crypto industry's engagement.
(12:47)
I think the best thing that can happen in terms of moving forward is that we arrive at a bipartisan solution in terms of the legislation that is pending in the Congress because that's the only way for it to be sustainable. When you make an issue partisan, and at this point crypto is not partisan, Donald Trump is a separate problem that has to be addressed. The real-time corruption in terms of the friends and family program to monetize Trump's office and enrich parts of the family in part by using crypto. That is a problem that has to be addressed decisively, and we're committed to doing that as Democrats.
(13:38)
But when you take away that piece of it, which is a very important piece, I think substantively figuring out how we arrive at a bipartisan resolution of the crypto that are currently pending before Congress is what will best serve the American people and also best serve an appropriately regulated industry that allows for innovation, but also has guardrails to protect the American consumer. Thanks. A lot of questions today.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
Thank you, Leader. House Republicans are moving to claw back billions of dollars in funding to USAID, NPR, and PBS, which they claim is a waste of taxpayer dollars. What is your position on taxpayers footing the bill for programs like that?
Hakeem Jeffries (14:35):
All these things that are being proposed by extreme MAGA Republicans are dead on arrival. It's fantasy. It's not happening. It's not happening. And that's just the reality of the situation. So they have a responsibility to govern and it's been a disaster so far. Chaos, cruelty and corruption is what characterizes Republican complete control of government in this town.
(15:07)
So my suggestion to them is why don't you focus on the things that you actually promised you would focus on when you lied to the American people last year? Because Republicans spent all year in 2024 promising that they were going to lower the high cost of living in the United States of America. And in fact, costs would go down on day one. Costs aren't going down under Republican, complete control of government, they're going up. Inflation is going up. The cost of living is going up. Life is becoming more unaffordable for everyday Americans. Donald Trump and Republicans broke their promise to focus on the issues that matter in terms of the economy, and that's one of the reasons why the American people are running away
Hakeem Jeffries (16:01):
... from the Trump presidency and the sycophants who are nothing more than a rubber stamp for Donald Trump's extreme agenda in Congress.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
I have a follow-up to that. If you say if it's dead on arrival, then you want it to remain the way it is with taxpayers continuing to... I mean, if it's not going to go anywhere.
Hakeem Jeffries (16:21):
I think my remarks speak for themselves.
Speaker 4 (16:23):
Yeah, a follow-up on that. You say it's not going to happen, do you mean that you don't think Republicans have the votes to pass the decisions patch?
Hakeem Jeffries (16:30):
Correct.
Speaker 4 (16:32):
And in the House and the Senate, or in which chamber?
Hakeem Jeffries (16:34):
Remains to be seen what the case is in the House. But it's my full expectation that, as has been the case up until this point, they will confront strong and unified Democratic opposition in the House, struggle to get any bill out of the House of Representatives, and then it's dead in the United States Senate.
Speaker 4 (16:56):
You know, it only takes 50 plus one in the Senate.
Hakeem Jeffries (16:59):
Dead in the United States Senate.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Thank you Mr. Leader. I just want to ask you about some reporting that we've just published. CBS News has learned that the US Navy is considering renaming multiple naval ships after civil rights leaders and prominent Americans. Among them, the USNS Harvey Milk, which of course this is coming during Pride Month, but other potential vessels include the USNS, Thurgood Marshall, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Harriet Tubman, Dolores Huerta, Lucy Stone, Cesar Chavez, and Medgar Evers. I know you've been quite critical of the Defense Department and the Defense Secretary on issues of diversity, so I just wanted to get your reaction to that.
Hakeem Jeffries (17:35):
It's a complete and total disgrace. It's an utter abomination in terms of the extreme mega Republican effort to continue to erase American history. And we're not going to allow it to happen.
(17:54)
And you wonder why do these far-right extremists who are utterly unqualified for the jobs that they currently hold in the United States government, Exhibit A, Pete Hegseth, the least qualified Secretary of Defense in American history, and this guy's leading the charge? It's a joke. You're not qualified for the job that you have. You didn't get that job on merit.
(18:27)
And so, here's what the outcome is going to be. Every single time they've raised this issue and tried to cancel a part of our history, they've had to walk it back because the American people aided and assisted by Democrats have aggressively pushed back. They tried to cancel Harriet Tugman. We reversed it. They tried to cancel Jackie Robinson. We reversed it. They tried to cancel the Tuskegee Airmen. We reversed it. They tried to ban hundreds of books in the Naval Academy. We reversed it.
(19:11)
Every single time the extremists have tried to cancel certain parts of American history, the American people have risen up and said, "No, it's not happening." And the MAGA extremists have chickened out. They are supposed to be tough guys. They regularly are pushed back and they will again if they try to move on renaming these Navy vessels. Thanks.
Speaker 5 (19:49):
Mr. Jeffries, you had said after Congresswoman McIver was, you said physically accosted by ICE officials that you wanted them identified the officials that accosted them. Have they been identified and what do you expect from... Or do you want the agents that were harassing Gerry Nagler's staffers and his district office also identified? What's the latest or how are Democrats going to respond to the jury?
Hakeem Jeffries (20:12):
Every single ICE agent who's engaged in this aggressive overreach and are trying to hide their identities from the American people will be unsuccessful in doing that. This is America. This is not the Soviet Union. We're not behind the Iron Curtain. This is not the 1930s. And every single one of them, no matter what it takes, no matter how long it takes, will of course be identified. That in fact is the law. And we're going to make sure that the American people have the transparency necessary to hold people accountable when there are folks who cross the line here in America. That's what's going to happen.
(21:09)
And as I mentioned earlier, and I spoke to Congressman Nagler about this, our first priorities are always going to be making sure the person who was on the front line is in the best possible place to move forward. That's the case with LaMonica McIver, and it is also the case with Congressman Nagler's brave, young, patriotic staffer. And we've got to address those issues first. That's the human thing to do while simultaneously, of course, preparing to deal with the broader policy implications, which as I mentioned are underway. Thanks. Go back to this side. Yep.
Speaker 6 (22:02):
There are two members of the Congressional Black Caucus running to be ranking member on house oversight. How do you think the CBC will handle that?
Hakeem Jeffries (22:09):
It's a good question. We have a CBC meeting on Wednesday. At some point, I think both members will present themselves before the CBC, along with the two non-CBC members. That has been the traditional practice. And at the end of the day, may the best woman, may the best man win. We'll see what happens. On our side of the aisle there's actually an election. It's a democratic process. People make their case to every single one of the House Democratic Caucus members who then decide the best path forward. This is not the first time that multiple CBC members have been in a race together with each other. And it's always been handled like a family. Decades ago, Greg Meeks and Jim Clyburn ran against each other in the same race for vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus. At the end of the day, worked out well for both of them.
(23:14)
Barbara Lee and I were in a race together to be chair of the House Democratic Caucus. She had an incredible career in the United States Congress and now she's the mayor of Oakland and a great friend and colleague to me and to all of us within the CBC, a great leader. Those are just two of several examples. So the CBC will handle it like a family in the same way that we've always handled it like a family. And at the end of the day, the caucus will make its decision. Leadership, of course, remains aggressively neutral, as is the case. We don't put our thumb on the scale, which is what happens on the other side of the aisle. And
Hakeem Jeffries (24:00):
... in, we'll see what happens at the end of the day, over the next few weeks.
Speaker 7 (24:05):
Do you expect them to endorse?
Hakeem Jeffries (24:06):
Say it again?
Speaker 7 (24:07):
Do you expect them to endorse the CBC?
Hakeem Jeffries (24:09):
That's an interesting question that's probably best asked to Yvette Clarke and the CBC executive board. At this point, I'm just a voting member.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
Okay, thank you. There are now four candidates in the oversight race. Two of them are 44 and 47, the other two are 70 and 77. After what happened with Congressman Connolly and some other 70-year-old members, some of whom have been in community leadership positions and were essentially pushed out of those positions, what do you say to Democrats both here in Congress and outside of Congress, who worry that the seniority system is once again going to elevate someone that many of them feel is not up for the job?
Hakeem Jeffries (24:47):
There were three competitive races in the aftermath of the November, 2024 election. A competitive race for the Ag Committee leadership, a competitive race for natural resources and a potentially competitive race to head the Judiciary Committee, ultimately resulting in Jerry Nadler, a great former chair, making the decision to stand down, and Jamie Raskin, an amazing leader, enabled to step up. So the record most recently speaks for itself, which is just that the caucus is going to make a decision on the merits as to who they think is best qualified to lead the committee moving forward. In the same way that Rosa DeLauro and Frank Pallone and Richie Neal and Maxine Waters continue to lead their committees, and are doing an extraordinary job and showed an amazing amount of fight in connection with the GOP tax game. Thanks.
Speaker 1 (26:08):
Thank you, Leader. With Democrats vowing to fight to be one big, beautiful bill as much as possible-
Hakeem Jeffries (26:16):
Ugly Bill.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
... do you believe there should be any pressure on Leader Schumer when it comes to trying to block this bill?
Hakeem Jeffries (26:23):
Leader Schumer and I had a great conversation over the weekend. His caucus is ready, willing, and able to meet this moment under his leadership. And I expect strong, forceful, principled, and unified democratic opposition in the United States Senate. Last question.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
Thank you, Mr. Leader. So these past couple of months you have in your messaging been attacking Elon Musk and at times you've been using him as a proxy for Donald Trump himself. Now that you supposedly agree with him in opposing this one ugly vote, like you call it-
Hakeem Jeffries (27:02):
Not supposedly, actually agree with him.
Speaker 3 (27:06):
Okay. So now that you agree with him, are you concerned that undercuts your messaging against Elon Musk all along? And why should voters believe you after this?
Hakeem Jeffries (27:16):
I don't quite understand that question actually. But you agree with someone when you agree with them, you strongly disagree with them, when you disagree with them. And on this particular issue, the bill is a disaster. The fact that I agree with Elon Musk that it's an abomination, should not be unclear to anyone based on weeks of Democrats aggressively pushing back against the one big, ugly bill. I'm not revealing any secrets. In fact, I'm stating the obvious. The bill is an abomination. It's a disaster. Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. I don't know why Elon Musk made the decision to make this statement, but he's not wrong. He's not wrong. This bill will be a disaster for the American people and it should be stopped in the United States Senate. Thank you.
Speaker 7 (28:17):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (28:17):
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
All right.
Speaker 8 (28:17):
Thank you.
Speaker 9 (28:18):
It's my friend at the pole camera. How was that? Audio is good.
Speaker 10 (28:21):
Cool. Perfect.
Speaker 9 (28:24):
Good. Love to see it.
