This Senator has an Eric Swalwell problem

I'm in Washington, D.C. this week to interview Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego. He's a Democrat from Arizona, but he's been thinking about running for a higher office, and he's been pitching himself as someone who has a new message for Latino voters that can bring them back to the Democratic Party. But Gallego's run into some hot water recently because of his connection to Congressman Eric Swalwell. Eric Swal lied to all of us. My friendship with him, our family's friendship together with him, caught in my judgment. And I was wrong. I deeply, deeply regret that. This week on America Actually, we asked Gallego about predatory behavior in Washington, his plans for immigration reform, and more. Let's dig in. Support for the show comes from Dell. Remember Dell? Dell PCs with Intel inside are built for the moments you plan. Still and the ones you don't still. They're there for those late night study sessions when you get to the cafe and there's no outlets, all that stuff. Dell is built to adapt to you. It's built with long lasting batteries. You're not scrambling for an outlet and built in intelligence that makes updates around your schedule, not in the middle of it. Find technology built for the way you work at dell.co.uk forward slash Dell PCs built for you. Hi, I'm Sally Helm. Inflammation. It is something I've been seeing a lot of people talk about, especially on TikTok. And according to them, inflammation is basically the whole problem with our health. It causes heart problems, anxiety, acne. It is maybe even the root of all diseases. So how accurate is that? That's this week on unexplainable. Senator Gallego, thank you for joining America. Actually, I appreciate your time. I know that there's been some news this week. I want to get to it later, but I want to start with the premise of why we asked you to come on the show. We've been thinking a lot about topics that you've been talking about, things like immigration, affordability, even the Democrats outreach to Latino voters. I kind of wanted to start there. Okay. You know, out of the groups that we've seen over the last year, Latinos maybe have the biggest polling shift in terms of backlash against Donald Trump. You represent the swing state with the highest percentage of Latino voters. I wanted to know what you think is driving this backlash to the administration, at least that we see in the numbers. So two things. Number one, the affordability crisis and number two, immigration, immigration enforcement. The affordability crisis, Latinos are probably just also as affected by the economy as black men. And so when things start going south, that community first feels it first. They're the ones that will get fired first. They're the ones that start losing contracts first. And they don't have much savings to actually kind of like get through these bumps. Right? No. So if you see the, when the economy started going south, here, Latinos had already started moving against the president because they were feeling it first. Right. Number two, immigration enforcement. Now, the president had a message in 2024 that if you listened, it said, I want to do massive portations. And of course, everyone in DC, mind world says like, well, how do these Latinos not see that? Well, in their mind, in their mind, like what they're talking about is those people that are just coming across the border right now in these massive waves claiming asylum. They weren't thinking that, oh, you're going to go after the person in my neighborhood that's been here for 20 years. That's a good person that works. And so they rationalized it that that's not going to happen. And then to add the fact that they were racially profiling, US citizens has made them turn and turn very, very fast. Yeah. I mean, I think you're isolating a couple of important points. And I've heard you make this kind of case before, particularly that people were more affected to their communities around them than they may have expected from Trump. But, you know, if I think back to how explicit he's been about his targeting of immigrant communities, particularly black and Latino immigrants, I mean, if I think back to the mass deportation now signs at the RNC, how could you not see this coming? It did seem like the explicit promise because I think they didn't want to see it coming. They viewed the sound seeker crossing the border in those waves as not being part of their community. Right. And I think people kind of forget that, you know, especially Latino communities, long term Latino communities did not see the waves of people coming in as being part of their culture, Latino culture. Right. It's not like an inherent collective. Correct. Right. So it's not some like shared sense of identity. I think sometimes political discussion groups folks. Exactly. Yeah. And a lot of us knew this and we were trying to tell people this because there was, you know, just to be clear, there was fear from, you know, Democratic consultants, even people around the president that if you do that, you're going to quote, lose the Latino vote. When we knew as many of us that are very well connected to the community, not just like Latino politicians, that Latinos did not see or identify with that mass migration as being part of their collective idea of who they are. Yep. Yep. I hear you. I mean, that brings us to, I guess, an important point because, you know, what you're talking about is pressure that was on President Biden to not necessarily embrace a stronger border enforcement message that maybe some folks think he should have. But I guess I wouldn't, it feels related to the question of what is Democrats own affirmative position on immigration. You know, part of the premise of this show is kind of to try to take Donald Trump out the center. And if we do that and think about that specific immigration, I wanted to ask you like, what do Democrats stand for when it comes to immigration reform besides just Donald Trump is bad? Number one, we want border enforcement. And, you know, when I ran for office, I led one of the first commercial had was in Spanish about border enforcement. A lot of people understand that some people have come to this country illegally. And I think the majority of Americans will prefer, Supermajority would prefer that you come here legally. But for some reason you oversee the visa, you cross-court, you had whatever it is, right? Get yourself right with the government, get a background check, pay a fine, get in the back of the line in case there's people that have been doing this right first. And then go from there. Number two, we want you to go after bad people, good people in, bad people out, right? And so people have criminal records, people that have, you know, are danger to society, not just to, you know, the immigrant community, but to everybody else. And then lastly, a, you know, flexible and responsive immigration system, right? Because there is going to be times where we are going to need more immigrants to come and do work, do jobs. And sometimes when we don't need immigrants, I think it's okay as a country to say, you know what, at this point right now, we don't need as many immigrants, we're going to lower the amount of immigration, immigrants and visas that we're giving out, right? The American Americans are extremely rational on this. It's the politicians, I think, that have really gone one way or the other. It's either absolutely nothing or absolutely everything. And I think that's just not all a winning message, nor is that where I am, and nor is where most Americans are, especially by the way, where most Latinos are. Half of all Americans wanted to abolish ICE according to a recent poll I just saw. You've caught that position ridiculous. I wanted to know why. Because if you actually ask somebody what that means, it's different for everybody else. If you ask somebody, do you think we still need to have a deportation force in this country? Almost 80% of Americans would say, yes, we need a deportation force because you're going to have to deport bad people, right? The question that we have to ask is, what is a proper force? What are the rights they have? How big should they be? Right? And so, as I say, I have to win a red state. There are some people that can just run and say whatever they want and be fine, right? But I have a state where there's 300,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats. We've been severely affected by immigration, right? It is my job to have to explain the nuance in order for me both to win and to get all the Democrats to win in a red state. So, do I want to totally tear apart ICE and maybe even move different portions, different departments, slim it down because it's so big, it's so bloated, they're going to go after everybody. Restrict them to make sure they are only going after criminals and that they're not doing mass deportations, absolutely. If you tell me, does that mean that ICE will not exist? Sure, ICE may not exist, but there's always going to be a deportation force, right? And I think it's really incumbent upon people that are running for office to be very clear about that because if not, you're really selling a bill of goods to the left because they're going to want to see something. And also, you're setting yourself up for a major hit, major hit from the right. And in this time and in this world where elections have consequences, real consequences, your duty is to win an election. I wanted to ask two questions that we got from reporters. We talked to in advance of this interview. We talked to Caitlin Dickerson, immigration reporter at the Atlantic, and she pointed out how some Senate Democrats, including yourself, supported the Lake and Riley Act in 2025, which gave ICE new powers to keep people in detention. And you've seen so many prominent Democrats go back and forth between assailing even these basic aspects of immigration enforcement when they're done by Trump and then at other times in response to what they perceive to be public opinion turning against immigrants, go and vote for very restrictive legislation that makes all these problems. They've been complaining about worse. I guess that thinking about your kind of message of reforming ICE now, did some Democrats like yourself supporting Lake and Riley help empower the same out of control ICE we see right now? No, I think the the $175 billion, the fact that you have Stephen Miller that's lenient versus the DHS secretaries, you have, you know, Judge Kavanaugh saying racial profiling is allowed. And then just in a general attitude from this administration, they have zero accountability standards, you know, whether it's, you know, investigations, holding people actually accountable, jailing some of these ICE agents, showing masks, showing IDs, things of that nature. That is the actual full scope of what they're doing right now. We also talked to an Arizona reporter locally ahead of today. And one of the things that came up in that conversation, and she was talking about community pushback against data centers, that the construction of data centers has caused some organizing efforts and caused some resentment against some more establishment politicians who've supported them. So I cover local government a lot. I think it has made people think about how they want government to talk to them and share information with them. That was a big issue here, how the data center was brought forward that people didn't know about it or didn't share about it publicly. And I didn't see another issue galvanized people at quite the same level in their relationship with local government. You've called data centers a quote necessary evil. I guess my question is why are they necessary? Well, two things, the necessary evil doesn't necessarily mean that you can blame check. But the future of this economy, no matter where you are, is going to be driven by AI. The question is how do we tame it and how we regulate it? If I could find a way to do it at the federal level, we will do it. Number two, there's some areas that shouldn't go because just because they have cheap electricity does not mean that we have cheap water, cheap air, or cheap neighborhoods. Right? And so we need to give water shortage. Exactly. So we need to give more control to the states and to the localities to regulate them. There are places where they should go. It does not necessarily mean it has to be in Arizona. It does not mean it has to be in the cheapest land that these data centers can find. So if I hear you correctly, it's that the question of AI's like centrality in our work economy is you're saying that's without question. It's important. And so it's only a choice between whether we proactively tax these data centers or give them a place in our shared economy or focus the more workers rather than what's happening now, which is kind of an untamed while was. I mean, I guess there just feels like such a big gap between the certainty that political groups, you know, tech groups, like I would say kind of elite society has about the centrality of AI and people, right? Like we know that that backlash is driven by a sentiment that folks don't necessarily agree that AI should kind of hold a central place in their lives. Well, because I guess I guess so far hasn't really hasn't they haven't seen the benefit of it. So I mean, I could totally understand that. Right. What they see is their kids, you know, being glued to their phones and then AI lying to them, companies mining their data and selling them. And so, you know, this is something that I think the both policy makers, but also it's upon the AI industry that they need to show what the benefits are. Because right now there is no yet massive skill benefit to society when it comes to AI. We heard Bernie Sanders say to us a couple of weeks back that that was a reason for a moratorium on data centers. Why don't you support a moratorium? Well, number one, because I think that we're we'd fall severely behind. And then we start losing the future wealth, jobs and growth that comes from AI. Number two, I think states need to lead also. There's, you know, when it comes to zoning things of that nature, if we could do that, the federal absolutely should. But like, you know, it is incumbent upon a lot of states to actually understand what's going on. People do have legitimate arguments. They have legitimate rage. There's areas of Phoenix where they're, you know, it's the middle of an urban area, they're going to put a data center all because it's cheap lands. And they think because it's a black and brown area that there's going to have, they're going to have less pushback. They're just going to do it. After the break, we speak to Senator Gallego about the recent allegations concerning Congressman Eric Swalwell and how to eliminate predatory behavior in Washington. And just a quick note, we spoke to Gallego prior to Republican Congresswoman Ana Paulina Luna's formal complaint against him alleging misconduct. A spokesman for Gallego said, quote, these are right wing conspiracies. Support for the show comes from Dell. Remember Dell? Dell PCs with Intel inside are built for the moments you plan still and the ones you don't still there there for those late night study sessions when you get to the cafe and there's no outlets, all that stuff. Dell is built to adapt to you. It's built with long lasting batteries. You're not scrambling for an outlet and built in intelligence that makes updates around your schedule, not in the middle of it. Find technology built for the way you work at Dell.co.uk forward slash Dell PCs built for you. Hi, everyone, Kara Swisher here. We just won the Webby Award for the best interview show in news, business and society. And I've had some great guests on my podcast on with Kara Swisher. Here are some you don't want to miss. Tristan Harris, the co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology. I talked to him about his biggest worry when it comes to development and deployment of AI, Hintint. It has something to do with the CEOs and how they stand to profit. I interviewed documentarian Louis Theroux. His latest documentary, Into the Manusphere, focuses on the incredible and horrifying influence this group of individuals has, especially on young men and boys. And recently I caught up with Katie Couric, Amy Laraca and my brother, Jeff Swisher, to debunk some of the fads and misinformation behind the billion dollar wellness industry. And we talked about the important medical tests that are actually worth your while. All of these conversations are available now. You can find them on YouTube or wherever you get your podcast. And we've got plenty more lined up for the summer. So be sure to subscribe to On With Kara Swisher to catch them all. Well, we haven't practiced this, but if I asked you right now in this moment, let's say, what is it? You know, Spring 2026. Why is it important to support journalism right now? Well, Sean, the world is a little overwhelming at this moment. There is a lot going on. It can be a little scary. It's also kind of beautiful and it's worth explaining. Yeah, I would argue, in addition to that, there's a lot of trash information out there. Like people even want to rely on AI, but AI isn't being fact checked. It's just pulling from a bunch of places. And sometimes you've seen it giving you the wrong information. We fact check our show. You hear at the end of the show every day who fact checks the show. We put a lot of effort into making sure that we are bringing you the most accurate information possible and you can support that effort. That's right. If you believe in the journalism that we do as much as we do, you can become a Vox member. Vox.com slash members 30 percent off. Can you believe it? Let's go. Your first year. Sign up now. Thank you. I don't want to go too much longer without asking about the recent flood of sexual assault allegations against Congressman Eric Swalwell, who had called you his best friend. You chaired his 2020 presidential campaign. You were financially involved in his AI startup. Did you have any knowledge of these allegations of misconduct? Or had you heard rumors of predatory behavior on the Hill? I wanted to ask you directly. Sure. No, no clue, no knowledge of any of the allegations or predatory behavior. That was definitely not what any of us. And look, we've all been having conversations since we're all actually going back. Who do you mean by we? Friends, members of Congress, other supporters, we're all talking to each other to see what did we do wrong? What did we not see? I want to just follow up, though, because it seems as if the scale of the allegations makes that, I guess, causes a gut check on that, because it seems as if this was a known thing among some on the Hill. This seems as if certainly there was a community of women who were organizing around this. You hadn't heard anything about any of that? Not about the allegations we're talking about, the sexual assault, the predatory behavior. You know, there is a culture in DC that is certainly existing. We're not just him, but many other politicians. We heard of someone that being, you know, flirting, but never inappropriate, never predatory, never towards staff and things of that nature. But look, this is the kind of thing that makes all of us relook at what we have been accepting versus not accepting. Part of the reason some of this has come back on you, though, is that you went out of your way to defend Swalwell just this month, writing recently on X that Eric is a fighter, considering now what you know or considering that you saying you heard him maybe having rumors of being flirty. Why proactively defend him? Well, for two reasons, because we had heard this about him, about other politicians for a long time and nothing had ever surfaced. Right. Number two, he exactly knew what to say to me, because I had just gotten off a very hard 2024 campaign where I had some of the worst, you know, things set about me on commercials to tens of millions of dollars that my kids have to see and they, they and some of his staff push that button on me. And it was a mistake. I mean, without a doubt, it was a mistake. Let's be clear. And knowing now everything I know, I would never have done it, but knowing now everything I know, especially of the sexual sexual predatory, we would not have had the relationship that we had. There has been some that have said that this is also a question of your judgment. I wanted you to respond to that. I mean, you've been kind of openly embracing the question of a 2028 race. What do you say to someone who said, who looks at this situation and causes that to question you? To me, a hundred percent as you, I am more human first than a politician. And my judgment was off because of many reasons. But number one, because I knew this man as a family on first. We weren't just work colleagues. Our families ate dinner together. Our kids were in camps together. And I have to learn from this and I will learn from this. But, you know, for me, it's not a 2028 question. It's about what it means to be a better first boss in my office and also a better senator to my constituents. I was reading some 2025 texts of yours that were leaked and in them, you complained them about, quote, Democrats not allowing men to be men or women to be hot. You were you lamented that Democrats, said, quote, are the not fun party and no longer embody things like sex, drugs and rock and roll. I also recently read a report that you use the F word, the most out of any senator by a wide margin. If I put those two things together, is there something of like a bro-iness or something that I feel like is a connective tissue in your brand of politics? Or why is it necessary to communicate in that way? It's not. It's just how I communicate. It's just you. You are. Like I, I'm, yes, I went to Harvard, but most of my real collective experience is being in the Marines and, and, you know, and growing up in the South side of Chicago, like, and every, yeah, at every park, post-nuclear park, back of the yards, I was always surrounded by working class people, right? And working class people, you know, we are rough around the edges. And I think I am representing, I think I'm, you know, just factually, just being who I am. But it doesn't mean, again, that, that, you know, as a human, we should obviously try to improve. And that's what I'm going to try to do. Yeah. I mean, I asked the questions, but I know there's been a big talk in democratic politics about the need for authenticity. So, you know, it does feel as if, like, I'm not asking folks to not be who they are, not think that that's something an elected official shouldn't have space to do. I was just wondering about if we, if there's any, like, reflection about what that means, particularly, you know, as the question of masculinity and its place in democratic politics has become more prominent. There needs to be a way to be masculine without being, you know, what people would consider toxic. And I think there has to be a way for Democrats to understand that, you know, men can be part of our coalition. We need to talk to them as like we want you part of our coalition. A lot of times we deemphasize men in the democratic brand and the democratic coalition. And, you know, I think there's a way, and this is really talking from my experience running for Senate and running for Congress, where we can, you know, make sure that, you know, women feel that they are protecting our community, that we are, as Democrats, that we are looking out for, you know, the status when it comes to rights, economics, growing the economics, things of that nature, and still also be to do the same thing with men. I don't think there is any, I don't think they conflate each other or they counteract each other. When you talk to an everyday Latino or African American, even woman, and you tell them like, you know, I'm going to make sure you have great wages, you know, I want to make sure that, you know, we take care of, you know, maternal deaths, you know, bringing them down. And then you ask him like, and I want to make sure that, you know, young men, especially young black men, young human men, they're not doing well statistically speaking, have an opportunity and they feel, you know, that they're part of our society. They don't see that as like, well, you are deemphasizing me. For some reason, the voters don't see it. For some reason, when it gets kind of up to the top policy level, a consultant level, that doesn't happen. And like, you know, some of it's like very simple stuff. I remember talking after I won my 2024 election, some Democrats asked me, how did you do so well with the mail vote? And I said, look, we did some things that were specifically designed to get the mail vote out, to reach out to them. And, you know, like, do you have any ideas? And I, you know, for this one politician, I'm like, yeah, you know, Father's Day is coming up, you should have a Father's Day appreciation branch all around your district. And that one politician will swing district, I don't think I can do that. I'm like, why can't you do that? I don't understand that. You say, oh, I'll get hit from the left of you. I'm like, I don't think that's true. I think that's true. Yeah. I think you think that's true. And I think there's people around you that are worried about this mythological left that's coming to hit you, but it's not true. And there's this certain over level of self policing that is creating this environment where we're not reaching out to to men, and not just, you know, black and Latino men, but we don't even approach white men anymore. And I think we if we're going to have a national party, if we're going to be able to win in places that we need to win in order for us to even have a chance to ever have the majority again, we had to feel comfortable also reaching out to, you know, white men within our own values, but but not just be afraid. You know, I too necessarily think that there aren't necessarily spaces, particularly in politics where we talk to men directly and things like that. But sometimes I think there's a difficulty there because the things that men can bond on can sometimes feel like they don't necessarily seem or look like democratic values, right? Like that, you know, what's bonding men could be things that are semi-misogynistic or semi-violent or semi all of those things, even in things like sports culture or things like that. Can Democrats create a space that encourages men to come in while retaining their values, you know what I'm saying? Or is the bond between men itself at odds with those values? I think if you're a Democrat, you can't actually go and have those conversations and be authentic enough to actually, you know, create that bond, especially if you have to be misogynistic. It's not going to happen, right? If it's not in you, it's not in you, nor should you be a Democrat if you're misogynistic. Yeah. Number one. Number two, you do have to accept that they're not going to be perfect. You as a politician need to be near as perfect as possible, right? You have to be able to, you know, hold your values and still be able to communicate on the areas that you have agreement with. Where are those bonds? So like I do find the bonds over sports, but sports that I particularly love, you know, for example, boxing is a big thing for me. And when I go to the boxing gen, when I go to the boxing tournaments, I, you know, hosted a boxing tournament recently, I don't talk politics, right? I'm just there. And a lot of why I do that is, number one, because I love boxing, but I think the reason it's effective is because the voter doesn't just see me as this elite elected official because the fact that I'm there with them, right? And I think that that still can happen. I think Democrats, when they feel authentically, you know, excited about any type of sport should go in sports, go to sports, right? I get what you're saying, that there's a way that like, if you just show up to it as yourself, then, and you don't ask that voter to check off every box on the list, then you're doing that work out of it. Don't overthink this. And also, but don't do it, don't do it in a campaign season. It also comes off as an authentic New York just like, like, oh, the sudden I'm really into like, you know, the NBA playoffs and like, you've never talked about the NBA playoffs. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I could certainly feel it when a politician feels like they're dipping into something as a means of outreach or all of a sudden when they all become Iowa fans at March Madness. I'm like, who's buying that? Well, nobody, that's the problem. If you look at, you know, down trip goes UFC fights, because I think he actually does like UFC fights, right? But he also uses, use that smartly to get into the, the streams of a lot of men that were basically not following politics. You know, he did it just recently in the middle of a war, he goes, so you have a UFC fight with Marco Rubio and sits down and does it and does it for two reasons. Number one, he knows his numbers are lagging with Latinos horribly with Latino men, especially, what are they watching right now? It's not CNN. It's not even seeing a Spaniard. Sorry, seeing a Spaniard. I love you guys, but this is happening right now. Yeah. But they are watching UFC, but that's definitely the thought process. Yeah. I wanted to end kind of thinking about something that you've talked about openly, which is a decision process about thinking about run for president about 2028. I referenced it a little bit earlier. You just got to the Senate in 2024. I wanted to know how did you go from that point of that arrival to getting to this type of open decision making process? What was it in those steps in the way that made you say, Hey, maybe I should take a step up here? Well, number one, he's like, again, had many decisions and, and we're very far from any decisions. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The most important thing, consequential thing right now is that we need to win elections, right? Democrats, we need to both win in 2026 and 2028 really to, and hold, to be able to change the direction of this country. And the direction of this country is not going to be going well if we are stuck with Republicans in power or being able to obstruct, because they're still going to have control over the Supreme Court. They could still have, you know, a lot of strength within the Senate, even if we take out the House and have the White House. I get that. But I'm saying the question of what is the unique lane and unique voice that you think you're bringing to that discussion that can't be replicated maybe by others around you. Do you think there's one? Well, I certainly think that I have a unique lane, especially when it's coming to working class people, Latinos, you know, veterans, can other people replicate that? Maybe that's why you have all these years to figure that out. That's why we have campaigns and stuff like that. I don't think, yeah, I'm certainly not naive or consider enough to think that I am the only person that could win this, right? That's not how the world works. We certainly will make a decision, first of all, based on my family situation, but secondly, based on, you know, do I fill a particular niche that can't be filled by someone else that can assure victory for the Democratic Party? I've always wondered about those family talks. Like you mentioned your children, how old are your children? Nine, almost three and 10 months. I can't imagine, you know, being those age and my parents, it's down and says, hey, you think I should represent that or not? You talk to your wife. No, you're talking to your wife. Because, and look, I just got off a campaign where, you know, my poor wife started the campaign pregnant and ended the campaign pregnant with two different kids. That's how long the campaign was. And they're the ones that actually shoulder the burden of this. And so you first have to talk to them. And then you also have to make decisions about what are you willing to give up? And when I say what you're willing to give up is when you have young kids, you're giving up some memories that may not bother them, but it will bother you. And, you know, if you're thinking about what do you want to remember on your death bed, it's not going to a rally. It's not going to a fundraising dinner. It's like, I got to see my kids recital. I got to go to my kids, you know, literally game. I got to take my kids on vacation, not be bothered by people around me or anything else like that. You know, for someone like me, it does bother me. Like I grew up without a dad. And I kind of want to have the, still have the full experience of being a dad. Senator Gallego, thank you so much for joining us. Yeah, thanks for your time. Del, remember Del? Del PCs with Indian music. Del, remember Del? Del PCs with Indian music. Del, remember Del? Del PCs with Indian music. Del, remember Del? Del PCs with Indian music. Del, remember Del? Del PCs with Indian music. Del, remember Del? Del PCs with Indian music. Del, remember Del? Del PCs with Indian music. Del, remember Del? Del PCs with Indian music. Del, remember Del? Del PCs with Indian music. Del, remember Del? Del PCs with Indian music. Del, remember Del? Del PCs with Indian music. Del, remember Del? Del PCs with Indian music. Del, remember Del? Del PCs with Indian music. Del, remember Del? Del PCs with Intel inside are built for the moments you plan. Still, and the ones you don't, still. They're there for those late night study sessions when you get to the cafe and there's no outlets. All that stuff. Del is built to adapt to you. It's built with long lasting batteries. You're not scrambling for an outlet and built in intelligence that makes updates around your schedule. Not in the middle of it. Find technology built for the way you work at del.co.uk forward slash del.pcs. Built for you.