Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt (R) & San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria (D)

Across America, Google AI is transforming how the public sector serves you. Imagine shorter wait times for government services, healthcare signups made simple through rapid AI verification, and smoother commutes on AI-powered transportation systems operating around the clock. From boosting staff efficiency to securing the infrastructure that keeps us safe, Google AI is delivering real results for communities nationwide. Explore additional success stories at publicsector.google.com. Welcome to Ceasefire, where we seek to bridge the divide in American politics. I'm Dasha Burns, Politico White House Bureau Chief, and joining me now on either side of the desk, two guests who have agreed to keep the conversation civil even when they disagree. President of the United States Conference of Mayors, Oklahoma City, Republican Mayor David Holt, and Vice President of that same organization, San Diego Democratic Mayor Todd Gloria. Thank you both so much for joining me. Mayor Gloria, you are the mayor of my hometown, San Diego. I grew up up in North County in Oceanside, so very good to have someone from home here on set with me. We're very proud of you. And as I told you, Oklahoma City, best steak I've ever had, so thank you. Has to be expected. Thank you for reminding me of one of my favorite meals. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. You are here right now for the U.S. Conference of Mayors, holding its winter meetings here in D.C. Let's just start with that organization because clearly it is bipartisan. You're both here. A number of conversations happening across the aisle at this conference right now. What is the role of this organization? Well, we're a nearly 100-year-old organization. As you mentioned, it's nonpartisan. and we have Republican, Democratic, and independent mayors that work together to advocate at the national level for America's cities. And we've been doing it for a very long time, and we've had tremendous success. This is a challenging time in which to do these jobs, and we need the partnership of fellow mayors and our federal partners to hopefully make progress on things that Americans care about. Tell me about your working relationship. I hear he has visited your fair city. Yeah, right. Well, you know, we kind of chuckled and looked at each other when you said they've agreed to be civil during this conversation. because we're great friends, and that really is universal across the organization. We are very bipartisan and not in a forced and authentic way. I mean, we, and now I think in contrast to what's happening at the state and federal level, I think we're even more sort of proud and protective of that bipartisanship and that support we give each other. So yeah, no, we're great friends. Yeah, it's interesting to see this hub of bipartisan folks from across the country in the middle of a city that right now is full of people at the federal level who might not always have that kind of working relationship. What is the top agenda item for the mayors right now? Well, under our president's leadership, we have had a number of issues, but I think the top of mind generally has been the issue of housing, particularly as it relates to affordability for Americans all across the country, not just in coastal cities like mine, but even in middle of the country, cities like Mayor Holtz. I think it's also obvious that right now one of our colleagues, or many of our colleagues in Minnesota, are dealing with the issue of immigration. And so we usually have a combination of the stuff that is in the headlines today along with the stuff that we typically advocate for, and things like public safety and making sure that our cities are safe, as well as more infrastructure investments. And I'm proud of what our organization has been able to accomplish, but obviously we always have the challenges of the day. Yeah, and we'll get into some of those News of Day questions, but I do want to ask about that sometimes disconnect, because I've seen it as I've been traveling across the country, between the federal government and then the state and local government and the issues that really matter to your constituents. Do you have a relationship with Washington, and how hard is it sometimes to remind the folks kind of here in the bubble of what is actually going on in your cities? Well, we all generally are going to have relationships with our congressional delegation. Some better than others, I guess, but we're always talking to our members of Congress in the House and the Senate. And then as an organization, we try to advocate. And so that might occasionally put people like us in officer positions in the offices of people who do not represent our states, but we're sort of speaking for all mayors, to people who may have certain key leadership or committee positions that are relevant to us. For example, Mayor Gloria was on the Hill Tuesday. I would have been there if not for the weather. I got here as fast as I could. He was on the Hill Tuesday meeting with a senator from Ohio, right, to talk about housing. We've also, last fall, a bunch of us came up here and met with senators and House members who are working on the housing issue. So, yeah, I mean, I think we do our best. I will say, I mean, maybe to your point about disconnect, though, you know, we generally run in systems, not always, but most of our mayors run in systems where we face all the voters. So I think it lends itself to being very representative of our entire city. And the people who come to Washington generally, not all, but generally run through closed partisan primaries. And so it does sort of have the tendency at both ends of the spectrum, on both sides of the aisle, to sort of pull them off into the weeds of somewhat strange issues, where it's like our electorate wants us to stay focused on what really matters, those kitchen table issues. You know, whereas, yeah, I fully recognize I see the other TV stations that maybe don't do handle things as seriously as you do really, you know, give a lot of airtime to that sort of entertainment nonsense, you know, arguing about stuff that really isn't very important to people's day to day. but is maybe important to fringes of the political spectrum that unfortunately have sort of an outsized voice in a lot of these elections, whereas I think the middle 70% is who elects mayors, and the middle 70% may be registered differently but can find a way to work together, much like Todd and I do. Well, thank you for that advertisement for Steve Fire. We appreciate that. Mayor Gloria, what about the White House? Is there a relationship between the organization and this administration? Well, I would say that it's not as close as what we've seen in previous administrations. I think that the benefit of the conference is when we're able to engage with our congressional partners as well as those in the federal administration, we get big things done. And I'd point you to the bipartisan infrastructure law. The U.S. Conference of Mayors had a very heavy hand in the formation of that piece of legislation, taking it from a theory that we're going to make a generational investment in our nation's infrastructure to actually making it law. And that effort is still paying off in David's city, in my city, cities all across America. So that is us at our best. But that requires a level of communication that candidly exceeds what we currently are experiencing. But our door is always open to really anyone who's looking to make progress. And I don't believe that we can make the nationwide impact that we want on things like housing, public safety, and others without the full-fledged partnership of the federal government, all branches working together. Again, when we do that, big things get done. we'd like to get more things done. I do want to talk about one city that has had a spotlight on it for the last week. Obviously, America's keeping a close eye on what's going on in Minneapolis in the wake of the killing of protester Alex Preddy. Your organization put out a statement pretty quickly afterwards saying, as American mayor is representing cities large and small, Republican, Democratic, and Independent, we state today with a united voice that this turmoil must come to an end. No American, regardless of their views on immigration, wishes for our country to continue to endure this unnecessary conflict. Why was it important to put that message out, and how did you all sort of collectively communicate and come to it so quickly? Yeah, well, this was in the wake of what happened on Saturday, and, you know, we're in great communication, especially at sort of the leadership level of the mayors. We have 500 members, so we can't always, like, have a discussion that includes everybody, but we have an executive We got an executive committee. And so, you know, there's about 20 mayors there who are Republicans, Democrats and independents. And, you know, it was pretty evident within minutes or certainly hours that we needed to speak, that this had reached. And we'd spoken before, but like that this was a moment where we really needed to be strong. And, you know, incidentally, we weren't obviously necessarily in communication with all these other organizations that are kind of like ours or all these elected officials around the country. But it was interesting how, as the day proceeded, everybody was kind of saying the same thing. And really, across the partisan spectrum, you were seeing Republican prominent elected officials saying sentiments that were not very different from that, that something had to change, that this is unsustainable. And so, yeah, I mean, that's kind of what we do. And it was certainly a moment that called for that type of statesmanship. And we certainly always want to be answering that call. I want to play for you guys what Mayor Fry said on Thursday when he was addressing the mayor's conference about what's going on in his city. You know, I didn't take this job to get into the business of defending democracy. I did it because being a mayor has always been my dream job. There's great honor in filling potholes. It is noble to keep people safe and to build affordable housing. That work which we do every single day is foundational to the principles of our republic, and all the same, we find ourselves in a different position right now. We are on the front lines of a very important battle. And it's important that we aren't silenced, that we aren't put down. This is not a time to bend our heads in despair or out of fear that we may be next, because if we do not speak up, if we do not step out, it will be your city that is next. Mayor Gloria, does that message from Mayor Fry resonate? Absolutely. I love my job. I'm a third generation San Diegan. It's my dream come true to lead my hometown. And I did get into it for the same reasons he mentioned. I think infrastructure is sexy. I love working on housing issues and whatnot. Word up with the trash cans. That also, another time of another show. I, too, am very passionate about trash gets good. It does resonate what he's saying because, you know, we've had to lead during a pandemic, increasing these nationalized issues that are being brought to mayors. And I hope that the role that we can play, particularly through the conference, is bringing a practical, a political approach to these issues. And I think that's what's frustrating about what is happening is not only is there all this chaos in our communities at a time when mayors have worked hard to drive down crime rates in our cities, but we also don't see any discussion of the actual solution to our immigration problems, which is a comprehensive solution that would change the policies such that we don't have the need for undocumented folks so that they can find a way into this country that's legal and sanctioned. So I hear what he's saying, and I think one of the things about being mayor is that you're often the personification of your city. And I think in this moment, Mayor Frye has had to give voice to the frustrations and the anger and whatnot, and by doing so, I'd like to think that he's helped to maintain what is already a very volatile situation. I think when we can express how our people are feeling, it's one way to help try and keep the peace and move things forward. And there are some indications things are getting better there, and I'm hopeful we stand with him and support him in the way that we would support all of our member mayors. Mayor Holt, you spoke to my colleagues over at Politico, and you said, we're all sort of feeling the angst of our residents and the fear that our city will be next, and that chaos is going to inevitably creep across the entire country. Tell me more about that. Well, I think that's a reference, obviously, to this sort of unprecedented strategy and the tactics that are being used in Minneapolis. And maybe to provide a greater context, I remind people of a very simple history that's not all that unusual, not all that forgotten. But, you know, we have been enforcing in this country immigration laws for over a century. ICE has been around for over 20 years. but this is the first time that it has led to the enforcement in our cities has led to this type of turmoil and so you know what we want to see is I don't think anybody really expects or thinks that we shouldn't have immigration enforcement in this country what we want is a professional law enforcement operation that's collaborating with and communicating with with local police and is using best practices. All of the things that we've learned in recent decades about law enforcement have been like thrown out the window in Minneapolis. We had great comments from one of our colleagues who was a police chief who is now mayor of Fresno, Jerry Dyer. And he was saying like, I haven't seen, you know, he's watching these videos of what's happening. He's like, I haven't seen police act like that in 30 years. Like that's not what we learned not to do that kind of stuff a long time ago. But the federal law enforcement agency ICE is giving sort of all local law enforcement around the country a bad name. So we're just seeing all that, and we're thinking, how long is this going to go on? Is it going to eventually spread to all our cities? And that's the sentiment I think expressed in that comment. I mean, to that point, you're a Republican. You're in a red state, supportive of law enforcement. But in this moment, what is your message to the administration? It's that, again, there's always people at the extremes, but the vast majority of Americans understand and there has to be immigration enforcement in this country. We want to get back to some level of normality in how that is done. And that's not necessarily a comment on the numbers or all of that kind of thing, but this isn't it. And I'm not an expert in immigration law enforcement, nor am I an expert in law enforcement. As mayors, we're sort of just jack-of-all-trades, master of none. But I know that, and we all know, really all Americans at this point know, that what we're witnessing in Minneapolis, that isn't it. So try something else. take a pause, create a new strategy. And, you know, I understand that the overall goals in many ways of this administration on immigration enforcement are not going to dramatically shift, but the tactics, the way it's being done in Minneapolis is absolute chaos. And it's literally like tearing, actually, I hate the overuse of literally. It's not literally tearing our country apart, but it is tearing. Figuratively tearing our country apart. Figuratively tearing our country apart. Mayor Gloria, you know, San Diego is no stranger to ICE, to CBP, to fights over immigration What has the experience been in your local community Well you have it exactly right Dasha We are familiar with this We the biggest border city in the United States and so we very familiar with immigration enforcement We see the limitations of our current laws and know that we can do better. That said, what is happening on the streets of San Diego, and I think from talking to my colleagues in the conference across our country, is not what we have seen historically. This is much more aggressive. It seems less bound by rules and certainly doesn't reflect the very best of law enforcement. And I want to echo what David was saying. We work very hard to build trust in neighborhoods in order to reduce crime. And I believe that this trust is being lost because of what Americans are seeing on their televisions and on their phones in Minneapolis. And when this has ended, and it seems like there's some indication this may be changing, and that's good, the fact of the matter is it's going to be mayors across this country that are cleaning up the mess that is left behind or having to go back and rebuild that trust in order to, again, maintain peace and stability in our neighborhoods. So you see, that's why I think our conference spoke out so clearly on what happened in Minneapolis, because we know the dangers of not being able to protect our residents. That comes from the fact that you have distrust of law enforcement. We've worked very hard to implement reforms. They have worked. Crimes are at historic lows. But I'm afraid that what we've seen these last couple of weeks will be spent will be felt for years to come. and it will be mayors are the ones that are having to fix it. I mean, what do you think is the role of mayors when ICE comes into a city? Because the president, even in the wake of all this, has said that this will be happening, not what happened in Minneapolis, but that ICE and DHS is going to be coming in to cities across the country. We've already seen it in a number of places. What is the role of a mayor in that context? Well, I will say what I believe my residents expected from this administration, based on what it ran on was that you'd be focused on criminal folks who need to be removed. That is not what is happening. So I think if there was an alignment on that, I don't believe there's a mayor in America that would say, no, please, let's keep someone who's a convicted criminal here. So that part. With regard to what mayors can do, you know, in California, we're very clear. The California Values Act says that local law enforcement will not be assisting in immigration enforcement. But because of the chaos that is happening across our country, including my city, what we do is perform trying to maintain the peace so that these interactions don't get out of hand. And that gets confusing to residents. And this is, again, why that trust may be eroded. When our officers respond, and what typically that looks like is ISIS performing an operation, it gets out of hand, residents and protesters and other folks start surrounding, and you have a fight, it's San Diego Police Department that's coming in and trying to restore order. allow immigration to do what they're doing because they are there to do that, but to keep other residents safe. And that adds to the confusion and therefore is creating a trust issue that my chief and I are working very hard to try and maintain. It's more work on top of all the work that we're already doing of Phil and Powell's picking up garbage and trying to keep the city moving forward. But I think our role generally right now is to try and maintain peace and then do what Dave and I are doing, which is advocating at the national level for policies that make more sense that will help support cities and protect communities. Mayor Holt, obviously Oklahoma is not California. Oklahoma City is not San Diego. But how is this playing out in your community? Well, you know, probably the hottest issue in my city over the last couple of weeks was ICE and DHS looking at acquiring a warehouse that they were going to open a detention center at. And so this was sort of pretty, pretty top of mind for me and my community just in these recent days. So even as we're having these conversations about the national situation in Minneapolis, I'm almost constantly following what's going on back home and working on it. And actually, we were able to at least resolve that particular site. The owner of the warehouse has ended the conversation with DHS. And you came out in support of that. You think it's the right move not to allow DHS to open that facility? Right, because, I mean, in our case, and both of the things you've just asked us about, get back to a bedrock principle of American law that's probably worth mentioning here, and that is the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. So it means that his officers aren't going to be able to arrest ICE agents. It means that my planning commission is never going to see an application from DHS for the detention center, you know, no matter where it is. Literally, no matter where it is. We put it right next to a school, right? They will never ask for our permission for a building permit or a zoning approval. This is very complicating for us because people think that the city government should have some sort of mastery over the affairs within its borders. And we don't when it comes to the federal government, whether it's law enforcement actions or whether it's land use. And so my view, of course, is still, of course, I believe in the rule of law. I understand the Constitution and I respect it. But especially on a land use question, you know, to me, that's kind of apolitical because you could you could be for all kinds of things in principle, but you don't think necessarily that they should happen right here. You know, I mean, I really like the steakhouse that you had that meal at. I don't think it should operate in my backyard. There's a time and a place for everything. And this detention center should have received, should receive the type of local approval process and public discussion that all land use does. I understand why it won't, but at least now we have stopped this and we can continue to maybe communicate to our property owners in Oklahoma City that doing this type of transaction with the federal government will mean that there won't be any public process around this. And that's not the way things should work on a land use question. and a high-impact use, especially like a detention center. I mean, that's one of the highest-impact uses that exists in the zoning code, right? So I hope that we can – I understand that federal government operations have to exist, but, you know, if they're going to put a high-impact use in an urbanized area like Oklahoma City, they really need to think twice. There are other options. I mean, overall with this issue, do you think that there is too much federal overreach here? Because that's kind of what I'm hearing, this push and pull between federal, state, local, Has the administration gone too far in stepping into these communities? Sure. I mean, in any situation, those who have almost unchecked absolute power should obviously use discretion. And we're not seeing that on any number of levels here right now. Because of the supremacy clause, we're a little powerless on a lot of fronts. And yet somehow the country has worked for the last 250 years. So maybe it doesn't have to be this dysfunctional. maybe there is a way for the federal government to show a little restraint and a little discretion in the use of its power. Mary Gloria, one of the arguments from the Trump administration has been that state and local leadership in Minnesota and Minneapolis has been using rhetoric to fire people up, to get people angrier at ICE and at other federal agents, and that is part of the cocktail that has created the sort of pressure cooker. What do you make of that argument? And should state and local officials be more careful with their rhetoric? I think we all should be very careful with our rhetoric. And actually, this is something that Mayor Holt has helped lead with the Oklahoma Declaration that he authored, that the conference endorsed earlier this year to try and talk about civility and work choice and how you comport yourself in difficult issues. I think mayors model a lot of that behavior, and the Oklahoma City Declaration really enshrines that. So, yeah, I do think that we can always choose our words wisely and try not to engage in what has essentially become a rage machine where we know what gets more clicks and tweets and views are typically things that make you angry, and we don't necessarily need to engage in that. And, frankly, mayors typically try to avoid that because I'm not as mad as anybody about a pothole, but I'm not going to rage tweet about it. I probably would rage tweet about a pothole. But I push back on the suggestion that it is mayors and governors that are causing this situation. What they are doing is reacting to what is happening within their jurisdictions. And as I mentioned before, it is often the case that people come to us in this job and say, speak out on our behalf. We chose you to lead this city, and we need you to say something. And when you have something as horrific as having two of your residents killed by federal agents, it's going to elicit a reaction. I think in every case, mayors and governors have not acted out violently, and I think their words are often emblematic or reflective of what they're seeing in their community. And I do think there is a pressure valve behind that. I think if the general populace sees your leader saying, like, this is okay, everything's on fire but nothing to see here, that's not going to go over well. I think that many of our colleagues are being pushed into very, very difficult situations, and they're doing their absolute best to navigate it. The true solution comes from a retreat from this posture of a really violent approach to immigration enforcement and going back to what I have seen historically in my own city. Immigration has done detentions and apprehensions for decades. It has not looked like this before. Speaking of state and local leader responses, I want you to take a listen to your governor, Governor Kevin Stitt. We believe in federalism and state rights and nobody likes feds coming into their state. And so what's the goal right now? Is it to deport every single non-U.S. citizen? I don't think that's what Americans want. We have to stop politicizing this. So are you saying that they should pull out of Minnesota? Well, I think that the president has to answer that question. He is a dealmaker, and he's getting bad advice right now. The president needs to let the American people, what is the solution? How do we bring this to conclusion? And I think only the president can answer that question because it's complicated. We have to enforce federal laws, but we need to know what is the end game. Mayor Holt, do you agree with Governor Stitt there? I think across the board. I don't know what else to add. I mean, it is fascinating to me that on this issue of immigration that the president ran on, it was a huge reason for why so many people decided to support him. It's historically been an issue that has been better for Republicans than for Democrats and hasn't necessarily been an issue where you've seen a lot of bipartisanship, suddenly there seems to be some unity at the edges of this topic that has been traditionally divisive. I'm seeing that. I'm hopeful that actually results in something. I mean, we can't just keep going on like this. We've had functional immigration systems in the past. We don't have one currently, and that's what's causing this problem. And I think what the governor was saying is spot on in the sense, what is this all about? I don't have understanding that there's anyone in Minneapolis that requires this sort of militarized approach to get them to deport. And it seemingly, and I know my own city, we're talking about people whose only crime is the way that they came to this country or the fact they overstayed on a visa. That doesn't seem to warrant people in military fatigues with assault weapons and resulting in people being killed. What do you think about that, Mayor Holt? What? what your friend across the aisle is saying there, the militarization of these operations. Yeah, well, let me say what the root of all that is. Because I was contemplating what Governor Stitt said there, and here's the thing, and what you said about the last election, here's the thing. Immigration enforcement could maybe be categorized into three buckets. Securing the border, arresting and deporting people with criminal records that are in addition to their undocumented status, and then arresting and deporting people who have no criminal record. And there is wide agreement, both at the time of the election and probably even today, that seems to have helped the president win this election, that we should secure the border and that we should arrest and deport people with criminal records. So it's requiring this militaristic attitude to take it to that third bucket, to start trying to deport the millions and millions of people who are here in an undocumented status but have never committed a crime. That does not seem to have a lot of public support. In fact, as you said, it seems to have bipartisan support now towards the opposite direction, and it's eroding the support for the president's immigration policies on the other two things that probably are still of a pretty broad consensus around them. So I think maybe that's what's finally playing out this week and why there may be as a pause as people are starting to understand that not every single thing you could possibly do in regards to immigration enforcement actually is as popular as that issue might have seemed in the last election. Before I let you guys go, I do want to talk about affordability, because as we all know, that is something on the minds. You already mentioned it of almost every American. How much are people talking about this in your cities? And what is the sort of top challenge with cost of living for your constituents, Mary Gloria? Well, surely your viewers experience this too. The number one consumer of your household income is your housing, right? And we have millions of units short nationally, a housing deficit. Every city must be endeavoring to do what they can to increase housing production. In my city, we've been successful in more than doubling our annual housing production, which is helping to lead to flattening and, in some cases, reduction in rents. Still too high, more work to be done. But I believe that mayors can help lead on this issue, but we could certainly use federal partnership to get that done. And I'm hopeful that that could happen. But from utilities to groceries to gas prices, this is a very top of mind concern. But where I have the most control is on the housing costs, and I'm doing everything I can. And I know that a recent survey of our members said over 80 percent of mayors are working at the local level to increase housing production to reduce costs to Americans. Mayor Holt, you talked to Elizabeth Warren about this, the senator from Massachusetts. Tell me about that. Yeah, so right before that, and this is why we think this issue has traction. Right before she and I took the stage at the conference this week, we also heard a message from her co-author, Republican Senator Tim Scott. And she got on the phone with President Trump about this recently. So what is what is happening in the world? I don't know. But this issue can be bipartisan, really nonpartisan. It's bringing together certainly mayors, but it seems to even be bringing together people on both sides of the aisle in Congress. And as he said you know in my city my voters just approved in October million and an incentive fund for private developers to build more affordable housing We looked at it from the policy issues as well We just passed a thing that allows in Oklahoma City to allow for more accessory dwelling units So we looking at all those angles But as he said hey everybody should do everything they can. So what can the federal government do? And that's where the legislation by Senator Warren and Senator Scott comes in, as well as on the House side, we have a bipartisan legislation as well from Congressman Flood and Congressman Cleaver. and we just, we're for it all. We don't want to get in the middle of House and Senate. You know, that's sometimes more poisonous than bipartisan. So we're not going to get in the middle of that. We're just for all those things, but those bills could definitely help. Not anything that we just talked about is like the silver bullet. So let's do it all. But it is the mayoral answer, I think, for the most part to affordability. I mean, others will tell you different maybe because they have some different ideas or maybe their cities have a little different politics, but I think where we get the most unity is working on housing. Well, I mean, this is, again, a moment where I think what you all see actually boots on the ground talking to your local communities might be a little bit different than what some people here in Washington are focused on. What is your message to the administration as they try to work with Congress to build out an affordability agenda? And what is your message about how to actually have an impact on people's lives, not just have, you know, waive the political victory, but the actual impactful, tangible results for people? Well, I think it has to be seen as a problem. And sometimes it seems that that's not always clear. But it is, in fact, an issue. What do you mean by that? Well, we've heard comments about this term affordability. You know, it is very real. And it shows about the first of every month when people are writing rent checks they can't afford. Right. And exactly as David was saying, we can do our part at the local level, and we should. We shouldn't be asking for federal assistance if we haven't done the work at home. And that means updating your zoning and codes and permit reform, et cetera. But when we've done that with federal partnership, much like the bipartisan infrastructure law, when we align local with federal, big things can get done. And we ought to do that on this. We have our first president who's a developer by profession. This ought to be a no-brainer. And ultimately, it would drive down costs for Americans, and that would accrue to everyone's benefits. I think there's a way to work together on this, but obviously there are multiple distractions that are taking people in other directions, when I think what Americans want is the ability to keep a roof over their head at a price they can afford. Pitch him as the real estate guy. He's the real estate expertise, right? What about you, Mayor Holt? What is your message to the federal government on this? On housing? On affordability, what it is, what it means, what can actually be done for people. I think, well, I mean, obviously there are things happening up here that we, you know, whether it's like the Fed's policies or, you know, I mean, all the, you know, agriculture, the price of eggs. I mean, like that's kind of out of our lane. I think our message is going to be a little bit repetitive, but it is that housing is the thing. And again, it's a really important point. And so maybe it bears repeating. That is the largest single cost in any household budget. So maybe the price of eggs wouldn't be so intimidating to you if you if your housing costs were under control. And you can actually like just on a percentage basis make a much bigger impact there because it is such a large cost out of every monthly paycheck. So I think that's where we're going to stay fixated is seeing if we can get some major housing legislation. And by the way, this Congress, I mean, Congress has not passed a major housing bill really in decades. So this would be historic and hopefully move the needle in conjunction with the efforts we're making. And as he said, you know, we're not only spending bipartisan infrastructure bill dollars in our communities. We're spending our own dollars, too. So that alignment is there for the taking and it could make an impact. All right, gentlemen, that is all the time we have. Oklahoma City Republican Mayor David Holt, San Diego Democratic Mayor Todd Gloria. Thank you both so much for joining me. Pleasure to have you here. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Let's turn now to this week's C-SPAN flashback, where we dig deep into the video archives to show you a moment in political history that's eerily similar to what's happening today. Before his current role as President Trump's boarders are, Tom Homan served in a similar role under the Obama administration. Here's Homan testifying back in 2013 about deporting illegal immigrants. Knowing that we can remove 400,000 aliens, that's what we're staffed for and budgeted for, 400,000. I think a smart way to do that is it going to be the first 400,000 that we encounter, the first 400,000 in the door, I think our policy that focusing on the criminal aliens, those that are threats to national security, I like to think that we can decide who those 400,000 are going to be. The more criminals they are, the safer our communities are. We make a bigger impact, so our policy is clear. Let us decide who that 400,000 is going to be if that's all we can do, and let's make as many of them community safety factors as possible. That makes our community safety. Tom Homan is now in Minneapolis tasked with President Trump with leading a shift in ice operations there. And we've got two political pros from both sides of the aisle to talk about the Trump administration's pivot in immigration enforcement in Minnesota and other top political stories from the week. Republican strategist Matt Gorman, a veteran of three presidential campaigns and former senior advisor to South Carolina Republican Senator Tim Scott, and Democratic strategist Joe Lockhart, former White House press secretary during the Clinton administration. Thank you both so much for being here. Now, I know you both have done the surrogate game. This is your week, your time to be strategists. So take off that surrogate hat for me and you will help explain for our viewers why each of your parties is doing what they are doing. Let's start with what's going on in Minnesota. Borders are Tom Homan. We heard him there talking about deportations under the Obama administration. Joe, did you get any PTSD there? Are you seeing some parallels between what's going on now and what was happening in that year? Well, I mean, I think the difference you see today and maybe starting yesterday is what I call the difference between spin and just outright lies and falsehoods. Before Homan got there, you had people like Stephen Miller and Mr. Bovino and Kristi Noem as the public face of this. And they were saying things that, with our own eyes, we could tell just weren't true. I think with Homan, you have a sense that he understands the political liability here, and he's got a softer, gentler, you know, I think, spinning it. It still remains to be seen, though, what changes, what's different. But I think from a White House perspective, this is an opening for them to address some of the problems. but they're going to have to do it in a serious way. Yeah, Matt, what does sending Tom Homan to Minnesota, what does that actually mean? You know, the thing about Tom Homan is he doesn't look at big burly guy, bald guy, even though the stash isn't around like it was in that old photo. He's much better on his feet and he understands the political game, understands, as Joe pointed, you can call it spin, you can call it public relations. He knows how to present himself better than a lot of people expect, I think, from somebody who looks like him. And candidly, somebody who spent his entire life in law enforcement, he's not a public relations guy for his whole career. So what I was struck by was his willingness to concede ground on this. He talked about it when he entered in. He didn't do any interviews. He couched it as a problem to solve. And one of the things I was struck by talking with folks about a week ago, before the shooting, when Vance went up there, met with Keith Ellison, they were on a path towards de-escalation. Both sides said it was a productive meeting. The contents didn't leak out of it. Obviously, the shooting changed that, at least in the immediate short term. However, I think Holman going up there, it can be on a path of de-escalation. And also, pairing it now with the Senate, whatever the Senate ends up doing, as well as the House on Capitol Hill, they could have a solution for Minneapolis proper and a solution in D.C. and pair it together a little bit. How did the politics change, though, for the White House after the second shooting? I think they really kind of saw the consequences of how some of this stuff had been out in the open for so long. And again, that's why they jettisoned Bovino very, very quickly and put in Homan, who has does have credibility with that bipartisan side. I think they saw the risk of really this spiraling out of control a little bit. And they went to go remedy that. And look, there had been also at the end of last week in conservative press a little bit of dichotomy between Homan and Nome before it really came out of the open over the weekend. And so as that bubbled up to the surface, clearly Homan's side seems to be the side that's quote unquote winning out now within the administration. Yeah, Joe, Matt's giving us the political change for the White House. How did the politics change for Democrats here? Well, I think they've been trying to make a case that there's ice overreach, that the Constitution is being trampled on, and there's outrageous behavior and illegal behavior from the various agencies that the White House controls, not just in Minneapolis, but in Chicago and Los Angeles. Moments like this shooting bring that to life for people and really focus on that. So I think for Democrats, it's a tragedy. It's a tragedy for Democrats and Republicans. But it's shown a light on this in a different way that I think the public looks at it a different way. And, you know, of course, the White House is going to have to. I think the real problem at the White House and within the administration is there's a split there. There are people like Stephen Miller who are pushing this policy as hard as they can with things like quotas. and they've got to get this many people who think this is good politics. And if you look at some of the conservative media, it's still being played that way. And then I think there are others that are looking at this more from a perspective of midterm elections, where independents are, what's going, how Republicans are going to have to carry the burden of this, who are sort of taking the view that putting Hohman out there is a way to soften what they're doing. So, you know, I don't think this is resolved yet. I don't know that there's very few fights in the White House that Stephen Miller loses. So I'll leave it there. Yeah, Matt, I mean, look, the politics of this in a midterm year, that's really going to matter for Republicans. How much do you think this is going to play into midterm strategy? I mean, immigration is an issue. I talked about this with our last guest, that the president in part won on, right? Americans did not like what the Biden administration was doing and loved Trump's message on the border. He closed the border. And now the very issue that was such a rallying cry for the Republican Party is maybe becoming a bit of a liability. Well, I'm a little hesitant to say that in January, late January, something that is going to affect November. The one thing we do know, according to all the polls, the economy is the number one issue around both sides, right? So there's opportunity costs on both sides if you're going to divert from the economy when voters are telling you, hey, the economy, the economy, the economy is the number one message. I think also, too, there's a little bit, I think, what you saw with Homan today, or a little bit earlier with his press conference was talking about putting it back about sanctuary cities and that framing, getting back on that message for Republicans is far more fruitful than going and debating the ICE tactics. I think that was what they're trying to put behind them, certainly with Holman talking about how they're looking at solutions and whether or not you can get, again, some sort of agreement on detainers for violent felonies or people with that. Do you think it would be smart in this moment for Republicans and the White House to come to some real agreements with Democrats on policies around ICE? I think yes, certainly, because it seems like you need that to keep the government open. But I'm talking also on Minneapolis proper, right? Because I think it's very helpful for us as a party when you hear Jacob Frey saying we're not going to comply with federal immigration law. That is the type of rhetoric that got them Democrats there in the first place. So if we can fight on that ground, that is far more fruitful for us than on ICE tactics. I think, again, Homan talking about the ability for ICE agents to go to one-on-one in jails, pick up people that have felonies against them. That is a far more stronger argument for our side and one we want to fight on with Democrats. Joe, what do you think about what Matt is saying and where should Democrats try to drive this conversation? You know, I don't disagree. And I think the polls back up that it's a much cleaner debate along partisan lines when you talk about things like sanctuary cities and overall immigration policy and immigration law. But all of that gets drowned out when you have people being shot on the street and people aren't interested any longer in having a reasonable conversation. They want to have a conversation that's quite extreme, that wants to eliminate the behavior that's come to that. So I think there's still a debate to be had on that. As far as the midterms go, I agree with Matt that the economy is the number one issue. I think it'll be the number one issue on Election Day. But I think the troubling part for Republicans, if you look at the polls, immigration remains a big issue, and there's been a huge shift among independents. Democrats have stayed about where they were. Republicans, there's been some leakage of support, but they're still in the 80 percent supporting the president. independents are now 70 plus percent against what the president's doing. And, you know, by and large, you know, they decide elections in this country. So I think that's the troubling part for Republicans. But where the economy is on Election Day, you know, I think will remain the big issue. I to the point that Joe was making there we are seeing a lot of Republicans now office holders I had a Republican mayor sitting here who have been pushing back on ICE tactics I mean is the White House is the GOP feeling some heat over this right now? It seems like they are, and they think they've responded to that, right? That's why they sent home enough. That's why you saw a different message, right? And it didn't take the mayor of Oklahoma City for that, I think, to realize that. They saw it over the weekend. And I think, look, they see the same polls I think we see. Now, again, we can argue and whether or not it's going to be the defining issue of the midterms. I don't think it necessarily will be. I think it could, you know, we'll see how this plays out in Minneapolis and other cities across the country and whether they can get back on their front foot talking about sanctuary cities versus ICE tactics. But again, I think that certainly they understood it. And I think one of the other things, too, is, you know, when you have John Thune on the floor of the Senate or Tom Tillis talking about it, even though it's one person saying, you know, again, Tom Tillis speaking out against it, the Senate's a collegial body. So one person might be speaking, but might have a few others of people informing it. So I wouldn't have been surprised if he was hearing similar things from people who were a little quieter. You saw that on the Democratic side last couple of years around the filibuster with Manchin and Sinema saying there's people behind us that don't want to say anything that actually feel the same way we do. So I think certainly Republicans felt some skittishness. But I will say this, too. Separating the wheat from the chaff, when I was working on this at the NRC in 2018, you're always going to have a little bit of bedwetters. A host of issues when their name's in the ballot and the president isn't. It's figuring out, OK, what is real and what isn't and deciding how to go about that and separate that. Joe, are there some dangers for Democrats here? I mean, you know, some members of the progressive wing have been calling for abolishing ICE. Is there danger of Democrats falling into the same trap now that they did in years past when they went a little bit too far to the left on these issues? If you're not worried about danger in politics, you're quickly in another business. So, of course, there's danger. And I think the rhetoric here is important, and that as far as the leaders in the party, we make sure that we can balance the anger with changing the policy. So getting rid of something completely is not the right answer. There's still immigration laws to be implemented in this country. You know, the president may have four or five pictures every day of the worst of the worst, but there are some people who they're criminals that should be sent home. The problem right now is we're not distinguishing between them. We're not even distinguishing between people who are here illegally and U.S. citizens. So that's the problem. But I think Democrats do need to be careful to make sure that they continue to make the case that these tactics are wrong. But there is a need in this country to make sure that people that are dangerous are and are at the front of the line, as Mr. Holman said, the very front of the line of people who are returned home. There's been some speculation about the future of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. Axios writes, quote, any early comments. This was about the blame game in the aftermath. Stephen Miller told Axios any early comments made were based on information sent to the White House through CBP. Kristi Noem has complained to others that she feels she's been hung out to dry over the episode and has made sure to emphasize that she took direction from Miller and the president, a source told Axios. Matt, what do you make of all of this sort of finger pointing? Clearly, they realize there's a problem on their hands, right? And that's why they're trying to talk about who's actually to blame. Now, let's just be honest. Stephen Miller is not going anywhere. Like, he will turn the lights out most likely with the president in 2029. That's just a reality situation. Whether you like it or whether you hate him, that's just a reality. Christine Noem? Christine Noem is not going anywhere, as I understand it, for at least the foreseeable future. Now, look, I think there is a nervousness around the nomination. If this is for any cabinet position, taking up time in the Senate with another cabinet nomination, Now, there's another school of thought as well that a cabinet nomination, whether it's Kristi Noem or any other cabinet nomination, could actually have a little bit of a galvanizing effect, a little mini Kavanaugh, like as we saw with Brett Kavanaugh before the 2018 midterms, to reinvigorate the party a little bit, like everybody puts their jerseys on and it helps Republicans. Because, look, the Republican turnout has been an issue the last couple midterm elections. I don't think the White House necessarily agrees with that. So right now, the way it stands today, Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller will be serving the president for the foreseeable future. Joe, is that something that the Democrats could take advantage of? Yeah, no, I think so. I mean, we're looking for both change in policy and change in personnel. In my experience in the White House, and I don't think it's changed, I think it's become even more pervasive, is the White House runs the show. So I have no doubt that the Homeland Security Secretary, Christine Ohm, was doing exactly, and I think word for word, what Stephen Miller said to do. And he's been consistent on this. And I think it's a combination of his ideological views, but also his political views. I think if you asked him today and he and he was forced to tell the truth, he'd still say this is good politics, that this galvanizes the Republicans. And that's what will lead to success of the midterm. I disagree with that. I disagree strongly, both with his ideology and with his political interpretation. But I do agree with Matt that he's not going anyplace. The president is is is not going to turn away from him. And I think if he did, that would create a bigger problem with the base than the problem he has now, because I think a lot of people look to him as the architect of all of the wonderful things MAGA and Trump have allegedly done. As far as Noam, you know, I think Washington's a funny place. Today, someone's safe. Tomorrow, they're not. So I don't know that I would make a prediction on what's going to happen. And I would agree that it's not going to happen today, probably not going to happen tomorrow. But I certainly wouldn't rule it out because that's just the way Washington works. There has actually been some pushback from the base, Matt, about one aspect of the response from the White House, particularly from the president on Second Amendment rights. Take a listen to what the president said this week. Do you agree with the assessment from some of your own officials that Alex Freddie is a domestic terrorist or an assassin? Well, I haven't heard that, but certainly he shouldn't have been carrying a gun. But all of, hey, look, bottom line, everybody in this room, we view that as a very unfortunate incident. OK, everyone, unless you're you're a stupid person. Very, very unfortunate incident. I don't like that he had a gun. I don't like that he had two fully loaded magazines. That's a lot of bad stuff. So the Hill writes, friction emerges as gun rights groups clash with Trump officials over Minnesota shooting. I mean, Matt, how dicey is this for the president? I don't think he's suddenly going to lose support because it got criticized by gun rights groups. However, this is one of those rare instances where somebody that felt uncomfortable with the situation with the gun rights groups or members of Congress can actually almost get to the right of the White House on the Second Amendment and say, look, I think as the NRA or the Gunners of America did, merely being armed or having open carry isn't necessarily a problem in and of itself. It's obviously the actions they're in. So I think it's one of those, in a way, it's a little bit of an escape hatch where you can criticize the White House by getting to its right and not by getting to its left. Joe, how do Democrats handle this? Because, you know, they're not typically the biggest Second Amendment rights advocates, but this does seem to be a bit of a weak spot. Well, I mean, I think Democrats have pounced on the hypocrisy of this. And I think in politics on this issue, they call it leading with your chin. It was a misstep by everyone involved to even raise the Second Amendment from a president who hailed Kyle Rittenhouse, who went to a protest with an illegal gun and killed two people. So I think Democrats have taken the opportunity to point the hypocrisy out. I don't know as much as Matt does about how the center-right and the right-wing and the NRA and Guns for America, how they'll react. I don't expect this to fundamentally change the gun rights debate in this country. I think this is one that, if it hasn't already faded, will fade. I do think the immigration debate, ICE tactics, all of that stuff, that's going to hang around for a while until tactics change, optics change, and actually policy change. Matt, before I let you guys go, I do have to ask, Trump went to Iowa this week. Not a battleground state. Certainly gave me some PTSD from the primaries. Oh, I know. Clive, great times. Freezing cold, the nightmares of the butter cow at the Iowa State Fair. Why Iowa? What was the strategy there? Yeah, look, we're all talking about the ice stuff now. I happen to think in another month or two we will not be talking about it. It's just like we were talking about a bunch of other topics late last year. However, the economy is going to be a pervasive issue, I think, for both parties. And Iowa is one of those areas that the economy is center stage. I think you've seen farmers being hard hit by some of the policies, And so I think there was a big effort to try and talk to these people and sell the economy, the positive economic indicators we've seen. Also, there's an open seat Senate race. Joe Nierentz is retiring. Asher Hinson's a Republican there. That's a Senate race I'm frankly keeping an eye on. I don't think it's going to be a toss-up race. What does it say that Trump needs to go there and that you have to keep an eye on a race in Iowa? In January of the year, I'm okay with him going there. It's post-October, and it's also an open seat. But it's something to keep an eye on. Joe, what do you think about the president's Iowa trip? Well, listen, I think the president sometimes benefits from his hyperbole, and sometimes it hurts him. And let me connect these two issues just for a second. Credibility from the administration and the president is really important. And when you are basically being untrue or lying about something on one thing, it does hurt your credibility on other things. The economy right now, the story is mixed. There's modest growth in the economy. Inflation is not out of control. But when the president goes someplace and tells people that prices are coming down, and people just know because they go to the supermarket once a week or once every two weeks, that they're not coming down, it undermines whatever good might be happening there. So I think from a messaging point of view, and as Matt pointed out, farmers as a whole have been, they might be the group that's been hurt the most, by the president's tariff policy. So I don't think he did anything there to help himself. So again, I just think that the message that everything's great and everything that I touch as President Trump is the greatest ever, and I'm the greatest president, and the economy is the greatest ever, that certainly works with his base and will continue to work. But I don't think his base will decide the midterm elections. You have to look at this president as a president who's in the sixth year of his second term. And when I worked in the White House, Bill Clinton was the first six-year president in midterms since Andrew Jackson to actually pick up seats. And he's still, you know, if Republicans pick up seats, they'll say the last person since Bill Clinton. And that had a lot to do with impeachment and Republican overreach there, or at least perceived overreach. So, listen, I think with his base, he's doing fine. I don't think without his name on the ballot, that will be enough. And I think Republicans who are in tough races are going to have a lot of soul searching in October about whether they want the president involved in their campaign or not. All right, gentlemen, that is all the time we have. Republican strategist Matt Gorman and Democratic strategist Joe Lockhart, thank you both so much for lending your expertise today. Thank you. And let's close this week's program with our ceasefire moment of the week, highlighting what's possible when politicians come together as Americans, not just partisans. New York Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and South Carolina Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace were part of a bipartisan group of lawmakers who recently joined with Paris Hilton to push a bill that would give victims of non-consensual AI-generated sexual images more tools for recourse. Here's what co-sponsors AOC and Florida Republican Laura Lee had to say. Bicameral bipartisan advocacy for legislation focused on delivering justice for the American people. So since we've made some massive steps forward, it's time for us to finish the job. And so I urge Speaker Johnson, which we have had positive and encouraging conversations with, to put this on the floor for a vote as quickly as possible. Congress must act to stop sexually explicit deepfakes from being used as a weapon against innocent Americans. I am proud to stand here as the co-lead of the Defiance Act, legislation that has already passed the United States Senate unanimously and now deserves swift action in the House. This bipartisan effort sends a powerful message. Congress recognizes the real harm caused by non-consensual, sexually explicit deepfakes, and we are committed to holding perpetrators accountable. The Defiance Act would allow survivors up to 10 years to sue upon discovering their images under federal law and call for those found guilty to face penalties of up to $250,000. That's all the time we have for this episode. Here's a look at our guests for next time. Ceasefire is also available as a podcast. Find us in all the usual places. I'm Dasha Burns. And remember, whether or not you agree, keep talking and keep listening.