Watch the full episode HERE
Congressman Warren Davidson (R-OH)
M. Tracey: Here with Congressman Warren Davidson, of Ohio. How are you, sir?
Warren Davidson: Doing great.
M. Tracey: What's your impression of the convention thus far?
Warren Davidson: Just an amazing amount of energy. So, you know, you look at just a horrible time for our country on Saturday when an assassin tried to kill President Trump. But I think really, him coming up after that, you know, the crowd was obviously with shots fired in a bit of chaos, but you saw people just get their resolve right after Donald Trump stood up and rallied the crowd very boldly fight, fight, fight. And yeah, it's a sort of measured fight right now. But people are united behind it. It's the kind of energy we need to kind of get people moving in the same direction. So, it's been encouraging to see kind of the various factions within the GOP world come together and really unite, not just behind Donald Trump, but behind a much bigger movement.
M. Tracey: So, you are one of the few Republican members of the House who spoke out rather forcefully against the bill to ban TikTok in March. And that was then later packaged into the National Security Supplemental. Why were you such a lone voice in the other wilderness in your Caucus on that bill? Have you been able to do any persuasion amongst your colleagues about, maybe, the lack of wisdom of banning a major, platform on the grounds of supposedly, you know, Chinese control or espionage concerns or that sort of thing? What's the status update on that thus far?
Warren Davidson: Well, I was very disappointed that our party wasn't in the right position. You know, the kind of more freedom wing of the Republican Party was overcome by the more government wing of the Republican Party in that issue, and it was a very similar split with the Patriot Act. So, if you go back, we had 63 people in the House of Representatives voted NO on the Patriot Act originally and I think clearly that was a bad idea. But unfortunately, this past year got expanded on a Republican watch. You know, people said no thanks on the warrant requirement, plus, let's expand it. And I think you unfortunately see that same kind of more government action if as long as it's to keep us safe. And when you really drill down, you go why would you believe this is to keep us safe? It's about coercion and control. It's about regulating speech and frankly, picking winners and losers in the marketplace. Not so much about the cover story that somehow this is supposed to keep us safe. And unfortunately, we haven't been able to penetrate that yet. We only had 15 Republicans side with 50 Democrats. So clearly the majority keeps choosing more government.
M. Tracey: And then Speaker Johnson used a rather peculiar parliamentary maneuver to insert the TikTok prohibition into the broader National Security Supplemental as one of the separate pieces of that mammoth legislation. What was your reaction to that just as a parliamentary procedural matter? It seemed, like, if you wanted to support funding for Israel or whatever, you know, there was some obligation to support for the support of the entire package. What did you make of that process development?
Warren Davidson: Well, that's kind of how the sausage is made. But, you know, one of the disappointing things there was, that Republicans got a big fight with the speaker's race, but I'd say the conservative portion of our party picked up three seats on the Rules Committee. And in theory, those three seats are able to influence ultimately what passes as a rule. And so, you think that's the check against these kinds of abuses, and we would have to vote. Unfortunately, that sort of safeguard was bypassed even here in that bill.
M. Tracey: So what was the value added in retrospect of ousting Kevin McCarthy, replacing him with speaker Mike Johnson? Yeah, one of the initial claims, I know you weren't one of the eight who voted to oust McCarthy, right? You were not.
Warren Davidson: I was not.
M. Tracey: Right. One of the claims, anyway, amongst those who did oust him, was that they wanted to impose more stringent requirements for fiscal conservatism and for adhering to certain, you know, narrowly tailored, appropriations bills. That seems to have all gone by the wayside, hasn't it?
Warren Davidson: It absolutely has. Look, we said that… most of us said this is a bad idea. Firing Kevin McCarthy isn't going to work the way that the people who want to do it claim that it will. And look as much as part of the reason Mike Johnson got picked is he's the one guy that 4 or 5 people didn't dislike. We all kind of like Mike Johnson. He's a great guy. But he's not the same kind of fighter. He's not as instinctive in some of these fights. And frankly, he got kind of outmaneuvered in a couple of things because he didn't resolve around a position to fight back. And so, we've been rolled on a lot of things, including spending, right away. You know, we had the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Conservatives couldn't really be happy about the number on the Fiscal Responsibility Act. That was the debt ceiling deal that passed in May 2023. And, you know, Joe Biden said it's just going to be a clean debt ceiling increase. And Kevin McCarthy said, no, we're going to have a deal here. And unfortunately, Mike Johnson bought into the idea that there were side agreements. And my point was, no, there were side conversations, if there were agreements, they would have been part of the bill. You don't have a side agreement if it's not part of your contract. It checks anybody that enlisted in the Army. Right? So, the agreement is what's in the contract. And unfortunately, Mike Johnson, beginning with those side deals, started to get rolled in, and that gave away our whole position. So, it hasn't turned out well on any front. We've had more spending, more wars, more surveillance, and so much so that Democrats came to his defense.
M. Tracey: Speaking of surveillance, Johnson orchestrated the renewal of FISA. Now, what was peculiar about that is that Johnson went around on conservative media and said that he and Donald Trump were on the same page on that, also, with regard to the broader National Security Supplemental. So, my running question has been, to what extent did Donald Trump's seeming approval, whether it was FISA renewal or the different aspects of the supplemental funding for Israel, Ukraine and Indo-Pacific? Were they instrumental in, you know, placating certain parts of the Caucus or at least giving some political flexibility, to allow for the passage of that bill, you know, using Johnson as his surrogate or his emissary or something like that?
Warren Davidson: Yeah, it certainly gave cover for Mike Johnson and others to go along with a bad plan. All the momentum in Washington, DC, for a long time, was more wars in more places and, unfortunately, that's undermined the whole Republican Party, the neoconservative wing, kind of the Lindsey Graham, now that it's some others are no longer there, the Liz Cheney wing of the party that, you know, it's okay to decline some of the invitations to war. And the reality is, their endless war approaches left us less free, less safe, more burdened by debt and it was very disappointing to see our leadership team sign up for more of the same.
M. Tracey: So, Donald Trump has extraordinary influence over the House Republican caucus in particular. He seems like he can just pick and choose primary winners at this point. He endorsed against Bob Good. Bob Good has lost his primary, or at least that's the certified result. He claims that he's challenging it and we saw some controversy within the House Freedom Caucus, around that vote or around that election. What do you make of Trump's influence in that race in particular? What does it portend going forward in terms of his influence on Republican primary races in the House?
Warren Davidson: Well, look, I don't agree with all of Donald Trump's endorsements, but that's what he got right: Bob Good, Not so good. Donald Trump agreed. And look, there's more to being an effective representative than having a good conservative voting record. Bob Good had a good conservative record, but so did John [Maguire]. John is at the same event at CPI getting the Champion of Small Government award.
M. Tracey: John Maguire, who Trump endorsed, won the primary.
Warren Davidson: Yeah. Sorry. John Maguire, who's a state representative in Virginia's fifth congressional district. He's been at the state legislature, and he challenged Bob Good. And so, the choice wasn't between Bob Good and some, you know, barely Republican, kind of squish Mitt Romney-level kind of Republican. The choice was somebody who's also going to be conservative and has proven themselves to be conservative, literally being recognized by CPI as a champion of small government, for his work in the state legislature. So, it wasn't this sharp contrast that Bob Good's campaign tried to portray. It was somebody who's conservative and likable and effective versus Bob Good.
M. Tracey: So, one of the things that Maguire actually criticized Good about was that Good voted NO on the $26 billion – was it a $24 billion? – in Supplemental, funding for Israel. Now, you were one of only 21 members of the House who voted against the supplemental funding for both Israel and Ukraine. What kind of blowback have you received for that vote, if any? And does it reflect your underlying principle vis-a-vis U.S. foreign policy and Israel, or were you just against how that appropriations package was structured?
Warren Davidson: Well, I'm one of the handful of people that's voted against and voted for no funding for Ukraine whatsoever. So, I'm consistent with that. I've had a bill called the Define the Mission Act: normally before you give money to someone, or commit any kind of resources, you want to know what are you trying to accomplish. That way, I can hold you accountable for it. And frankly, then I know whether the resources you're asking for are an open checkbook as much as it takes, as long as it takes to accomplish what, without any definition. It's something I can't get behind for Ukraine. With Israel there, Israel's a wealthy country. I mean, they can afford to pay back debt. They have a lower debt-to-GDP ratio than the United States. And what I said was, if we give this to Joe Biden to administer, he's simply going to use it as leverage against Benjamin Netanyahu. And, lo and behold, that's what he did. Now, that's not because I had some prophetic vision. It's because, like realizing how gravity works. Like that's what's going to happen. And unfortunately, in that Israel bill, you also funded both sides of the war. So, whichever kind of war you're involved in, it's usually good to pick one side, not both sides, unless you're trying to wage just an ongoing state of war instead of a resolution to the conflict. So, we tried to offer amendments that would have made that a more focused effort and, unfortunately, we weren't allowed to do that. So, for those reasons, I voted no.
M. Tracey: Your colleague, Thomas Massie, whose, wife unfortunately passed away, I don't know. Is he here? Do you know that?
Warren Davidson: He's not here at the convention he was originally planning to be. But, you know, given the circumstances, both his wife, Rhonda and his mama, passed away within days of each other. So, pretty rough stretch for Thomas.
M. Tracey: Well, we send our condolences to Congressman Massey. But he has talked about what he regards as the, I don't know if maybe malign is too strong a word, but the extremely intense influence that the pro-Israel lobby exerts on Congress. And we saw just a couple of weeks ago on the Democratic side, Congressman Bowman was primaried by a candidate, George Latimer, who criticized Bowman for not being sufficiently supportive of Israel and ended up being the most expensive, congressional primary in U.S. history with millions and millions of dollars poured into that race in New York by the pro-Israel donors or lobbyists. Do you blanch at all that kind of influence being exerted? Obviously, people have a right to free speech, and they have a right to impact the electoral political system where they see fit. But I guess just on an ethical level, or substantive level, I mean, is there anything that raises concern for you about that level of influence or intervention in electoral politics that these groups, like AIPAC, are now choosing to undertake?
Warren Davidson: No, I mean, look, Jewish Americans weigh in, and they're largely united behind Israel, not uniformly, you see, like, Bernie Sanders is not really pro-Israel, though his ancestry is Jewish.
M. Tracey: Even some of the evangelical Christians are much more strong on Israel than even some more secular Jews.
Warren Davidson: Correct. So, you know, if you look ethnically Jewish, probably doesn't align you necessarily as much with Israel as maybe an evangelical American in the South, for example. So, if you look at the demographics, you know, I think one of the things that Thomas is trying to do is saying, hey, having a difference of opinion with Israel is not the same as being anti-Semitic and AIPAC is going to try to blur the lines there. I think that's the part that's dishonest. The idea that they would weigh in on the politics and try to influence an election. Isn't everyone trying to do that? And frankly, they're very transparent about their involvement.
M. Tracey: Final question, what do you anticipate for a prospective second Trump term with regard to foreign policy? So, you have a fairly broad tent in terms of different foreign policy tendencies within the Republican coalition. We've had Marco Rubio giving a keynote speech. Tom Cotton, Mike Pompeo is speaking, I understand, to kind of represent maybe Ron Paul in terms of more interventionism or hawkishness to use a colloquialism, and then you have people, like yourself or others who are, Trump supporters may be less inclined toward intervention and interventionism. How do you see that shaking out under a second Trump term in terms of personnel? Because you know who he appoints as the secretary of state, who he appoints as defense secretary, national security adviser, etc. that's significant. How would it differ in your mind, or how would you hope it would differ from the Trump first term, if at all?
Warren Davidson: Look, Trump's messaging on Make America Great Again, America First has been phenomenal. When you talk about draining the Swamp, you can't necessarily drain the swamp if you hire the swamp. And unfortunately, in Trump's first administration, in a number of key positions, he effectively hired the swamp. And lo and behold, it was hard to drain.
M. Tracey: What's an example?
Warren Davidson: Well, within foreign policy. How are you going to have an America First foreign policy and have John Bolton as your national security advisor? That was one of those.
M. Tracey: How about Pompeo?
Warren Davidson: You know, Pompeo kind of bridges that gap. He fully supported President Trump. And I think he was an effective foil because Donald Trump was able to go into negotiation and say, look, you've already met with Mike, you know, where a lot of our country wants to go on this. And he was able to use that very effectively. So, I thought Mike Pompeo was an incredibly effective secretary of state. As the diplomat, you know, in terms of overhauling the State Department writ large and kind of the swamp level of that. I hope we have somebody who's much more assertive on that, even if it's Mike Pompeo again. But when you look at what we should be doing on foreign policy, Donald Trump set a great example. He didn't get us into more wars. He resolved them. He created a […]
M. Tracey: He did escalate a few wars. He escalated in Afghanistan. The U.S. dropped the largest number of bombs over the course of the entire Afghanistan war in 2018 under Donald Trump. So, he did escalate existing conflicts.
Warren Davidson: He got no Americans killed. He sent no extra troops. He scaled things down. He positioned it for our exit. You don't have to assert in the military to know that the way Joe Biden executed the plan to leave Afghanistan was completely backwards. First you get the civilians out and then you get the military out. Joe Biden did it the other way here.
M. Tracey: Well, Trump now says he was ever going to withdraw from Afghanistan to begin with. He wasn't. He said in an interview a few weeks ago that he was going to always leave a permanent U.S. military force at Bagram Air Base, which leads me to believe there was never going to be a withdrawal at all.
Warren Davidson: Well, maybe not 100%. That's hard to say. You know, it's a […]
M. Tracey: Permanent occupation then, isn't it? We're not there at the invitation of the sovereign governor of Afghanistan.
Warren Davidson: Is there a sovereign government there?
M. Tracey: Well perhaps not.
Warren Davidson: I think that's the problem. There's not really. I mean, you essentially have tribal factions competing with each other, against each other, for some made-up boundaries that the Western world decided that they were going to impose on that part of the world when they had tribal boundaries, they kind of always had tribal boundaries. When they created these artificial Western-imposed physical boundaries, to define some sort of geography and called it Afghanistan. Well, since then there's been control, issues over who controls that piece of terrain recognized by the United Nations. The reality is the tribal factions within those physical boundaries have always had a conflict, and they probably always will. So how to resolve that? Look, you know, I think Donald Trump was an incredibly effective foreign policy person. And if you want to look at to tell where I think he will go and should go, I think his VP pick, with JD Vance, says we want a much more realpolitik-focused America First foreign policy. And if we want to restore a government small enough to fit back in our Constitution, that's exactly what we need. These endless wars with no definition of success have bankrupted our country and expanded the surveillance state. So, if you want to really get our government back and truly make America great again, you have to have scarcity and you have to recognize that our influence should be narrowly focused on America's priorities first and foremost.
M. Tracey: Okay. Congressman Warren Davidson of Ohio, thank you very much. Appreciate it. All right.
Congressman Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ)
M. Tracey: So, with Congressman Jeff Van Drew, of New Jersey. How are you doing, sir?
Jeff Van Drew: I am doing well. It's great to be here.
M. Tracey: So, you famously switched your party affiliation, from Democrat to Republican. What was that, 2019? Is that right around the time of Trump's first impeachment? Not common for a member of Congress to switch their party affiliation, I guess, as you reflect on that, what insights have you gone and, going down that road, shown you, in terms of how politics works, the broad question? But, you know, you're sort of an unusual situation. So, I'm just curious for your reflections on that.
