Homeland Insecurity with Janet Napolitano

In this jam-packed episode, Heidi and Joel speak with Nathan Gonzales, editor of Inside Elections, about Democrats' prospects in the Midterm Elections and the collapse of the Trump Coalition.

Then, Iowa State Rep. Adam Zabner gives a quick update on turnout for the state's precinct caucuses and the frustration with the Trump Administration among the state's Independent and centrist Republican voters.

Finally, Heidi and Joel speak with former Arizona Governor and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano about the failure of good law enforcement that the Department is exhibiting in Minneapolis and across the country.

The Hot Dish is brought to you by the One Country Project. To learn more, visit OneCountryProject.org, or find us on Substack (Onecountryproject.substack.com), and on YouTube, Bluesky, and Facebook (@onecountryproject).

• (00:00) - Midterm Election Insights with Nathan Gonzales
• (02:20) - Current Political Landscape and Trends
• (07:49) - Republican Challenges and Voter Sentiment
• (11:57) - Polling Dynamics and Election Predictions
• (14:23) - Rural Voting Patterns and Shifts
• (18:03) - Key Issues Affecting Voter Behavior
• (19:49) - Final Predictions for House and Senate
• (23:09) - Adam Zabner on the Iowa Caucuses
• (28:08) - Former DHS Sec. Janet Napolitano on the state of Homeland Security

Creators and Guests

Host

Heidi Heitkamp

U.S. Senator Heidi Heitkamp served as the first female senator elected from North Dakota from 2013 – 2019. he is the founder and Chair of the One Country Project, an organization focused on addressing the needs and concerns of rural America. Heidi was recently named the Director of the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago, a university she has long been committed to and a place where she enjoys engaging with students over civic discussions while encouraging them to seek opportunities in public service to our country. Heidi also serves as a contributor to both CNBC and ABC News.

Host

Joel Heitkamp

He is an multi-award winning talk show host both regionally and nationally. Before radio, he served in the North Dakota Senate from 1995-2008.

Editor

Ismael Balderas-Wong

Head of Production at Voxtopica

Producer

Richard Fawal

Richard Fawal is founder and CEO of Voxtopica.

What is The Hot Dish?

Former U.S. Senator Heidi Heitkamp and her brother, KFGO radio talk show host Joel Heitkamp, engage in animated discussions with newsmakers, elected leaders, and policymakers who are creating new opportunities for rural Americans and finding practical solutions to their challenges. Punctuated with entertaining conversations and a healthy dose of sibling rivalry, The Hot Dish, from the One Country Project, is informative, enlightening, and downright fun.

Heidi (00:05)
Welcome to the hot dish, comfort food for rural America. I'm Heidi Heitkamp.

Joel (00:10)
You know, and I'm Joel Heitkamp. We've got a big show for you today with three fantastic guests.

Heidi (00:17)
You're going to hear from Nathan Gonzalez, editor and publisher of Inside Elections about the midterm outlooks and the Texas election this past weekend. We also spoke with ⁓ Iowa State Representative and one of my favorite people in the whole wide world, Adam Zabner, about the Iowa caucuses and rural voting turnout. We also have an incredible conversation with former DHS secretary and my good friend, because we were AGs together.

Janet Napolitano about the ongoing disaster in Minnesota and what law enforcement professionals are saying about it.

Joel (00:52)
Lots to cover today, so let's get straight to it. We're joined first by Nathan Gonzalez, editor and publisher of Inside Elections. Nathan, good to have you on the hot dish.

Nathan Gonzales (01:05)
Yeah, thank you for having me. This is it's going to be a fun time for all involved.

Joel (01:10)
Now, Nathan, you're the guy everybody pokes to and says, what do you know? What are you hearing? What do you got? I mean, do you ever get sick of it? First off, that's a weird first question, but I got to ask you.

Nathan Gonzales (01:21)
Well, if I get sick of it, then I should probably be doing something else. If I'm not ready to talk or willing to talk about elections, I should be looking for a new line of work. So no, it's great. My younger colleague, Jacob Rubashkin, he ⁓ doesn't really believe when I tell him that we have normal elections in this country because I think the last four or five cycles have had some level of abnormality to it. But this one, it looks like it could be a typical midterm election.

Joel (01:24)
Hahaha!

I'm...

Heidi (01:47)
Well, Nathan, you know, we were chatting a little bit before we started recording about the last time you ⁓ spent some time with me and it was in 2012. And not a lot of people thought I would be putting the title of Senator in front of my name, but you were out here in North Dakota and you, have seen kind of what local politics, you know, how that matters. And you've seen.

⁓ So tell us what you think about the current, I mean, your vision, having covered this for a long time, tell us what you think are the trend lines that everybody needs to understand right now.

Nathan Gonzales (02:20)
Well, typically midterm elections go poorly for the president's party. Midterm elections are typically a referendum on the president and a referendum on the status quo. And right now, president Donald Trump has a 40-ish, 41 % job approval rating. A majority of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track versus headed in the right direction. And so that is a liability for the party in power. When voters don't like the status quo, they are primed for change and Republicans are in control of everything. So they are.

at risk of losing some of that control. Now, the midterm trends are a little bit stronger in the House, meaning when you have all of these factors, it is more likely that the House, the President's party loses House seats. The Senate is a little bit wonky because it matters what the specific class of senators, what states are up in that particular cycle. So that's why sometimes you get a weird result of

2018 where Democrats gained 41 seats in the house, but Republicans gained two Senate seats. so, ⁓ that is a little bit of what we're looking at. I mean, I know I didn't want to go to how many wounds can I, can I go into here? ⁓ but it's, it is a, you know, this cycle Democrats have a much better chance of winning the house. The Senate is, is just more difficult. It's not out of reach, but it's going to take.

Heidi (03:21)
That's a really painful reminder for me, Nathan.

Joel (03:24)
Hahaha

Yeah.

Heidi (03:30)
Yeah

Nathan Gonzales (03:42)
winning in some Republican areas to win the Senate, whereas Democrats can win the House without winning in strong Republican areas.

Heidi (03:50)
Joel, I'm just going to ask one question. I recently predicted to a group of business people that this thing could swing 30, 40 votes and everybody's like, no, no, it'll just be four or five. And I said, look, you're looking at all of the kind of off term elections, which was the 2025 election. You're looking at what's happening in Texas and you're looking at the trend lines. And let me tell you,

I'd much rather be a Democrat right now, even in a rural county than a Republican. And so when you look at the swing, ⁓ talk a little bit about why it's not gonna be more than five or it's gonna be greater than 30.

Nathan Gonzales (04:31)
The only good news for Republicans right now is that the election is not today. Right. But what you're talking about, there has been a consistent Democratic overperformance over the last 10 months across the country and in a variety of seats. Right. Democrats overperforming in Democratic districts. Right. ⁓ Or Democrats overperforming in very Republican areas, even if they don't lose, even if they don't win, they are still ⁓

Heidi (04:36)
Ha ha ha

Joel (04:37)
You

Nathan Gonzales (04:58)
narrowing that gap and narrowing that margin and that is across that has been across the board. ⁓ You know, how does this not end up being a good democratic year? I think the economy or at least voters faith in the economy would have to significantly improve where people are satisfied with the status quo and less likely to vote for change. But we every day are creeping closer and closer to the election and these

voter sentiment just doesn't turn around in one day or one month. I mean, it's a gradual, it takes time. so Republicans are running out of time, even though we're sitting here at the beginning of February.

Joel (05:36)
So Nathan, when you look at this and hide before all of it, we never even talked about the Senate being in play. And I understand what you're getting at, Nathan. You know, it's numbers, it's everything involved in it. But the fact that we're even talking about the Senate being in play shows, Nathan, that what you're saying is right. How do you gauge it when you don't know who's on the ballot? I mean, they're fighting in Texas like a couple little kids.

Nathan Gonzales (06:02)
Yeah.

Yeah. mean, first fundamentals. I one of the dirty secret about elections and trying to project elections is that a good indicator of how a state or a district is going to vote in the future is how it's voted in the past. That is not a guarantee. There are exceptions, but that will lead you in that direction. but this cycle specifically with the Senate, it's a little bit. It's just challenging if we talk specifically in Susan.

Republicans, sorry, Democrats have to defeat Susan Collins. And now you could say, she is a Democrat in a Republican in a Democratic state and she is an endangered species, but Democrats have never shown an ability to defeat her before. There's a competitive primary there. And then you're talking about Sherrod Brown needing to win in Ohio when he just lost in Ohio a year ago, or Democrats trying to win in Iowa or Texas or Alaska.

I mean, you can see the path there, but Democrats almost need to run the table. And there's just not a lot of room for error, even though there are these kind of strong, the wind is at the Democrats' back.

Heidi (07:10)
And I would throw Iowa in there, you know, not an incumbent, you know, ⁓ North Carolina. So there are some places and when you, if you apply the margin, let's take half of the margin that you've seen in some of these ⁓ near term, know, 2025, you know, those swings, share it only lost by five. You know, if enthusiasm for the Republican Party is diminished and Democrats,

seem to be very enthusiastic right now to get out and vote. ⁓ I think that the Republicans will have headwinds in states where they didn't plan on having headwinds.

Nathan Gonzales (07:49)
One of the key questions that Republicans have not answered yet is how do you turn out the Trump coalition in elections and in races when Trump isn't on the ballot? And they had a lot of opportunities, right? Over in the 2025, the November races in Virginia, New Jersey, or the special elections, state legislative elections, Republicans have had the opportunity and they haven't been able to do it. And they always have an excuse. They can explain away, well, this race...

We lost because of this or that, but when you look at it collectively, it shows that Republicans still have to solve that piece. How do you keep Republican turnout up, keep the coalition together when Trump isn't on the ballot and when Trump is making himself more unpopular with some of the policies that he has implemented in his first year.

Joel (08:33)
So how do you pull and how do you keep track with an administration affecting these Senate and House races? And clearly the Trump administration is affecting these races when it's like you're in a whirlwind. ⁓ You know, for example, I live three hours from downtown Minneapolis. They are they are in a tornado there.

And every day, ⁓ Republicans that I know from Minnesota are getting more and more mad at the Trump administration. They just they don't want to be on the front page anymore. And so how do you keep up with that when you do the research that you do?

Nathan Gonzales (09:11)
I'm glad we have a three hour segment here to talk about, to talk about polling and to solve polling. But, I, how we try to, know, we're not pollsters ourselves, but we try to digest as much polling as possible. And what that means is I want to see as many data points knowing that polling is, ⁓ is imprecise or it can be imperfect, but I still believe it's a valuable tool. But I want to see partisan polling, nonpartisan polling, private polling, public polling.

Heidi (09:13)
Yeah

Joel (09:13)
Hahaha!

Nathan Gonzales (09:38)
Every college and university seems to have a poll. I want to see it all so that we can try to identify trends and notice outliers. And at this stage of the cycle, there isn't as much polling. You'll kind of get it here and there. But when we get into the final two, three, four months of the election, there's going to be candidates are polling. The party committees are polling. The super PACs are polling. Those colleges and universities are polling. And so there'll be a lot more data points.

And I lose a lot of sleep at the end of each cycle about whether that polling is accurate. And what we have found is that in elections, when Trump is on the ballot, polling is a little more wonky. ⁓ When he is not on the ballot, the polling has actually been pretty good. thank you for bringing up a wound inside of me, ⁓ Joel.

Heidi (10:27)
You know.

You know, I mean, let's talk about the MAGA coalition. A lot of ⁓ yak yak and you know, I think for Democrats, it might be wishful thinking. I think for pundits, makes for good television or for good ⁓ podcasts. But are there fractures? Are you seeing in the polling fractures in the Trump coalition?

Nathan Gonzales (10:56)
Well, when you look demographically, he is losing popularity or losing ground with younger voters, losing ground with Hispanic voters. When you look on specific issues, he is underwater or upside down. You all know, because you're not completely normal. You know that that means when a politician's negative rating is higher than their positive rating, he's underwater on all major issues, including immigration and deportation, but also inflation and cost of living. And that's different than his first term when he had

Heidi (11:11)
Yeah.

Nathan Gonzales (11:24)
I'd say a mediocre overall job rating, but he would still get positive reviews on the economy or voters trusted him more than Democrats on the economy. And that is not the case right now. He's, ⁓ he's under underwater. I hear when Republicans say, well, he's just fulfilling promises or he's just doing what he said he was going to do. And there's a disconnect right now where either voters don't like what he's doing, or that's not what they wanted him to do when they voted in 2024, or they're just, haven't seen the results of it yet.

Republicans have to close that gap.

Joel (11:57)
And I don't mean to open up any old wounds, but I'm to go back to the to the polling, because to me, as a former state legislature legislator who we were only one shy of the majority when I was in in North Dakota, pretty red state. ⁓ When you look at polling, there is no polling better than elections. And in Texas, they just had one.

Nathan Gonzales (12:03)
Yeah.

Joel (12:23)
And in Texas, they were in a pretty red district, not a pretty red district, a red district, and the Democrat won. How important is that? Are these legislative races, Nathan, to tell you information you need?

Nathan Gonzales (12:38)
I think, yeah.

Heidi (12:38)
Can I just add a data point? The

Democrat one and not by a little bit. Yeah.

Joel (12:43)
Yeah, I mean, he

Nathan Gonzales (12:44)
Yeah, Yeah,

or or you take, know, the the in December, the the special election in the in Tennessee, seventh congressional district where Trump won by 22 and the Republican won by nine. Right. I think collectively it is an important data point. I wouldn't want and I know you want, you know, take one draw broad conclusions based on one state Senate seat in Texas. But that's not what we're doing. We're looking collectively across legislative races, congressional races, gubernatorial races.

Joel (12:45)
kicked ass.

Nathan Gonzales (13:11)
There were some commissioner races in Georgia in November. So when you look at it, all of that is pointing in one direction. polling is, yeah, because polling is imprecise. You know, back in 2012, which was a race, I think that everyone on the podcast wants to remember. know, I think a lot of races, a lot of polls showed that, know, Heidi, that you weren't going to finish ahead and you ended up, you, and you won that race. And so there are exceptions, but yeah.

Heidi (13:34)
Hahaha

Joel (13:38)
by a landslide, Nathan.

Heidi (13:39)
Yeah!

Nathan Gonzales (13:41)
3,000? Was that what it was?

Joel (13:43)
Every one of those was a relative. In fairness to Hyde, she was climbing an uphill battle and she still won that. ⁓

Nathan Gonzales (13:44)
So that's right.

Heidi (13:45)
Yeah

Yeah.

Well, but just to put a point on it, Barack Obama lost the race by over 20 points. So I'm just saying, yeah, in our state. So ⁓ the one thing that I wanna ask about, and maybe it's just too granular, but do you see any shifts or changes in voting patterns in rural and, you know?

Nathan Gonzales (13:58)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Joel (13:59)
In our state.

Heidi (14:19)
in rural counties, in places like we live.

Nathan Gonzales (14:23)
Yeah, I don't know if I've seen enough data, you know, seen enough data points to make ⁓ that, to make a broad conclusion on that. So I want to make sure that I'm coming armed with the right information. But I think there is going to have to be a transition that will take time, meaning that the Trump coalition, people who voted for Trump, they're not instantly going to vote for Democrats. But if they don't vote at all or don't show up, then that

could make a difference in elections and make a difference in the ⁓ overall demographic and the makeup of the electorate. Because as Americans, we don't, at least most Americans don't admit that they did something wrong very easily, right? We don't admit that we made mistakes. And so for a Trump voter right now to say, I'm voting with Democrats, is admitting that you may have made a mistake 12 months ago. And so I think the key is the turnout is a turnout issue.

which could impact the margins in rural areas.

Joel (15:25)
I would suggest ⁓ everybody go to that Saturday Night Live video that's gone viral to show how hard it can be to admit you're wrong. ⁓ It's definitely worth your time. I want to talk about issues ⁓ for just a second, Nathan, because as a talk show host in the Upper Midwest, I get hit all the time ⁓ from my red audience, which is my bigger audience, about how I'm trying to take their guns away.

Nathan Gonzales (15:49)
Mm-hmm.

Joel (15:52)
All I'm going to do is take their guns away. You know, I as a Democrat, my party, you're going to take their guns away. It sure seems to me that the Republican Party has stepped on it when it comes to that. And I don't know how much issues like that way.

Nathan Gonzales (16:06)
Yeah, I, you know, and there's less specific polling on this. It's more of a gut instinct as someone who's been watching politics for a while now. I feel like we are so partisan that the country, most people are so partisan that there's always a justification to not go to the other side or not vote for the other side. Or there's a thinking of, it would be worse if the other party was in charge.

And, or you always have a reason to explain away why your party is doing something that you don't agree with. And right now for a majority of the Republican party, Trump can do no wrong. That he, that they are convinced that he is an outsider. He's not a politician. He's got the country's best interests at heart. And so whatever he's doing, even if they don't agree or don't understand it, it must be part of some bigger ⁓ effort. Or it's just that...

Joe Biden would have been worse or Kamala Harris would have been worse or whatever. There's that, I think, dynamic going on.

Heidi (17:06)
Yeah, I think there's, you know, if you think about people changing their voting patterns, there's different stages of grief, right? And I will tell you in rural America, and Joel can agree or disagree, that we're at the disappointment stage. ⁓ You know, we're disappointed that he seems to be focused on international when we wanted America first, we're disappointed that his tariffs have cost us markets, we're disappointed that

⁓ You know, he tore down the East Wing. We're disappointed that he seems to want his name on every and so I think even folks who have been not hardcore MAGA, but even folks who've been very supportive of the president, I think they're starting to feel disappointment. And that's the beginning of either low turnout for the MAGA base or let's give the other guy ⁓ a chance or the other woman a chance.

Joel (18:03)
And Nathan, I'm going to add one other thing, because I've always believed what you said earlier, that this is about the economy. It's all about Heidi brought up commodity prices. My guys aren't getting crap when it comes to corn and soybeans and disappointed. I think it might even be a little bit stronger. But I will tell you this. Everybody's got a daughter. Everybody in my case has got granddaughters. And, you know, there's a reason that these Epstein files matter. They matter a lot.

And so that's where, you know, Hyde said I can disagree. If if I bring up Epstein on my show, ⁓ people get ticked off. And what I what I don't get, Nathan, is I don't get the typical people calling in that will support him no matter what.

Nathan Gonzales (18:49)
Yeah. And the reason why the Epstein issue won't go away is because it has bipartisan no concern or there are people there are Republicans on the Hill who want to know more want more files released because they have promised their voters this and so it's is harder for the White House to just push it away or explain it away when it has bipartisan there's a bipartisan consensus that more needs to be known about this and more people need to be held held accountable.

Heidi (19:18)
And I would say the more people say nothing to see here, it's kind of like he's saying on the economy that the affordability is a hoax when people are living it every day. Nothing to see here, nothing to see here, and then there's always something to see here. And so it goes to some credibility as well. the one thing that I would tell you is that I'm seeing more Democrats in areas that are red, willing to go to the coffee shop and

kind of mix it up. so, yeah.

Joel (19:49)
And put their names on ballots, which

Nathan Gonzales (19:49)
Yeah.

Joel (19:51)
you know, normally that was a problem. So Nathan, two more questions for me and then I'll let Heidi close this thing out. ⁓ You. Do the Democrats win the House?

Heidi (19:53)
And

Nathan Gonzales (20:06)
It is more likely than not the Democrats win the House. That's not a definitive. I mean, it would take it would take a lot, I think, to change because Democrats need a net gain of three seats, three seats. They don't there doesn't even need to be a way for Democrats to win the House. I the. ⁓ I should be better prepared for this ⁓ answer. Yes, yes, I'm a I'm a Pacific Northwest kid.

Joel (20:20)
Do the Democrats win the Senate?

Do the Seahawks win the Super Bowl? No, never mind. Do the Democrats win the Senate?

Heidi (20:31)
Joel just likes the Seahawks

because the guy throwing the ball used to wear a purple jersey. ⁓

Joel (20:37)
Well, two guys on the line come from North Dakota State,

Nathan Gonzales (20:37)
Ha ha ha!

Joel (20:40)
so I'm okay with it. Yes. ⁓

Nathan Gonzales (20:40)
We are grateful for the Vikings giving up on Sam Darnold as Seahawks fans. ⁓

I'll say this on the Senate. Right now, I think Democrats might come up one short, meaning that they get to 50. And that is that there's still a lot of room for one of these races that need to happen to get wonky, right? The main primary and defeating Susan Collins. Maybe she pulls it out. Ohio.

Heidi (21:06)
Or maybe she pulls out of the race, Nathan.

Nathan Gonzales (21:08)
Yeah, she still has not officially declared. We've been led to believe she's running, but she is, you're right. She still has not officially declared. It's just Democrats almost have to run the table and getting into some red, you know, Alaska, Ohio, Iowa, Texas. I mean, they're going to have to win at least two of those four seats. so, ⁓ I'm open to Democrats can win the Senate right now sitting here today. I think they might be one short.

Joel (21:35)
OK, one thing to add on the Susan Collins thing though, Heidi and ⁓ Nathan, there's a guy up there running for Congress. He's running to run for Congress as a Democrat, which he's always been a Democrat, but his name is Matt Dunlop and he's a friend. ⁓ made we became friends in the legislature, ⁓ but Matt has consistently told me nobody beats Susan Collins. Everybody that counts Susan Collins out is wrong.

and you don't understand the strength of her in Maine. I asked him the other day what I just asked you only I put it down to one race. said is Susan Collins gonna win this race? And he said she's either gonna pull out or lose. And he's never said that before ever, Hyde. Never said that before.

Heidi (22:18)
Yeah,

Nathan Gonzales (22:18)
Yeah.

Yeah. ⁓

Heidi (22:19)
yeah. Well, Nathan, I hope you'll come back when you get more data points and we can talk about it. And if we can ask a special favor, which is pay attention to that demographic that we represent, that we care about, and that's rural America and what trends you're seeing there. And we'd love to have you back.

Nathan Gonzales (22:38)
Absolutely, I'll come back even if I'm even if I might be wrong. I'll face that I'll face the music

Joel (22:42)
Nathan,

I like you, I read you, I appreciate you, but if you ever mention Sam Darnold again, man...

Nathan Gonzales (22:51)
Well, it's tough depending on how this game turns out. There might be a lot of Sam Darnold in all of my remarks.

Joel (22:53)
FAC

Heidi (22:55)
Yeah, there you go. If there's

five interceptions in the first half, Joel, you might wanna not care that much.

Joel (23:02)
Nathan, thanks for coming on the hot dish, man. Appreciate it.

Heidi (23:04)
⁓

Nathan Gonzales (23:04)
No problem, it's a pleasure,

thank you.

Heidi (23:06)
Bye bye.

Joel (23:10)
now joined by Adam Zabner, ⁓ Iowa State Representative. ⁓ Thanks so much for joining us.

Heidi (23:17)
And Adam, tell us about what the experience was on Monday at the Iowa caucuses.

Adam Zabner (23:23)
Yeah, thank you all so much for having me. It's great to be here with you, Joel and Heidi. You know, we had our precinct caucuses in Iowa last night. ⁓ My caucus in Iowa City had a really strong turnout. I think there was a lot of enthusiasm and Democrats here in Iowa are feeling really good, probably for the first time in a while. ⁓ It's been since the 60s. We have a year where

There's an open governor's race and an open US Senate seat. We have really great candidates running in both those races. A lot of enthusiasm about Rob Sand and the idea of ending ⁓ the single party control in state government here in Iowa, which has been in place since 2017. Heard a lot about also the first district congressional race in Iowa. ⁓ My district faces a rematch.

for the third time between Marynette Miller Meeks, who won by just under 700 votes last time, and Christina Bohannon, my predecessor. That race is looking to be one of the most competitive anywhere in the country. you know, folks are really angry with the direction of the Trump administration, with what's going on in Minnesota, just a couple of hours from where I live.

The farm economy is struggling here in Iowa. We've seen thousands of people laid off at John Deere. ⁓ Manufacturing that goes with agriculture is also really struggling. Hearing from lot of farmers, small business owners about the end of those ACA subsidies and people getting letters saying their premiums might double or triple or more.

And so there's a lot of frustration, there's a lot of fear, but I also think there's a lot of enthusiasm here in Iowa about the coming midterm elections and the opportunity for change.

Joel (25:29)
And have you heard anything about the real turnout? Adam, we're kind of curious about that, obviously.

Adam Zabner (25:34)
Yeah, I heard that turnout was good. It's never huge for these midterm caucuses. It's mostly party business. It's sort of the most involved activists that show up. But the bigger sign for me is just the frustration we're hearing around the state. And we are seeing folks line up to run for state offices in seats that haven't been contested in

quite a long time in rural Iowa. ⁓ State Auditor Rob Sand, he's already done 100 town halls ⁓ in all of Iowa's county seats. And in a lot of the rural areas, he's getting bigger turnout than Randy Feenstra, who will likely be the Republican nominee. People are showing up, Republicans, independents, saying we need some kind of change, and they're open at least to listening.

to Rob Sand's message, and so that's a really good sign for us.

Heidi (26:32)
Well, and Adam, it seems like the ⁓ caucuses drew a lot of attention from independents who came to the Democratic caucuses. Tell us about that.

Adam Zabner (26:42)
Yeah, absolutely. And I think there's a lot of issues. mean, the farm economy last summer, I did a tour of rural hospitals across the state that are at risk of closure under the big, beautiful bill in small towns like Sheridan, Iowa, Burlington, Iowa, Muscatine, Iowa, Newton, where they recently lost their birthing center. You can't give birth there anymore. And, you know, these are not, it's not a partisan issue. If your community loses its hospital.

It's a huge challenge. I asked a woman in Newton, what does it mean to you that women can't give birth in Jasper County anymore? She said, women are giving birth. It's just that it's the sheriff delivering the baby on the side of the road on the way to the nearest hospital. And so folks are really feeling the impact already of ⁓ President Trump and congressional Republicans policies. They're feeling the impact of nine years of a Republican trifecta in Iowa.

And I think there's some openness to at least listening and trying something different.

Heidi (27:46)
Thanks so much, Adam. And we just need to mention that Adam was once upon a time an intern for the One Country Project. We watch you with great enthusiasm. We know you're going to be an incredible leader for your district, but also for Iowa in the future.

Joel (28:03)
Thanks Adam.

Adam Zabner (28:03)
Yeah, thanks so much for having me.

Heidi (28:08)
I am so excited to introduce you to a very good friend of mine, Janet Napolitano. Being a friend of Heidi's is not the most important title that she's ever had, the most important title. She was the longest serving secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. And I worked with her when I was in the Senate and she was Barack Obama's secretary. But she also

has a broad experience. How we got to be great friends is ⁓ she was Arizona's attorney general, then we were attorneys general together, and she also was the governor of the great state of ⁓ Arizona.

Heidi (28:45)
And so before we get into it, Janet, I know that so many people are hesitant, you know, from former presidents on down to criticize anyone coming into the new administration. And so that's why I was really curious about the interview that you recently did with Jonathan Martin on Politico, which was really very candid about your feelings about what's happening right now.

within the agency, but also in Minneapolis. Can you tell me why you decided to take that step?

Janet (29:16)
Well, you're right, Heidi. Former secretaries ⁓ recognize, perhaps more than anyone, the difficulties of the job, the fact that ⁓ those in the role have ⁓ possession of different facts or other things that you may not know once you're out of office, ⁓ and want to be ⁓ respectful of that. But in watching ⁓ the

operations of the Department of Homeland Security over the last year, but in particular what was going on with ICE and Border Patrol on these so-called

mass deportation sweeps and surges into communities in the United States. And then to have ⁓ two fatal shootings in Minneapolis. And then to hear the rhetoric coming out of not only the secretary's office, but the White House. I just thought enough is enough. And we need to have some practical experience-based ⁓ language added to the public discourse about what happened here.

Joel (30:24)
You know, let me ask you this, Madam Secretary. You know, sitting here, you know, in a conversation with two former attorney generals, one of which held the very hats Heidi talked about. But what's interesting to me is that you say enough is enough that that the way they're doing this is completely wrong and it's cost lives. I get that. But you also were in a position in your life when you could have brought charges.

Would you bring charges if that were the case today?

Janet (30:57)
I certainly would lead an independent, fair, open and transparent investigation. I certainly would put the ⁓ agents involved on immediate leave while that investigation was pending. And I certainly would coordinate and work with state and local prosecutors and law enforcement during the course of that investigation. How the investigation comes out, I don't want to prejudge.

I think we can all see the videos for ourselves and have reached our own tentative conclusions, but that's why you do investigations to make sure that you're reaching accurate and provable ⁓ accusations.

Heidi (31:35)
I think Janet, a lot of people now have an image of the men and women who serve ⁓ in border patrol and the men and women who serve in ICE. And it's being defined by what's happening in Minnesota. What would you say to those, to the people in the public who basically are drawing really some pretty broad conclusions about...

the men and women of ⁓ law enforcement within the Department of Homeland Security. ⁓

Janet (32:08)
Well, I would say that this, ⁓ you know, I'm still to date the longest serving Secretary of Homeland Security. was there almost five years. And so both the Border Patrol and ICE ultimately reported up to me. I worked with many of the agents and I worked with their supervisors. We did things a bit differently. We really focused our deportation work on ⁓

those we found right at the border before they had had a chance to resettle in the United States.

⁓ And then those who were already in the United States who had committed other criminal violations of a serious nature. And that was the kind of combination that we did. It actually resulted in President Obama being nicknamed the Deporter-in-Chief, much to his chagrin, I think, but it was effective. And we insisted that our agents abide by the high requirements and standards of any law enforcement officer, particularly of federal law enforcement.

officer. And so when bad things happened and sometimes bad things did happen, we immediately, as I said earlier to Joel, we put agents on leave, we ⁓ instituted IG investigations and the like so that if sanctions were appropriate, those sanctions were imposed. If policy needed to be changed, if practice needed to be changed, we could undertake that as well.

Joel (33:40)
Well, going back to, know, Heidi's concern about how the the agents are being represented ⁓ to the general public who looks at this, who sees this and basically sees individuals that instantly are.

hold no responsibility for their actions. What do you see when you see masked ⁓ men? When you see, and up till now, and I'm still waiting to see if her word means anything with ⁓ Christine Ohm, but when you see men going through the streets of Minneapolis and many other cities ⁓ with masks on,

Where is the accountability? Why would the average person respect that ICE agent?

Janet (34:29)
Yeah, so I think what we're actually seeing begins with a failure of leadership. Field agents on the ground, take their guidance from those who supervise them. Their immediate supervisors and then supervisors up the chain. And from the get go, what we've been hearing is kind of the dehumanization of immigration.

which is a tough topic. I was a governor of Arizona, a border state. know I've done immigration work for a long time. And I know that immigrants in the country illegally have a vast array of circumstances. But to your question, the mass surge of ICE agents combined with border patrol who've been moved into these urban settings, which are

really unfamiliar to them makes a huge difference. And then the way they've been equipped. ⁓

It's like, as I told Politico, it's like they're going into Fallujah, not into American cities. And so the American public has reacted quite strongly. And that reaction, I think, is what has caused finally the White House to begin to, I hope, take a serious second look at its whole deportation policy and practice.

Heidi (35:52)
You know, when you look

at ⁓ kind of the past relationships, Janet, you know how important it is for ICE and certainly down on the border and the ports of entry for the border patrol to understand and work with local law enforcement. You know, a lot of the most legitimate criticisms of what's going on right now is that this is bad police work. And you hear the chiefs of police in these cities. There is a long term ramification to

this reputational problem that the Department of ⁓ Homeland Security has now in working in the future with law enforcement, which is absolutely critical.

Janet (36:30)
Yeah, you're so right. As you and I both know, look, law enforcement works best when it coordinates and cooperates and where state and locals take the lead on state crimes, which are the vast majority of violent crimes and street crimes in our country. And the feds come in and add expertise and backup on particular things that are federal crimes. ⁓

Here in Minneapolis, have the exact opposite. We have this descent of almost 3,000 federal agents. I think there's 2,000 plus ICE agents and 800 or 900 border patrol thrust into a city where the entire police department has 600 officers. And that geographically, you can drive across Minneapolis in less than 30 minutes. So it's a very concentrated large scale force. And as I mentioned,

⁓

garbed in battle wears if they're going into battle, ⁓ as opposed to their mission. Their mission should have been to target those illegal immigrants in the country who've committed other crimes to pick them up so that they can be put into deportation proceedings. But instead, they were given this large mandate, you gotta have 3,000 arrests a day, which is a factor by five or six of the average number of arrests

per day in the immigration field. And so that resulted in these sweeps and these indiscriminate searches and pulling people off the street and going to schools and churches and other places that previously ⁓ ICE had been directed to stay away from.

Joel (38:17)
So on my radio show, what I often get is that they have no business being there. And I'm not talking about ICE agents. know, obviously I broadcast from a very conservative area. And ⁓ gentleman the other day said, well, what are they there for? You know, why are they there? You know, you don't want them treated that way, but why are they there? And my answer was because they can be.

⁓ And so have you seen anything, you know, in any of the video in anywhere in watching any of this that would justify the response with the general public that ISIS had? Not the people they're targeting. We can go down that road all day long, but but just the general public that are following them, recording them, blowing the whistles.

Janet (39:09)
Well, I think the public, and I'm not from Minneapolis. I visited once or twice. So I'm not intimately familiar with Minneapolis. But when you're in a community, and all of a sudden, without seeming planning or coordination with local or state authorities, you have this huge ⁓ deployment of federal forces.

kind of going willy-nilly ⁓ and then ⁓ stating things in the media that are clearly untrue. ⁓ It undercuts the credibility of law enforcement. It undercuts any sense of federal state ⁓ relations. ⁓ And the public senses that. I think the public understands what effective good law enforcement is and what it is not.

And in Minneapolis, it's been to such an extreme degree that people are protesting and whistles and so forth, but understandably so.

Heidi (40:15)
But when

we think about kind of the public response here, Janet, and you think about, know, what is, think about that against the training. So if you're trained to deal with protesters, if you're trained to deal with what's happening right now, you react differently than what they've been reacting. And so their argument is you can't legally follow us.

Janet (40:39)
Yeah, that's

Heidi (40:43)
You can't legally blow a whistle even though we're, you can't even record us. I mean, that's the position that it seems to me that the Department of Homeland Security is taking, that any of those activities are interference with federal law enforcement and chargeable. And they'll pull citizens out of their car. We've seen it over and over and over again. So to explain to people what,

In your opinion, is it illegal to stand on a street corner and blow a whistle? Yeah, I mean, honestly, I mean, you know, we just saw a video and I don't know if you saw it of a woman in St. Peter who was, which is a kind of a suburb of the city's Minneapolis, St. Paul, and she was following ICE, right? Recording where they're going to be. They literally got out of their car and pulled guns. And I think they were ICE agents, not border patrol.

Janet (41:17)
Of course not. I mean, come on. ⁓

Heidi (41:42)
literally pulled guns on her, a suburban mom. I mean, and you want to say, do you understand, Christine Ohm, how dangerous this is for the future of cooperation, for the future of your relationships with the public when people see this?

Janet (42:02)
You know, I can't speak for the secretary, but I can say pulling guns on somebody for following a car, let's be real. I mean, we live in a country that is based on the Constitution, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the basic rights that we all share. they are not the exercise of those rights is not an offense for which force should be used against.

Heidi (42:32)
It's just, is.

Janet (42:35)
It's really why I spoke out, Heidi, because I just seen this time and time again, and it's just not the way we should be.

Heidi (42:43)
And Joel, if you just give me just a minute, know, Janet and I both know what a 1983 action is. 1983 is a civil rights action filed in federal court that anyone whose civil rights have been violated, they can challenge the government and they can get attorney's fees under 1983. Can you just imagine the liability that she is incurring? I mean, you know,

I know you don't want to be directly critical, but the liability that the federal government's incurring with all these activities which are clearly being recorded, which are clearly going to find their way into federal district.

Janet (43:19)
Well, there's not only that, but now so many states are considering state laws that when there is an action like the shootings that occurred in Minneapolis, enable the citizenry to sue the agents and the agency involved directly in state court.

Heidi (43:39)
Yeah, well, we'll see where that ends up.

Joel (43:40)
Well, you know,

Heidi, you and I have had this debate about the judiciary, which I know you two are both sworn into. I'm just saying I don't trust it. I don't trust it. I don't trust the Supreme Court. don't trust the district court judges are doing some marvelous work, but it really doesn't matter because that's just the whole High Camp's opinion. I think if it gets to the big bench, I don't think a damn thing is going to happen. ⁓

Heidi (43:49)
Officers of the court.

Janet (43:50)
No,

Joel (44:09)
Madam Secretary, I got to ask this. Why do you think Donald Trump's doing this?

Janet (44:16)
You know, I think that ⁓ it's interesting because, ⁓ you know, he has been ⁓ anti-immigrant his entire career. I mean, ⁓ when he ran in 2016, you know, it was the rapists that the Mexican government was sending across the border and so forth. The language he's used, and it just got more more vituperative in the ⁓ last election. ⁓ Remember the... ⁓

Haitians in ⁓ Ohio who are eating their neighbors' cats and dogs, then repeated by the vice president, Vance. But the language use has gotten more more vituperative, and that kind of language is very popular with a segment of the American population. America has always had sort

kind of a divided view about are we pro-immigrant, are we anti-immigrant, are they the other, are they potential new American citizens, you know. And he plays to the one side of that. But what I think he's realized in the wake of Minneapolis is you can take anything too far. And the politics have shifted under him. Whereas now people are viewing

his immigration enforcement as too dramatic, too rough, too anti-American, if I can use that phrase. So now you see them trying to gently back off. They haven't done enough yet. They don't really have control over the operation yet, but they've been making some moves.

Heidi (45:53)
Well, if you step back and you take a look at kind of the trajectory going forward, offer some advice. Offer some advice, Janet, for the public. Offer some advice for the agents and for the leadership. And I don't pretend that Kristi Noem is going to listen to your advice, but I think you still have a lot of friends within the Department of Homeland Security who have

great respect for your leadership, offer some advice.

Janet (46:27)
Well, a couple of things come to mind. First, ⁓ the federal government, the attorney general, the deputy attorney general need to immediately announce full, fair, transparent investigations of the shootings that have occurred. ⁓ They've announced one for pretty, but not yet for good shooting.

They need to do both. They need to put all the agents who were involved on administrative leave while those investigations proceed. They need to open their investigations to state prosecutors and local police so they're done cooperatively. Why is that so important? Because the leadership, the secretary, the vice president, they were immediately ⁓ on media saying,

these victims were domestic terrorists, anarchists, insurrectionists, et cetera. And then we all saw the videos and said, well, wait a minute, that doesn't match what we saw. So they already undercut their credibility and their sense of fairness. So they need to ⁓ reposition those investigations, do them properly with the right resources deployed there and cooperate with state and locals. Number one. Number two, they need to begin to ⁓ redeploy

the extra forces that have been put into Minneapolis and return all the agents for which Minneapolis is not a home station to their home stations, get them back to where they belong. Number three, they need to begin, if they're going to do a deportation operation, they need to do it by targeting those in the country illegally who've committed other serious crimes and not street sweeps and the like.

They need to get rid of this 3,000 arrests a day quota as if that quota is meaningful from any law enforcement standpoint except to lead to abuse. They need to ⁓ re-emphasize to every agent in the field that they are a member of federal law enforcement. They get to carry a badge. That is a duty, but it's also an honor and a privilege. And they need to adhere to the highest standards that that requires.

and that the type of behavior that we have seen, unfortunately, and sadly, by some of the agents that have been deployed is just not acceptable. So you begin with behavior, you begin with investigations, and you begin looking at the overall construct of these operations.

Joel (49:00)
Do you think any

of them step forward? Something's being said in terms of the orders, the directives, all of this. And some of these individuals aren't going to want to look at their kids or grandkids or wives in the eye and say, that was me. I mean, do you see any any handful of these individuals saying, you know what, let's get in front of a camera and talk.

Janet (49:27)
You know, that's hard to say, but I know enough of them to know that they don't believe that this is the best way to do their or carry out their mission or even a lawful way to carry out their mission. ⁓ Whether they want to. ⁓

go to the media, which would require them obviously to lose their jobs, et cetera? That's another question altogether. But we have seen in the media a smattering of former agents and former leaders of CBP, et cetera, commenting and criticizing what's been happening.

Heidi (50:04)
And now we have a former secretary of Homeland Security who's willing to speak out. Before I let you go, Janet, I want to kind of do a shout out because you were one of I mean, when you were there and you were identifying threats against this country, you really started identifying the kind of right wing militia threats and the recruitment that those groups were basically the incursion of those groups into a lot of veterans groups, you know.

So how it when you look at kind of January 6, and you saw it play out exactly what you had been talking about. ⁓ And now that there is concern that a lot of the recruitment for new ice agents for new border patrol are coming from the proud boys coming from the 3 % coming from the oath keepers. I mean, how concerned are you that we've taken our eyes off the kind of ⁓

militia threat that we have in this country.

Janet (51:06)
Well, I think we have lost focus on what true homeland security means. I think that the recruitment and the recruitment materials that are being used are not wise, to say the least. And also my understanding is they've reduced the days of training in all of this to 47 days to match the fact that Trump is the 47th president.

Heidi (51:21)
⁓

Janet (51:34)
as if that has any kind of or should have any kind of correlation. But in my view, what all of these operations have demonstrated is if anything, these agents need more training and ongoing training.

Heidi (51:49)
But I also want to make the point that if the identity of the people who drew the weapons is true, these are not new agents. Some of these agents have been in this agency for 10, 15 years. And so I think we need to be honest about, you know, kind of whether we're seeing a culture change, whether we're seeing a, you know, a wink and a nod, you you've had...

Janet (52:00)
No.

but.

Heidi (52:15)
You've had too many constraints on you and now just go out and do whatever the hell you want, because we're going to give you immunity.

Janet (52:21)
Yeah, I think ⁓ there's something to that. ⁓

From what I've read, the actual shooters in both of the killings that we're talking about were actually out of the Border Patrol, which is also interesting. They weren't ICE. And so whenever I hear ICE mentioned, I always want to say, look, don't conflict. They are two different agencies. And what happened here is you had several thousand ICE agents, but then you had 800 or 900 Border Patrol agents thrown in on top of them.

And the actual on-field commander was this guy, Bovino, who came out of the ⁓ medium to small border patrol sector in California. ⁓ So ⁓ it was really two different missions, two different ways of training, two different, in a way, agency cultures thrust together and then poorly led and poorly ⁓ trained.

Joel (53:23)
Yeah. Before you say goodbye, Hyde, I asked this question ⁓ on my show to a number of Republican senators, congressmen, you know, that come on. And I always ask them this question and they hate it ⁓ to the point where one of them said, you know, she's not going to come on my show anymore if I continue to ask her that at the end of the interview. So but I'm going to ask you. Do you think Donald Trump's a good person?

Janet (53:55)
No. I think we're being ill-led as a country. I'm sorry to say, I'm very respectful of the office of the presidency. And I've been respectful of Republican presidents, Democratic presidents. I've disagreed with presidents of both parties. Don't trust me. ⁓ I disagree with President Biden's handling of the border, for example. ⁓ But I think the record on

on Trump is so very clear and so longstanding that we can't fool ourselves anymore.

Heidi (54:28)
I just want to, ⁓ tell you how proud I am of you as your friend, that I know you, that you have stepped up, that you have, and in some ways, I think, and this probably won't make me popular, but you and I both come from a law enforcement background. We know how many good men and women who are serving, who,

care about public safety in this country, and they're all being painted with this broad brush stroke. And so when you can speak for the purpose of the agency, but also for the fact that there are mistakes being made and they need to be corrected because that's going to hurt the reputation and the relationships going forward. we've got to have ⁓ immigration enforcement.

And we need to say that over and over again. But we are not seeing that in Minnesota. We are not seeing the worst of the worst. We're seeing families terrified, many of whom are citizens who are in this country legally.

Janet (55:32)
That's right.

Heidi (55:33)
so we need more voices like yours, Janet, and I'm really proud to have you on the hot dish, but I'm also proud to call you my friend.

Janet (55:40)
Likewise, Heidi, good to see you.

Heidi (55:42)
It's good to see you. Thanks so much for coming on.

Janet (55:45)
You bet.

Heidi (55:49)
Thank you for joining us today on The Hot Dish. Hope you enjoyed this program as much as we enjoyed ⁓ visiting with our great guests.

And remember, you can always find a lot of great information at onecountryproject.org ⁓ brought to you and this podcast is brought to you by One Country Project.

Joel (56:08)
You know, learn more at onecountryproject.org. That's onecountryproject.org. Follow us on Substack, YouTube, Facebook, and Blue Sky.