2026 Midterm Results: What Democrats’ Big Win Means for AI Regulation

Greg Casar 0:00 I've heard from zero voters that they think, "Democrats are too strong and you get too much stuff done too quick." Nobody says that, ever. And what people are asking is for us to act. And so we have to learn from our failures during the housing bubble. We have to learn from our failures on social media. And, uh, this is, this is our shot.

Sam Liccardo 0:18 It is on. [upbeat music]

Kara Swisher 0:23 Hi, everyone. The Democrats trounced Republicans in the midterms, taking comfortable majorities in both the House and the Senate. But today, I want to look forward to what those results mean for Congress, and whether we'll finally see federal tech legislation, especially around AI. I'm joined by two House Democrats who are leaders on the issue: Representative Greg Casar of Texas, who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and Representative Sam Liccardo, whose Bay Area district includes a slice of Silicon Valley. This is an important time to finally get meaningful and important tech legislation, not legislation that is gonna impede innovation, that will help all of us. Voters are demanding it, and it has to happen now, and it is a great moment for bipartisan action on the topic. A note to listeners, we spoke the

Kara Swisher 1:11 day after election day, so some things may have changed by the time you're listening to this. Stick around. [air whooshing] Uh, Representatives Casar and Liccardo, thanks for coming on On. What a day to be here. I'm so glad we-

Greg Casar 1:22 What a day

Kara Swisher 1:23 ... scheduled it.

Greg Casar 1:23 [laughs]

Kara Swisher 1:24 What a day. Yeah. Yeah. So the blue wave seems an understatement now. I'm not sure, the tsunami, whatever. There's all manner of metaphors, but Democrats s- saw their wildest dreams come true on Tuesday night. When did you realize it was gonna be a monumental night for Democrats, and, and how hungover are you right now? What do you say, Greg? You start-

Greg Casar 1:44 [laughs]

Kara Swisher 1:44 ... and then Sam. [laughs]

Greg Casar 1:45 I, uh, you know, in Texas, we've just knocked on doors so many times, been told it's gonna be our year over and over and over again. And so you, like, protect your heart by, like, not having high expectations. And then it was the night before election night where I s- s- realized, I was like, "We're gonna sweep these guys." Like, what we've been out there telling people we could do is gonna happen. And then it was crazy to see it happen. I got to hug James Talarico when Ken Paxton conceded, and the only room I'd rather have been in that, than that is s- s- with Ken Paxton or Greg Abbott-

Kara Swisher 2:18 [laughs]

Greg Casar 2:18 ... conceding, or with Elon Musk-

Kara Swisher 2:20 [laughs]

Greg Casar 2:20 ... like, watching his hundreds of millions of dollars just burn in front of him. It's-

Kara Swisher 2:24 Right

Greg Casar 2:25 ... it is gonna make such a difference in so many people's lives. It's just really special.

Kara Swisher 2:28 All right, Sam?

Sam Liccardo 2:30 Yeah, and kudos to, to Greg and, and a lot of great leaders in Texas who have finally, uh, vanquished Lucy and the football down there. Uh, we were all hoping and praying, and it's great to see what's happened down there, particularly after the redistricting effort, uh, from the Trump administration. Obviously, from very blue California, uh, it's a very different perspective, but we're just so thrilled to see what's happening throughout the rest of the country.

Kara Swisher 2:53 And did you have a sense it was gonna happen, or was it, was it just... Uh, we were shocked. Scott and I were shocked, and I had said I thought it would probably happen, but of course, as you said, you don't get your hopes up.

Sam Liccardo 3:03 Yeah, I was thinking maybe a 50/50 shot at the Senate. Uh, I certainly didn't anticipate a blue-nami.

Kara Swisher 3:08 What about you, Greg?

Greg Casar 3:09 I just protected my little heart. [laughs] But I'm-

Kara Swisher 3:11 Yeah. [laughs]

Greg Casar 3:12 But, you know, but I know... 'Cause here's the thing. You know, I've known Gina since... I've got all these workers' rights posters behind us. We were working in, like, little community rooms when she was suing employers to win workers' wages back, and I was a labor organizer and she was, you know, a pregnant mom, new lawyer. Known James since he was coming out of grad school, and, like, they were always ready for this, and Texans were ready. And I'll tell you, when I really knew it was happening is every restaurant I'd walk into, all, everybody would come out of the kitchens and show me their I Voted stickers. It was like nothing I'd seen before. And these guys who thought they could send ICE into our communities and send us into endless wars and get in bed with billionaires and have no consequences, like, I think they are the most deeply surprised right now.

Kara Swisher 4:00 And the mood among your fellow Texas Democrats is shock and awe, essentially, correct?

Greg Casar 4:05 I mean, there were parties in the streets. I mean-

Kara Swisher 4:07 [laughs]

Greg Casar 4:07 ... all night, people just screaming out their cars. I mean, it's like winning the Super Bowl and the NBA Finals and, like, all of it all at once that we've been waiting for my entire life. I'll just say, I mean, I was born in '89. We haven't won a US Senate seat since '88.

Kara Swisher 4:24 Right. Exactly. And the last governor, I think, was Ann Richards,

Kara Swisher 4:27 right? Would that be right?

Sam Liccardo 4:27 Ann Richards. Yeah, I remember that defeat.

Kara Swisher 4:29 Ann Richards.

Sam Liccardo 4:29 Oof.

Kara Swisher 4:29 Yeah.

Sam Liccardo 4:30 Years ago.

Kara Swisher 4:30 So, uh, Sam, Republicans are in serious blame game mode. Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday blamed the loss on the Iran war and the economy. It's pretty clear repudiation of President Trump, who he had been s- supporting up until then, and notable because he's expected to run for president in 2028. Talk about the opportunity for Republicans to work with, uh, Democrats in the coming years. Or do remaining Republicans become more obstinate as they try to position the party for a presidential election? Because some of th... Trump was the most, "Yeah, I'll work with Democrats," of any of them so far.

Sam Liccardo 5:04 Yeah, you know, I, I spend a lot of time on the Republican side of the floor, uh, lurking to find Republicans [laughs] who might get on a, a bill. Obviously, they've controlled both houses. That's, uh, the nature of, of the business if you're trying to get anything to move forward. And I, I, I guess I see two countervailing factors. One is the folks who would be most willing to actually get on a, a Democratic bill are the ones who are losing most of those races. Uh, they're happening in battleground districts, obviously, where they're most vulnerable. Uh, but I do think that, you know, w- we pray that the spell of Trump over the party i- i- is starting to break, and certainly the wisdom of blindly following Trump off of every cliff, as we have seen so repeatedly, uh, is starting to become more obvious to many. And so I think there is gonna be an opportunity, as he's clearly a lame duck, to actually do something sensible around a whole host of issues That I know Greg and I were just talking about a few minutes ago, the critical issues that so many families are struggling with, to be able to get health insurance, to be able to pay rent, um, the, the critical things. I, I think there's a real opportunity to get Republicans on board. Now, they're not gonna support everything. Maybe they won't support our, our minimum wage increase, for example. Uh, but certainly, there are plenty of Republicans who understand what tariffs are doing to farmers right now in the Midwest.

Kara Swisher 6:26 Right. Right, right. What, what-- Greg, what do you think replaces the spell

Kara Swisher 6:30 of Trump then, that, that, uh, Sam just talked about?

Greg Casar 6:34 I mean, last night is the beginning of the end of the Trump era, and now today we start building what's gonna come afterwards. Like, last night's election was not just, "Hey, Democrats have solved all of our problems." We now have been given a chance by the voters to show people what we're made of. And so, yeah, let's send a bunch of bills to Trump's desk. And he's crazy enough that he might sign some of them, and then if he vetoes popular things, that's what a Democratic president can run on and then sign. So we should not be complacent. We shouldn't be cautious. We should go and pass those laws. I mean, to Sam's point, Elizabeth Warren tried this and was successful. We actually got t- into law a bill to ban private equity from buying up all of our single-family houses. Trump mentioned it in his speech, and now it's the law, and so let's try it with price gouging. Let's try it with getting dark money out of politics. Let's try it with the minimum wage and with childcare affordability. And if he vetoes it, we get it passed by the next Democratic president. If he signs it-

Kara Swisher 7:37 Right

Greg Casar 7:37 ... we show we got something done.

Kara Swisher 7:38 Make, make the difference because, I mean, even though Democrats had a huge night, and it was, the party had been broadly unpopular and, and what Scott Galloway, my partner, says, it's, you-you-- "It's not a mortgage, it's rent right now." And what's clear is voters want change, and Democrats are gonna have to deliver on some of these campaign promises, especially on affordability. I think corruption is, is something people have been worried about. Um, but I think affordability especially is central chances to retaking the White House in two years.

Sam Liccardo 8:05 Yeah, and just to double down on what Greg said, you know, w- the, the one thing we know about Trump is whatever he says on any given day, he'll change his mind within the next two weeks. And so the man has no ideological bearing whatsoever. I don't think he's the guy who's gonna have the courage to say, "No, I'm gonna veto this."

Kara Swisher 8:20 But, uh, one of the things that people are worried about, and there's a big debate going on, is, is level of retribution and level of revenge, I guess, for some people. The incoming, uh, chair of the House Oversight Committee, who I've interviewed many times, Robert Garcia, had two words for the administration and its enablers Tuesday night: lawyer up. With Democrats set to have sizable majorities, where do you think the investigations should start and, and who are the targets? Because a lot of people-- I do a podcast also with Hillary Clinton, and she felt the impeachment was pointless, even if it made you feel better, and it should be very specific toward corruption, um, or Pete Hegseth or both or whatever. First, uh, Greg, and then Sam, where do you lie on that, on that, on that issue?

Greg Casar 9:02 There is, of course, important work to stop the worst excesses of the Trump administration. People did elect us to do that. But people are used to one party has the House, and there's the president of the other party, and you go after them. That may not get us the new trust, uh, or this new trust we just won. It may not hold it unless we're willing to do something different, which is go after the corrupt actors that also thought they could get a merger by potentially paying somebody off, that thought that they could get through regulations and make sure tariffs are still on you but not on them because of a corrupt deal. So let's go after those oligarchs and corporations who are the other part of the takes two to tango, and I think that will really get voters' attention and earn us trust. You, you can't get a bigger repudiation of Trump than what we just got last night. We can't just be known as the anti-Trump party heading into the next presidential election, though. We have to be known as the everyday American worker party, and you don't do that just by going after Trump. You do that by making sure that we go after the corruption that is screwing up our government and our economy.

Kara Swisher 10:11 What about you, Sam?

Sam Liccardo 10:12 I mean, we've got a target-rich environment to go chase corruption. I'm a former criminal prosecutor, and, uh, we could be spending thousands of years going after all of the corrupt acts and actors in this administration. I think it's gonna be very important for us to be very strategic and focused on the corruption that most impacts Americans directly. The crypto corruption, for example, that has enabled folks to get off the hook, that is in various ways disrupting our financial system and ultimately costing people. We've got to really focus on connecting the corruption to everyday Americans and how it's hurting them. I think that is gonna be important for us, and I think it's gonna be important for us to demonstrate first and foremost that we can govern. Uh, you know, Greg and I were just talking about a while ago about how, you know, we need a package that is going to be a whole lot of 80/20 issues in January that affects how we can help families pay bills. And if we can demonstrate we can govern first, then we'll have a lot more leeway to go after all the corruption. But if all people see and hear is about Democrats trying to prosecute Republicans or Trump, uh, it gets lost in the noise, and we will lose the confidence of those independents and Americans who, uh, maybe went our way this time, but question whether or not they should support a Democrat in the next run because all we can do is be political.

Kara Swisher 11:35 Well, the economy was highest, but corruption was right up there. The idea of-

Sam Liccardo 11:39 Yeah

Kara Swisher 11:39 ... I think they were linked to-- If you link them together, that's an interesting thing. Like, as you were talking about, I think you were referring to all the tech moguls having lunch at the White House every Tuesday, essentially, and getting stuff and putting coins in and getting stuff out for it.

Kara Swisher 11:52 Now, speaking of that, the midterms are over. Let's talk about AI legislation. There are dozens of bills being debated in Congress right now. Some address fears around displacement of workers. Others tackle safety, privacy, construction of data centers, corporate accountability. The list is very long. Um, when it comes to AI, which of the big issues should Congress tackle first, or is there something else the Democratic majority should prioritize?

Greg Casar 12:15 The overarching issue Across all of this, jobs, safety, privacy, data centers, is who should be in control of our future. Should it be just a couple of guys that are billionaires that want to be trillionaires, or should it be the rest of us? And I think that that is really the defining feature for us here is for us to say, instead of cashing the checks from the AI lobby super PACs, we should be standing up to these guys and standing up for what everyday people want. And that's why we flipped the state of Texas in part is 'cause people in rural Texas, just as much as here in Austin, Texas, don't think you should lose your job so that an AI billionaire can become a trillionaire, don't think that you should have to pay higher electric bills for these guys, or our national security should be com- compromised. So it really, I think, is gonna be about taking a side and then passing meaningful legislation, in my view, to protect your jobs, to reduce your bills, uh, protect your safety.

Kara Swisher 13:15 Greg, you have m-- a couple of bills. One is the displacement of workers, the other is a ban on artificial super intelligence you sponsored along with Bernie Sanders in the Senate. Uh, w-- can, can you just b-- give more specifics about these and where you think they are in terms of v-voter interest?

Greg Casar 13:32 I'll, I'll start with, uh, our ban on super intelligence bill. It basically says, we should not develop AI that is too powerful for humans to control. And if you remember, when Senator Sanders came out against unregulated data centers, people were like, "That's some way out there progressive idea." Now it's the mainstream American politics. And this idea of like, why should we develop AI that could develop a bio weapon without our authorization? Uh, I mean, who wants that? That's nuts. We shouldn't be allowed to do that, and we should have it under control. On jobs, uh, I've developed a tax proposal that disincentivizes AI companies from getting rid of your job and getting a tax break for it. Instead, they should pay a meager tax that increases if unemployment increases to make it so that we don't wind up in a situation where you've got structural mass unemployment. We should be able to, you know, develop our technology in a way that benefits people, but not in a way that puts lots of people out of work. And then I'll add a third one real briefly, Kara, that is like this simple affordability stuff. Uh, I have a bill, and Ruben Gallego has it in the Senate, to ban AI surveillance pricing. This is where, uh, these companies know what you Googled, have so much of your private data that they can set a specific price for you. So think about, you know, if somebody Googles the wor-- somebody's obituary, next thing you know, an airline jacks up your air, uh, fares because they know you've got to get to a funeral and will pay what it takes. There's no good reason for that, and that's the kind of affordability policy that we can pass that is overwhelmingly popular with all voters and takes o- on these AI oligarchs who have just been running amok.

Kara Swisher 15:14 So Sam, talk about it from a California perspective. California's been one of the states that's governed it more than other states. Obviously, there's a lot of-

Sam Liccardo 15:20 Yes, in leading in safety. Yeah

Kara Swisher 15:22 ... h- wh- where-- but it has to be a federal thing. How do you look ab-- as a-

Sam Liccardo 15:25 For sure

Kara Swisher 15:25 ... legislator from California, how do you look at what has to happen in AI, and what is, what is non-negotiable really for you?

Sam Liccardo 15:33 Yeah, I, I think, you know, as you discussed all the issues, and I would never minimize the jobs issue because I think that's gonna be a massive disruption to our economy, and we have to confront it. But I think the most urgent issues we have to focus on are around AI safety, uh, because the cybersecurity risk, the loss of control risk, what we're already seeing with agentic misalignment is terrifying. And I think if you go survey the employees of major AI companies in the labs, overwhelmingly, the employees will say the same things. Uh, and so this is a situation where those who are very knowledgeable in the industry have been begging not just for months, but for years, for the federal government to step up with sensible AI safety regulations. Uh, and it appears now even those sensible regulations are probably not going to be enough. We're gonna need a lot more. And by that, I mean, we need to find a way to massively accelerate the technology of safety to be able to catch up to the technology of model capability. Uh, and until we do that, we are going to be in great peril, and so Congress needs to move quickly at least to get some of the basics in place. Uh, ensure you actually have a regulatory agency, presumably it'd be Casey and the Commerce department, that has real authority, real funding, real knowledgeable staff. I mean, they have good staff, but clearly they need a lot more to be able to engage.

Kara Swisher 16:54 You're not talking about a separate agency, 'cause some people have suggested that.

Sam Liccardo 16:58 I mean, Casey exists now. I, I'm less stuck to exactly how you do it and, uh, what it looks like in the org chart. The critical thing is that we have an entity in the federal government, uh, that is actually capable of regulating and

Sam Liccardo 17:12 power to do so and has the resources to do so.

Kara Swisher 17:14 Right. So the bill that has the most momentum in Congress right now is the Frontier Act. It required developers to f-- of frontier AI models to undergo regular independent audits, and I mean independent, not them d- uh, grading their own homework, report any seri-- and report any serious issues to occur, and presumably have some teeth when they don't. Um, the Frontier Act does have bipartisan support. OpenAI threw its support behind it. Um, uh, Greg, where are the strengths and weaknesses? Uh, because you've said Democrats can't afford to be squishy on AI, and where are you willing to compromise yourself and what's non-negotiable?

Greg Casar 17:50 We have to get AI safety legislation passed, and so we will work on whatever compromises we need to, but we shouldn't be compromising ahead of time here because if you remember, uh, as this law was being developed, what Republicans were pushing in Congress was getting rid of all AI safety laws at the state level, period. The ground has shifted rapidly beneath us, and so we should assess based on where we are now. And based on where we are now, I th- I expect and think that some of these members may even change what they're, were saying about the Frontier Act because we should, I, and I agree with Congressman Liccardo, have, uh, these auditors held accountable to the government. Some of the drafts I've seen, for example, have some of the auditors hired or paid for by the companies. I mean, w-we should be taking this, uh, as seriously as the mandate that the voters sent our way. And then Kara, as you mentioned, while there may be some teeth in the bill, I think that we can have much stronger teeth here because this is the kind of situation where you don't want to say, "Oops, you know, we took down the internet, or the grid, or, you know, a hospital," and go back and deal with it later. We should be monitoring these models at every stage of development and having real teeth to shut them down.

Kara Swisher 19:07 When you mean punishment, you mean including punishments, criminal or-

Greg Casar 19:10 Including, including punishment, including criminal punishment for people involved.

Kara Swisher 19:13 Mm.

Greg Casar 19:13 You know, not just a, not just a fine that, that these companies could pay like a speeding ticket.

Kara Swisher 19:19 And Sam, when, when you look at the strengths and weaknesses of the Frontier Act, what, what do you look at? And there are th- as you said, I think Republicans will come along on this. They're-- it's very bipartisan in a lot of ways.

Sam Liccardo 19:28 Well, I, you know, I think the Frontier Act is a good place to start. Um, and there are many good elements in it. I would also... I agree that there needs to be, uh, some additional, uh, elements. Um, I, I think that we need to create strong bipartisan momentum, uh, that I think ultimately will, will force the White House to cave. I think everyone sees that there's great concern among the American public, unlike what Donald Trump said about AI safety being a hoax. Uh, what I'd be focusing on is probably adding elements around pre-release review, uh, to make sure that we actually have objective criteria for determining, uh, whether or not models get released, as opposed to what we just saw with the Commerce Department back in, what was it, April or, or, or May, uh, with fairly arbitrary decisions, um, that were not transparent. I think, uh, we need to get in the game with China because whatever we do from a regulatory standpoint is largely meaningless, uh, when we know the majority of models that are being downloaded today from Hugging Face in the United States are Chinese, not American. Uh, and they're very powerful, open weight models that can be easily manipulated by bad actors. Uh, we need to be in, at the table with China, at the very least on track two negotiations.

Kara Swisher 20:42 Now, you had a bill with California Independent Kevin Kiley to push the two-

Sam Liccardo 20:46 Yeah

Kara Swisher 20:46 ... nations to coordinate more, and he lost his re-election Tuesday night.

Kara Swisher 20:50 Um, what d- wh-what does coordination with China look like in the middle of the AI race that both nations see as existential, and where do our interests overlap? I have always pushed for a global discussion and not this ridiculous G or me argument. Now, there's competition, and then th-there's a need for cooperation, like on nuclear, uh, proliferation, for example. It's very similar to, in my mind. Um, where-

Sam Liccardo 21:13 Agreed

Kara Swisher 21:13 ... what, how do you look at that?

Sam Liccardo 21:15 Yeah, and I think that offers a good blueprint. You had top scientists on track two negotiations engaging in very deep technical-focused conversations around how do we agree on things like metrics and testing and evaluation and perhaps most importantly, verification. We don't trust each other. We're not going to trust each other. So we need clear mechanisms for verification. Some of the same principles apply, but right now you've got a lot of legal barriers that prevent those conversations from happening, either in antitrust law or national security law or export, uh, control restrictions, believe it or not, that actually limit what we can say and communicate. Um, and so we need to create safe pathways for the top scientists at our AI labs and our think tanks and universities to be talking to their counterparts in China. And what the bill would suggest is basically just register with the State Department so they know what you're doing. They can get engaged in the conversation if they want, but we have to have the conversations so we can actually agree on how we're gonna test, evaluate, supervise, monitor, all those things we need to do to make this much safer.

Kara Swisher 22:23 So Greg, when you think about that, what has to be... who should be in those discussions with-- W- I-I mean, I've always complained is that the White House, it's all sh- people with shareholder interests, financial interests. It's the CEOs. You don't see a critic. You don't see a, you don't see a scientist. You don't see an academic. You don't see anyone who disagrees with them. Who needs to be in those discussions?

Greg Casar 22:43 Th- th- and this has to be a totally new kind of discussion. I'm, uh, and really in the last few months, this has shifted. I mean, I'm hearing from parliamentarians and members of Congress from all over the world. I am taking a meeting tomorrow with leading s- leaders from Europe about how we come to global agreements on AI safety and also create safety in parallel, right? You-- We can take a step forward, and then other nations take a step forward, and that is, that is how we get this done. Kara, I was recently sitting with some of these executives from some of the top AI labs, and you're right. You know, s-so often they're stuck in the same way of doing things, where they said, when I asked them, "Why is it that you're saying we're racing towards a cliff, and you keep pushing the gas?" And they say, "Well, we just don't think that China will slow down." And I asked them, I was like, "Y'all just finished telling me that you think you can cure cancer, but you are, you don't think that we can sign an agreement?" Right? We co- we've-- Forever civilizations have been able to come to agreements across nations. We can, we can do this, but we have the same folks in the room too often who, you know, just think that it is... They're, as you pointed out on your podcast, so nihilistic that they're saying, well, they're the ones that are gonna create the autonomous killer robots, and it's better for it to be theirs that kill us rather than somebody else's. To me, that is sociopathic, and we need folks in the room that put humanity first.

Sam Liccardo 24:07 I think Greg is right about some folks in the industry. Uh, you know, we can think of those who, who certainly view that. But, but, but the reality is we're looking at a White House, uh, you know, where a president has said that AI Uh, safety is a hoax. Uh, they're not serious, or at least they're not of one mind about this issue. And so it is not hard to understand from the industry's perspective why it might be hard to believe that this White House is gonna negotiate anything with China. Uh, and so, uh, you know, obviously, we need to do everything we can to make that possible, whether it's for this president or a future president. But, uh, I believe that the blame is squarely on the government first and foremost. This is supposed to be our job, and we're not doing our job.

Kara Swisher 24:45 So what involvement should AI labs have in the conversations? Obviously, they need to be involved. I don't think they shouldn't. They just-- they're the only ones involved at this point in, in the conversation.

Greg Casar 24:55 I think one of the, well, some of the mo- folks that have been most helpful honestly have been the employees themselves at these labs, and that's how we know what's really going on here. I mean, the, the, some of the real heroes here have been people who have, you know, people who I think were just fired, right, over at OpenAI, the, people like Jacob J-Coxon, you know, going, putting out the tweet heard round the world. So they're critical in this conversation. And to Sam's point, to get the CEOs and executives to, um, to make a turn would be very important. Now, um, and I agree that while Trump ha-- bears huge parts of this responsibility, I just don't, you know, I also don't let them off the hook when it's like, "If you think you're creating potentially the mass death machine, you have a big responsibility here too." But, uh, who I'm so grateful to have been those rank-and-file researchers and staffers who've spoken out 'cause that's how we know what's actually really going on deep in there. They're the folks who have been holding them accountable.

Kara Swisher 25:55 Right.

Greg Casar 25:55 Now, with subpoena power and potentially having these executives tell us the truth under oath, I hope that we can also get, um, the truth out to the American people and change course.

Kara Swisher 26:05 Right. So Sam, you wrote a Washington Post op-ed back in May where you argued that AI doesn't need a regulator, it needs a referee. Um, but in September, you helped lead the call for more than a hundred Democrats demanding a vote on A-AI safeguard legislation. So c-can you i-illuminate on that? What changed for you?

Sam Liccardo 26:20 Yeah, let me explain where I was going. The reality is, I don't think we know how to regulate AI, AI safety, um, and we don't in part because the nature of the technology. This is not deterministic software code. This is probabilistic. We don't-- nobody knows exactly what comes out of these models, so it makes it very different as we think about regulating. But part of the challenge too is that the expertise is nowhere near Washington. It really is in the labs, and we have heard plenty of cries for more AI safety regulation. We have to engage the leading thinkers who are well, overwhelmingly in places like Greg's district and my district, they're not in Washington, D.C., uh, to actually, uh, enable us to create a much safer AI. Uh, and ultimately, I believe it's going to require us, um, to engage the industry proactively with obviously the right liability rules and so forth to force a race to safety. That is, to realign incentives towards safety rather than toward greater model capability. I think there are things we can do, but it's not the traditional regulation as we conceive it in the past. I think The Frontier Act is a good effort. It is necessary, but by no means sufficient, and we're gonna need those folks in the industry to help us understand how to make this safer.

Speaker 27:36 Ripple has been powering modern finance for a decade. We're leading the charge to bridge the gap between existing financial systems and the future of finance. You can have it all: legacy, stability, and digital innovation, systems that work with your other systems. Because with the right partner, the question isn't crypto or traditional finance. The question is simply, why choose? A new standard of modern finance, it's happening with Ripple. For informational purposes only. Availability of products can vary and may be provided by different Ripple entities.

Kara Swisher 28:06 Every episode, we get a question from an outside expert. Here is yours.

Alex Bores 28:10 Hi, I'm Alex Bores, New

Alex Bores 28:12 York State Assembly member, author of the Raise Act, and co-founder of Who Decides. The big question I'd ask is, should we allow the AI companies to fully automate AI research? All of the frontier companies are striving for what they call recursive self-improvement, having AIs fully build the next generation of AI without any humans in the loop. OpenAI says they are on pace to do this around March 2028. Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark estimated around 2027. But in either case, this is gonna be a question the next Congress has to solve. We won't get another election before this happens. So would each of you vote to ban RSI? The mechanisms might be slightly different, um, but one example could be requiring that training runs be kicked off only by human beings and having senior executives at the company held personally liable if those processes are kicked off recklessly, the same way we hold executives at meat manufacturing plants or financial auditors personally responsible if they do something truly reckless.

Kara Swisher 29:20 Great question. Greg, then Sam.

Greg Casar 29:22 Uh, my answer to that is, is yes, and that it-- to me, RSI, recursive self-improvement, is the jet fuel that could set AI on entirely the wrong path. And we know these companies are headed that direction, and if we just say that is off-limits, uh, then we can start getting on the right path. Uh, S-Senator Sanders and my, uh, bill to ban artificial super intelligence, one of the ways that we stop ourselves from having an AI that's too powerful to control, an element in that bill is to not have recursive self-improvement. Make sure humans are building the AI rather than having AI that we can't control building even more dangerous AI that we can't control.

Kara Swisher 30:03 Sam?

Sam Liccardo 30:04 Yeah, I, I certainly would support it, but, and here's the big but, I don't think we really understand how to implement effectively a ban like that. And I think there are a lot of smart folks, certainly in my neck of the woods, uh, Bay Area, we have a lot of AI safety, uh, advocates and labs, uh, that are working on things like figuring out how we can verify and monitor whether or not compute is being used for, um, uh- Uh, whether it's being used for training or not, uh, as opposed to inference, you know, those are the kinds of technologies that are gonna be very important to the extent that we can actually verify, then I think it makes a lot of sense for us to move forward with something. My concern is that you pass something and we know the bad guys won't comply, and if we don't have real verification, this whole thing becomes a mess, and we end up empowering the wrong folks.

Kara Swisher 30:53 Right. Although we managed to do it with cloning, we managed to do it with nuclear energy, um, you know, super bugs and things like that. It, it doesn't require-

Sam Liccardo 31:02 Yeah, I think with nuclear energy we do have better ways of verifying, but fair point.

Kara Swisher 31:06 Absolutely. Yeah, 'cause it's things. It's things. But in this case,

Kara Swisher 31:10 they do-- there is records, and if nothing else, Democrats can use their subpoena power in the House to hold hearings with the leaders of top companies. Um, Greg has been pushing this on Democratic leadership, especially in the wake of the hugging face incident, which I have still not understood why there wasn't more worry about what happened there, uh, 'cause I know there was in Silicon Valley. In the past when congressional leaders held hearings with tech leaders, it's pretty clear that some members obviously didn't understand the platforms. Uh, and I remember the one with Mark Zuckerberg around social media where Josh Hawley was haranguing them, and I... all I could think of is, "If only there was someone in this room could do something about it." Like, stop yelling at him and do something, you asshole. How can hearings and subpoena power be used in a way that's effective versus performative jazz hands that is easy to do in Congress?

Greg Casar 31:58 First, there is the important information gathering about what the risks are, how far out we are-

Kara Swisher 32:04 What, and what happened

Greg Casar 32:05 ... from those risks.

Kara Swisher 32:06 Right.

Greg Casar 32:06 Both what happened and where these, uh, where these CEOs think we are headed. Uh, because to Alex Boresh's point, as he just popped up for his question, you know, that we need to know directly from the executives how close we are, they believe we are to the edge. And then actually to Sam's point, we then can ask, uh, what it is that our laws need to do to be able to achieve the ends that we want. Uh, because, uh, I... Sam, I don't think your answer to the RSI question was "yes, but," I think it was "yes, and." We need strong laws, and then we need to hold these CEOs to it. Uh, and that should be the purpose of the hearings because voters overwhelmingly voted against Republicans because they thought they were just taking the AI billionaires' checks and doing whatever they want. We need to show that we are serious about the fact that people are worried that their kids are getting addicted to dangerous stuff on the internet. They're worried that their prices are going up, and that, yes, they're worried that we're walking into a massive national security risk. They should see that Democrats are not just performatively fighting, but are actually trying to do something to take care of their, of their lives. That's what they are electing us to do.

Kara Swisher 33:18 Sam?

Sam Liccardo 33:19 Yeah. I, I think what's important for us is to come to the table with solutions and challenge them to come up with better solutions. Uh, you know, we have seen those performative hearings that you've described and the, you know, the, the running joke in Silicon Valley is we're gonna have a bunch of ranting from members of Congress who are still trying to spell AI. That's not the solution. We have some ideas. Certainly Frontier Act is a good place to start. I think Greg's got some interesting bills, again, good bills that we should also be putting on the table. Let's put them on the table and say, "Look, we're terrified what RSI could be doing to humanity. Come up with a better solution or else." [chuckles]

Kara Swisher 33:58 Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, now there's a new crop of lawmakers who are... It, it's not all old men, like-

Sam Liccardo 34:04 Agreed

Kara Swisher 34:04 ... wondering what it is, right?

Sam Liccardo 34:06 Yeah.

Kara Swisher 34:06 And they're much younger. They're more tech-savvy. It's a big game changer. But

Kara Swisher 34:10 one of the things, um, that's been a problem is the deleterious effects of money, right, in this whole thing. And, you know, uh, we have to talk about Elon, right? Like, how do you... And he's sort of the poster child for all this money. That's a big roadblock. And one of the things many of the tech people have told me is, "Well, Trump will do s-- will hurt us. Democrats won't. They'll forgive us and then take our money, essentially." How do you fight against that, stay, you know, stay strong with, with this enormous amount of money? It didn't work in this election, but it's sort of the fuel of all elections in a lot of ways, and, you know, Elon has proven that.

Greg Casar 34:47 I mean, yeah. E- E- Elon's a constituent right up the road here in Austin, Texas, and the answer to this is different today than yesterday. Today, we smashed those roadblocks. We broke the dam. We showed people how we actually do this. Elon Musk financed the majority of Ken Paxton's campaign, and what James Talarico and frankly all Democrats got together and did was to try to make that, and successfully did make that, a huge liability-

Kara Swisher 35:16 He did. He talked about it at every-

Greg Casar 35:17 ... for Ken Paxton

Kara Swisher 35:17 ... every single stop. Yes.

Greg Casar 35:18 Instead of being scared of the money, make that money the big issue, and you can win over voters we never thought we could win over before. And so Democrats have to, as you pointed out, not cash their checks and take their apology, but instead actually just go fight for the right policy that people believe in. That's it.

Kara Swisher 35:38 Well, that's nice, but, you know, Musk spent a half a billion dollars on the midterms. He's still got a lot of money from what I can understand, even though SpaceX and Tesla shares are down today. Um, but how do you, in closer elections, how do you overcome that, that potential cudgel the tech industry can wield?

Greg Casar 35:54 Uh, uh, and we should make it toxic where every dollar he spends, it costs the, his supported candidate $100 to explain it. Um, because he j- we just had literally the most expensive elections in American history, and Democrats won overwhelmingly by fighting Elon Musk's money. So we have to make their money toxic. And then, Kara, uh, it's, it-- of course, we can make Musk toxic, but then there's the others, and there's a famous saying from a, uh, Texas lobbyist who said, "I want to buy off Republicans, and I don't want Democrats to do anything for me, but I also don't want them to do anything to me." And we can't take that kind of advice 'cause not doing anything to them And their billions of dollars is actually doing something for them. We've got to take this moment to say, "What is it that voters want? What is the right thing to do?" And let's make their money toxic.

Kara Swisher 36:46 What about you, Sam?

Sam Liccardo 36:47 Yeah, I think, um, w- we are... I, I may be a bit quixotic 'cause I'm a first-term member of the minority party and, and at least for now. Uh, and, and so it's easy for me to, uh, dream of ideas without being the, the chair of the committee who's gotta move it to the floor. But this

Sam Liccardo 37:05 might be the moment to actually get a constitutional amendment in place, and I don't mean just undo Citizens United. I mean completely change the relationship between campaign money and the First Amendment. Uh, and stop pretending that this is protected speech because nobody really believes that, even though the courts have been stuck on that since Buckley versus Valeo back in the 1970s. Uh, this is, I think, an opportunity because it's an 80/20 issue. It turns out a lot of Republican voters also believe there's way too much money in politics, even though they may not see it the same way we do with Elon Musk. And for the first time, we can say to an awful lot of folks, "See? Money didn't actually drive the results," right? We saw what happened in Texas and how much money Elon spent there, so we might actually get a few more folks with some spine to stand up and say, "Okay, it's now finally time to rid ourselves of this pox, and let's allow for sensible regulation." It can be a very simple one-sentence amendment. This is the opportunity where we could really unite people across, uh, the partisan divide.

Greg Casar 38:14 And I wanna yes and what Sam said, Kara. We, the, we should, we should move forward on that, but we don't have to wait on the Constitutional amendment, in my view. We could pass-- We have a bill to cap contributions to any PAC at 5,000 bucks. We could pass another law that's a 100% tax on any contribution politically over 5,000 bucks. If the Supreme Court wants to keep coming at us time and time again, we show the Supreme Court for who it is they are, but we, we have a real opportunity to be the party against big money in politics and to make-- and to, and to reset the laws here.

Kara Swisher 38:45 Do you have to get rid of the filibuster to do that? I, I'm not sure it'll get past the Senate without it.

Greg Casar 38:49 Q- q- I, I, I cannot understand why it would be that the Senate would allow like Chuck Grassley or somebody to hold up getting big money out of politics. Why would we have the filibuster block things that are 80/20 issues anymore? I just think that, you know, J- Joe Manchin's time and Krysten Sinema's time has passed, and it's time for the Senate to wield democracy, uh, instead of just being stuck with some arcane rules.

Sam Liccardo 39:17 I-- It's gonna take a massive organizing effort in those five or six states where we need to get those senators on board. Um, I, you know, but this is something I think is within our reach that I never thought was within our reach a couple years ago. [gentle music]

Kara Swisher 39:30 Support for this show comes from Framer. The future of website building is one that seamlessly blends all the tools we have available, and you should use a platform that has it all and stays useful even after you launch. That's what Framer is. Framer is the AI website builder that helps creators, teams, and businesses ship production-ready sites faster than ever while getting every detail right. You're able to prompt, inspect, edit, and publish in one place at a whole new pace. On Framer, agents and humans work in tandem. Agents bring speed and scale while people bring taste, judgment, and control, and that all takes place in the same workspace where the real site is designed, managed, reviewed, and published. Everyone's ideas land on the canvas, stay editable, and can be published when the team is ready. Framer is an enterprise-level solution. Thousands of businesses, from early-stage startups to Fortune 500s, are choosing to build their websites in Framer, where changes take place in minutes instead of days. Learn how you can get more out of your site from a Framer specialist, or get started building for free today at framer.com/kara for 30% off a Framer Pro Annual Plan. That's framer.com/kara. Rules and restrictions apply. [gentle music]

Kara Swisher 40:43 Democrats will still face a lot of challenges to passing meaningful AI legislation, so let's talk about some of them. Um, and two of you, as I said, represent div- uh, the divisions the Democratic caucus has a- how, or how to best approach it. Where is the common ground in the caucus?

Sam Liccardo 40:58 Well, I think there's a lot of common ground about all the major risks that AI poses that we need to address legislatively, and, uh, I think there's gonna be a lot of common ground on safety. Certainly, we can debate about the details, um, but a real sense of urgency to move forward. Uh, I think on jobs there's a lot of common ground about the critical need for us, uh, to be able to invest in people again, uh, and enable our workers to be nimble enough with the skills they need. I think we've failed in the past to do that. A lot of federal programs have failed. I have some ideas about how we can do it much better. Um, but w- this is a moment when we've got to enable millions of Americans to see a pathway, and it has to be a real pathway, in an AI-enabled economy because we are not gonna order back the sea of AI. Uh, no matter how much we may try, it is coming, it is coming at us, and we've got to be much more prepared. So I think... And around data centers, look, I, I, uh, Lord knows data centers poll about as well as measles, mumps, and rubella, but the truth is, we critically need all that money that hyperscalers can invest in the grid if we are going to transition from a fossil fuel economy. And if we do this right, we can leverage those resources and protect local communities. We just need federal rules in place that protect local communities, protect ratepayers, uh, and elicit the f- the investment we need from the hyperscalers into the grid. And I think we can have the, the data centers we need for infrastructure, and we can get-

Kara Swisher 42:35 You have to battle a lot of voter discontent about this issue. It's really quite high.

Sam Liccardo 42:39 Oh, absolutely.

Kara Swisher 42:40 Um, I mean, I was-

Sam Liccardo 42:40 Because we haven't stepped up

Kara Swisher 42:42 Yeah, I've just-- I was just texting with Mark Cuban about this, and he's like, "They've gotta not be against data centers all the time." I said, "It's the voters, Mark. It's not the politicians, it's the voters, and maybe you should convince them you're not all assholes," right? [laughs] You know what I mean? Like, maybe there's-- Like, if you could make, make your argument if that's the case instead of-

Sam Liccardo 42:58 Yeah

Kara Swisher 42:58 ... running over people.

Sam Liccardo 43:00 And we're seeing-

Kara Swisher 43:00 And of course that was Elon Musk and Kevin O'Leary behaving like that, that was stupid.

Sam Liccardo 43:04 Agreed. I mean, we know what's happening v- on the right, but I think there's plenty of folks in industry, uh, hyperscalers who are saying, "Look, we're willing to pay our own way. We're willing-

Kara Swisher 43:10 Mm-hmm

Sam Liccardo 43:11 ... to do this a- and with much cleaner energy."

Kara Swisher 43:13 Yeah.

Sam Liccardo 43:14 Um, we just need to-- let's put the rules in place and make sure everybody's playing by those rules.

Kara Swisher 43:18 And Greg, where do you see common ground?

Greg Casar 43:20 I, I think the common ground h- uh, is growing and has grown rapidly over the course of the last few months, right? I, I, I think that the Dem- Democrats have come together and realized that our voters are increasingly united in saying, "We want real rules. We don't need you to tiptoe around the edges." And as Sam said, um, although we may represent two different ideological caucuses inside of the Democratic family on what the problem is of we don't want mass surveillance from corporations or the government, we don't want a massive national security risk. We need agreements with China and other nations. And no,

Greg Casar 44:00 I don't want Great Depression level of unemployment and to try to make that a little less bad with small checks sent to people. We agree on all of that, and now we just get to which policy can we pass that gets us closest to that goal. And, uh, and if we t- if we take that seriously, that, that is, that is a such a better place than we were just even a few weeks ago.

Kara Swisher 44:21 Now, b- of course, as, as you were kind of pointing out, Sam, right now the US economy is massively dependent on the AI boom. It accounts for roughly one-fifth to one-third of economic growth right now. This is not good. The Wall Street Journal said, "Never before has the US economy been so dependent on the build-out of a single industry." So when you're thinking about-- and we shouldn't be in this situation, um, how do you balance the need for economic growth, which is critical, with the push for regulation? Sam, and then Greg.

Sam Liccardo 44:50 Well, I think we, we need to acknowledge that it probably is a bubble. Uh, and we need to ensure, uh, that first we are not subsidizing this bubble, that it's not being encouraged, uh, in some way, uh, with taxpayer help. Uh, and we need to do everything we can to protect taxpayers and workers through this bubble. But the reality is, as much as I think there is likely going to be some correction, uh, we're still gonna need this infrastructure. So it's gonna be important for us as we think about policies, how we can direct this private sector investment to a maximal, uh, extent possible to actually get us the infrastructure we need, which is overwhelmingly around grid expansion and, um, and bolstering that grid.

Greg Casar 45:37 And as, as Sam noted, we right now are in part subsidizing the f- financially irresponsible behavior and blowing up the bubble. The, uh, big ugly bill that Trump rammed through as his only horrible achievement gives enormous tax breaks that are being taken advantage of by the big AI companies that leads to more financially responsible behavior. So I and Maxine Waters have filed a resolution, uh, calling, uh, for a sense of the House that we will not bail out the AI companies, and instead should be focused on helping retirees and workers and anybody affected by this financially responsible behavior because we need to have learned from the housing bubble where people, where, where people lost their houses, but then some of the people responsible for the devastation, you know, got golden parachutes.

Kara Swisher 46:29 Got bailed out. Yeah, they got bailed out.

Greg Casar 46:29 And we, we can't allow that, and we should start making sure that our economy is directed towards truly productive uses of, of, of everybody's labor and money. Um, and it is really-- You know, nobody wants, uh, th- nobody wants for there to be a d- devastating correction, but we need to be prepared to make sure we take care of people in the instance in which that happens.

Sam Liccardo 46:53 Well, I was just gonna build on that. I think, you know, as, particularly as these larger companies are going public, and the SEC is gonna be really critical here, and, and Paul Atkins has been completely spineless. Uh, but we need strong oversight on the SEC to ensure that these very circ- circular financing arrangements are made very transparent, uh, so that the market corrections can happen sooner, uh, in a less abrupt and painful way that we know will happen if they're not transparent.

Kara Swisher 47:24 Right.

Kara Swisher 47:25 Right. Absolutely. And, and the way to g-- the one person you're gonna have to get past is Trump, who is-- he said he will work with Democrats. He also said he's ready to be Mr. Veto. He has been the doormat for the AI industry completely. Honestly, Elon Musk, even though he lost all this money this week, he made a, he's made a ton of money, uh, elsewhere. How do you get Trump on board? 'Cause you have to in a lot of ways. Um, and which of these tech people do you have to remove from the conversation?

Greg Casar 47:54 We may successfully, I hope we successfully, uh, avoid any kind of bailout for the AI companies, but they then may be coming for federal contracts, right? Or for other kinds of relief. And as you said, the number one person on this is Elon Musk, who's gets at least eight million dollars a day in federal contracts while he was trying to cut your mom's Social Security check down. And so, uh, we should in with-- if we're gonna be doing investigations and be doing this work, uh, and as you said, we can't just be known as the anti-Trump party. I think we should be very targeted and look at how it is that these AI billionaires who keep squeezing money out of the federal taxpayer, uh, kitty, right? They're not just making all of this money because they have, they've, they've been extremely profitable and productive, that we, we cut them off there. Uh, and, and we have the power of the purse, and so there are lots of ways that we can have an influence there even without getting Trump, uh, on board. There may be some things that Trump comes on board with, but even without getting him on board, making sure that we are exposing where there is this grift and federal money flowing directly to the AI oligarchs.

Kara Swisher 49:09 And, and Sam, how do you get Trump on board? Or out of your way, either way.

Sam Liccardo 49:14 Yeah, I know. [laughs] I, I struggle with, with that one. Um, look, I, I think, you know, going back to what I said about the fact that Trump is, uh, guaranteed to change his mind on any position he takes, uh, he, he sees where political winds are going. I, I think it's imperative for us to build the momentum in a bipartisan way. Even though we now have strong majority in the House, uh, this is an opportunity for us to show leadership, bring enough Republicans along to show that this is inevitable. Uh, the more that we can do that, the more effective we'll be.

Kara Swisher 49:48 Let him build something. It's fine. Go over there.

Sam Liccardo 49:50 Yeah, he can-

Kara Swisher 49:50 Build something

Sam Liccardo 49:50 ... go hang out at the pond.

Kara Swisher 49:51 Yeah.

Sam Liccardo 49:52 Yeah.

Kara Swisher 49:52 Go, go ahead and spawn a pup. [laughs]

Greg Casar 49:53 We'll, we'll name, we'll name Sam's AI safety bill after Trump, you know?

Kara Swisher 49:56 Yeah, that's right. Yeah. We're gonna name it after Trump.

Greg Casar 49:57 Have it, have it printed on gold paper. [laughs]

Kara Swisher 49:59 Yeah, something like that. So last question, Congress has not managed to pass the meaningful regulations on social media platform even af- as their dangers became obvious, like the spread of disinformation, effect on kids' mental health, election meddling, foreign actors. The list just goes on. Um, how, how do you ensure history doesn't repeat itself with AI? There has never been an industry that has been so unregulated and so powerful, I think since, well, no, the railroads got regulated. They all did.

Sam Liccardo 50:29 I, I think it would help if we, we created an AI committee. Um, right now, AI is spread across a lot of different committees and jurisdiction, and frankly, it could be every committee i- if you want to be, [laughs] um, really specific about. So we're not going to get bills over the goal line if we're playing legislative pinball between every committee that wants jurisdiction. I know this is a big fight, and, you know, God love Hakeem Jeffries. He's got a, a lot of, um, a lot of cats to herd in our, in our, uh, caucus to be sure, and I, I respect his leadership tremendously. I, I'm hopeful that we're gonna end up with a single committee that is going to drive the most critical, most urgent AI legislation so we can get it to the floor and, and, and start pushing the accelerator. I, I, you know, data privacy, what? We spent 30 years now. I mean, you went down a long list. We can't keep doing things the same way.

Kara Swisher 51:23 Right. Very good point. Greg, you have the last word.

Greg Casar 51:26 Sam is part of what's known as the New Democrats. I'm the chair of the Progressive Caucus. Typically, you've seen sort of this Democratic battling o- o- over ourselves, but what is so important and interesting and different this time, Kara, is that people are demanding action, and Sam and I agree entirely on this point, that our biggest mistakes haven't been just being a little left here or a little right or center there. It is when we fail to act. People want a Democratic party that takes action. I've heard from zero voters that they think Democrats are too strong, and you get too much stuff done too quick. Nobody says that ever. [laughs]

Kara Swisher 52:05 [laughs] No.

Greg Casar 52:05 And what people are asking is for us to act, and so we have to learn from our failures during the housing bubble. We have to learn from our failures on social media, and, uh, this is, this is our shot. Inequality is worse than it was under the railroads in the Gilded Age. We are in a crazier position than they were back then, and we have to have our version of what FDR did, getting all this stuff done, uh, and, and that's our task. It's our job.

Kara Swisher 52:33 Yeah, Teddy Roosevelt. It was Teddy. It wasn't FD. Was it, was it Teddy or, or FDR? Which Roosevelt?

Greg Casar 52:38 Teddy got a lot of good stuff done, but FDR-

Kara Swisher 52:39 Teddy did too. Both of them did, yes

Greg Casar 52:41 ... but FDR did it coming out of the Great Depression.

Kara Swisher 52:42 Yeah.

Greg Casar 52:43 You know?

Kara Swisher 52:43 Yes, he did. Yes. FDR, all the Roosevelts.

Sam Liccardo 52:45 We can be bipartisan and say we love both of our Roosevelts.

Kara Swisher 52:47 All the Roosevelts. We need them back.

Greg Casar 52:49 No, the Bull-

Kara Swisher 52:50 Anyway

Greg Casar 52:50 ... the Bull Moose Party, third party Teddy Roosevelt later.

Kara Swisher 52:53 Whatever it takes, guys. I'm waiting. I've been waiting. I've been sitting here waiting. Anyway, uh, thank you so much. I really appreciate it. It's really a time to actually get things done, and I think that's the critical part, and I really appreciate you for being here and talking about it so substantively.

Greg Casar 53:07 Thanks, Kara. I look forward to, to continuing the conversation. [upbeat music]

Kara Swisher 53:09 Today's show is produced by Vicki Vergolina, Michelle Aloi, Katherine Millsap, Madeline LaPlant-Dubé, and Megan Bernie. Nishat Kurwa is Vox Media's executive producer of podcasts. Special thanks to Anika Robbins, Jim Mackle, and Manolo Moreno. Our engineers are Fernando Arruda and Rick Quan, and our theme music is by Trackademics. If you're already following the show, you don't have to protect your little heart anymore. If not, you're still under Trump's spell. Go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for On with Kara Swisher, and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Kara Swisher from Podium Media, New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us. We'll be back on Thursday with more. [upbeat music]