Angie Craig for United States Congress
Sean: We'd like to welcome Representative Angie Craig, who is running for U.S. Senate. The primary is tomorrow, and we're excited to talk to every candidate we can ahead of the big election in November. Representative Craig, we really appreciate your time today. Thank you for joining us on City Cast Twin Cities.
Angie: Great to be with you.
Sean: You're no stranger to serving constituents, since you're a U.S. representative right now. But I want to ask: in your work in the Senate, if you were elected at that level, how would your work most tangibly impact the community you live in?
Angie: As a U.S. senator, I'm going to focus on three things. How can we lower costs and create more opportunity for folks in my community? How can we pass legislation that keeps our community safe? And the third big area is that Washington is broken – we have a systemic issue there, from campaign finance reform to senators and members of Congress being able to trade stocks. Those three big buckets are my priorities as a U.S. senator, and I'm happy to talk more about that, Sean.
Sean: I agree with you to some extent that Washington is broken, and there are times I feel like we're doing plenty of the breaking ourselves locally at the community level. It's hard to have strong, resilient communities – some of that comes from within, from figuring out how to make those bonds stronger. But some of it comes from elected officials, and that's what I'm asking: as an elected official, how could you help build more resilient communities across Minnesota, and as a senator, across the nation?
Angie: Well, look, there are specific policy issues that, as a U.S. senator, I can fight for that will help us build more resilient communities – let me start at the individual level. I grew up in several different mobile homes and mobile home parks. My mom was a single mom who at times relied on what was called food stamps then, and is SNAP now. Sometimes we didn't have health insurance in our own family.
So when I think about building resiliency and creating economic opportunity – people should be pissed off at Democrats and Republicans that the federal minimum wage is still $7.25. Why hasn't either party prioritized bringing that up? As a U.S. senator, I'm going to prioritize doubling the child tax credit in this country to at least $6,000 a year. Raising a kid in this country, choosing to have one, has become way too expensive. The average first-time homebuyer is now 40 years old in this country – we've got to dramatically increase the first-time homebuyer tax credit.
But beyond that, we've got to look at the systems in place. Why can't we build a greater supply of housing at a lower cost in this country, whether that's on the permitting side or through some of the really fascinating stuff happening in modular housing these days? When I look across the spectrum, these are all ways of building resiliency by creating economic opportunity.
The other side of that is fighting the asinine policies coming out of Republicans in the Trump administration right now – from across-the-board tariffs that, by the way, the Supreme Court deemed illegal, but now they're returning that money to corporations instead of to people, to a war in Iran that had no strategic objective to begin with and drove up costs for working families, to the attacks on needy families – the SNAP program, for one. As the head of the Ag Committee, I'm responsible for fighting directly back on the Trump administration's $187 billion in cuts to the SNAP program.
So building resiliency starts with creating economic opportunity for individuals. But to do that, you've also got to focus on broader things – like making sure we have good public schools. Why isn't the federal government providing the 40% toward special education that we promised in this country? When it doesn't, that puts more pressure on local school districts and the state to make up the difference.
So building resiliency is about creating opportunity from an education perspective, and it's also about taking on the big interests that are jacking up costs for people. This is something I've focused on as a U.S. House member, and it's certainly what I'll focus on as a U.S. senator.
Sean: Representative Craig, I align with a lot of what you just said. We don't know exactly how uphill your battle will be if you're elected to the U.S. Senate, because we don't know who will hold the majority. Some of the things you want to do are truly at loggerheads with what a lot of Republicans want. So if Democrats aren't in the majority, what common legislative ground do you think you can find with them to still get things done, even if you can't get everything done based on the balance of power?
Angie: Well, Sean, that's a really good point. The only way we make progress in this country is by winning governing majorities, and the only way we do that is by making sure the right people are running in the right seats – people who will win these elections. I'm 100% supportive of a big-tent Democratic Party; that's the only way we're going to have governing majorities.
I served in the majority for four years. During that time, we passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which had some great legislation – mine capped the cost of insulin at $35 a month and let Medicare start negotiating its drug pricing. But I've also been in Congress for four years in the minority, and the only way you get anything done in the minority is by working across the aisle.
That's the bottom line: I'm the kind of member of Congress – and would be the kind of U.S. senator – who knows when to make a fist and metaphorically throw a punch at a policy (I won't say a person, but at Republicans, candidly), and knows when to extend a hand and work across the aisle. That's what I did in passing a number of bills dealing with mental health resources in our community. I worked really hard on allowing Narcan to be available in our community, because this is a personal issue for me – my goddaughter is four years into recovery right now, and my own oldest son's birth mom, he's adopted, died of an accidental overdose.
You meet people in the community, and if I can save one life by working on an issue where Republicans might be willing to find agreement with us, that's the kind of U.S. senator I'm going to be. But don't mistake that for one who's going to compromise our values – I will not compromise our values, and I know when to metaphorically throw a punch.
Sean: Angie Craig, you started your career as a journalist, so I'm going to try one of those beloved fluff questions before we get into some points of disagreement and tension we've already heard about in your race. But first, a little fluff: a day off in your district – what's on the itinerary if you open your calendar and, surprisingly, there's just nothing on there? What are you doing?
Angie: Well, that isn't happening right now – period, full stop. But I actually did negotiate a late start recently on my calendar; 9 a.m., just so we know, because my wife and I wanted to get outside and get on our e-bikes. We haven't spent enough time outside this summer because I've been all over the state working and running for the U.S. Senate. But you'll find me outside, on some paved trail in Minnesota. We're so lucky to live in a state where we've invested in all these state parks and trails – you'll probably find me on my bike.
And I don't want to sound like I can't bike on my own by saying I have an e-bike – it's actually opened up the state to us. I can ride a bike a long way, but we get to go so much further and see so much more of this great state on an e-bike.
Sean: What I would not recommend is being in a relationship where one person has an e-bike and the other doesn't – which is true in my marriage right now. My wife has an e-bike, and for a minute I was looking at her back, and then I hadn't seen her for the last three miles. So I'm glad you and your wife are both on e-bikes.
Okay, fluff out of the way. I want to ask about something a lot of people have been asking you about – your about-face on the Laken Riley Act. You've said you regret your vote for it, and I think critics have dismissed that as just a shift in position because of the office you're running for now. When you were running to represent the area you currently represent, voting for it was a strategic, savvy move, and now that you're running statewide, it might feel different. Was this a change of heart, or was it a cold political recalculation?
Angie: My voters in the 2nd District have always known that I'm going to tell them the truth, and I truly regret giving the Trump administration any additional authorities on immigration enforcement. As I stood at the Whipple Detention Center with probably 50 ICE agents staring down Ilhan Omar, Kelly Morrison, and me, how could I not regret that vote – even though they weren't using it under Operation Metro Surge? There's no one more furious than me at what the Trump administration has done under Operation Metro Surge, and I will spend the rest of my political career taking on any administration that wants to treat our immigrant neighbors – our Black and brown neighbors – as others, any administration that doesn't understand that they make our communities stronger.
Along with a number of other U.S. senators – Jon Ossoff, Raphael Warnock, Mark Kelly, a lot of presidential contenders – I voted for that same bill. But there's no way I couldn't regret it, and I believe I owe it to my constituents, and to Minnesotans, to be honest with them. I will spend the rest of my career working toward comprehensive immigration reform – giving our Dreamers a path to citizenship, giving undocumented neighbors the opportunity to have legal status. If you've worked, if you've paid your taxes, if you've been part of this community, you deserve a path to legal status in this country. We don't have to choose between safe and secure borders and being a nation of immigrants – I fundamentally reject that premise. And as the next U.S. senator, what I can say to Minnesota is that there's no one who will work harder, or do more, to help our immigrant neighbors and work toward comprehensive immigration reform.
Sean: Clearly you're in company with other people who voted for this act, and you mentioned a number of them by name. I don't expect politicians to see the future, but I want to ask you to speculate: what do you think the people who voted against this act saw that you, Raphael Warnock, and others didn't? Because I think a lot of people said it was clear as day that things like Operation Metro Surge were coming, and would be supercharged by the Laken Riley Act. What do you think they saw that you missed in making that vote?
Angie: Donald Trump promised he was going to come after the worst of the worst. That particular bill isn't what's being used in Operation Metro Surge – they weren't detaining undocumented individuals who'd been accused of committing a crime. They were detaining undocumented individuals simply because they were undocumented. You go back and look at the data, and that's exactly what happened.
When we looked at that legislation, it wasn't about deportation, and it didn't take away from due process upon detainment – it had to do with someone who had committed a crime. This was three days into the Trump administration; he'd promised to go after the worst of the worst, and that's what I was thinking at the time. But I can promise you that's not what they did here – we know that.
That regret I have over voting for Laken Riley fuels me every single day. It fuels my rage against the Trump administration, and it will fuel my work toward comprehensive immigration reform.
Sean: Here comes a segue – something else that fuels your work, but that you're against, is big money. Like so many politicians, you want big money out of politics, but you also get support from corporate PACs. I'm trying to figure out how we can believe you're willing to change corporate and political money in politics while also relying on it to power the campaign you're currently running. How can we hold those two things together?
Angie: It's the same with gerrymandering in this country. I 100% support Gavin Newsom gerrymandering California after Texas did it first. We can't play on a different field than Republicans, and Republicans have $300 million staring down us. If Democrats unilaterally disarm and tie a hand behind our back – on gerrymandering, or on the money-in-politics piece – we lose. I'm literally a co-sponsor on the constitutional amendment that would end Citizens United. My belief is that we shouldn't have corporate or corporate PAC money in politics at all. But until Republicans don't have it either, we're unilaterally disarming, and we're putting ourselves at risk of not having the resources to compete and win elections – which puts us at a disadvantage in building governing majorities and passing progressive policies.
So I don't see those two things as separate at all. I'd lightly point out that my primary opponent, the lieutenant governor, was actually outraising corporate and corporate PAC money as chair of the very super PAC that's now spending in her race. So – okay.
Sean: Fair point. And again, I wasn't trying to paint you as a unicorn for being involved with corporate PACs – honestly, it's infested so much of this.
Angie: It would be better, Sean, if we just outlawed it. Let's ban it – and let's ban gerrymandering too, for both Republican states and Democratic states. Let's ban PAC money and corporate money for Democrats and Republicans.
Sean: Representative Angie Craig, you have a very full calendar, including another appointment to get to. Thank you for being generous with your time – we really appreciate you. The primary is tomorrow. Representative Angie Craig, thanks for visiting with us on City Cast Twin Cities.
Angie: Great to be here, and thank you so much, everyone. Would love to have your support.
