And now, the main event…

Donald Trump’s second term was just three weeks old, and Elon Musk was riding high—to the point that some wags, myself included, had been referring to him as co-president of the United States—when Robert Garcia, the second-term Democratic congressman and former mayor of Long Beach, California, offered a different description of the world’s richest man: Musk, Garcia declared in a House committee hearing and later on CNN, was simply “a dick.” In something like a heartbeat, both of those moments went hyper-viral, and not surprisingly. Plainspoken, free of politesse, and self-evidently accurate, Garcia’s phallic formulation (and the howls of approval it elicited from Democrats far and wide) succinctly captured the frustration and fury that suffused the opposition party at the dawn of Trump 2.0.

Through it all, Garcia has carried on in the same spirit, eschewing all hints of what he calls “respectability politics” in favor of a relentless, at times potty-mouthed, adherence to #RealTalk. (On Pod Save America the other day, as part of a blistering attack on Trump’s deportation policies, he called Stephen Miller “the biggest piece of shit in this country.”) That demeanor, of course, aligns perfectly with the presiding spirit of the most ardent Democrats in the country, who’ve had plenty of opportunities to see Garcia strut his stuff as the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee.

At first, Garcia’s penchant for profanity—we weren’t three minutes into our recent conversation for my Impolitic podcast before he remarked, “Things are fucked up!”—might seem at odds with his fairly nerdish résumé: the master’s degree from USC and doctorate in education policy from CSU Long Beach; the avid, almost giddy way he talks about his status as a Superman superfan. But after chatting with him for a good long while—about everything from his leadership among Democrats in keeping the Jeffrey Epstein story in the spotlight, to the Texas redistricting controversy and why it matters beyond the Lone Star State—the puzzle pieces began to fall together, along with a clear impression that Garcia is the real deal. As usual, the excerpt from that conversation below has been condensed for space and edited for clarity. You can hear the whole megillah here.

John Heilemann: The battle playing out over redistricting in Texas obviously matters a lot—to Texans—but I suspect that a lot of voters elsewhere see this as another process story that doesn’t have any tangible effect on their lives. Why should they care, and what’s at stake?

Robert Garcia: This is a national emergency. When people talk about those five-alarm fires, that’s what’s happening right now. We can’t overstate how serious this is. If you think about these first few months of the Trump administration and the horror that’s been unleashed, we’re going to feel it in the years to come when we can’t rebuild the government the way we’ve known it to be. All of these awful things that we say we don’t agree with, and have concerns about, will be supercharged if Democrats lose their ability to create checks and balances in Congress. This is about Donald Trump deciding that we’re going to do mid-decade redistricting—and instead of having a more nonpartisan approach where possible, he’s going to make it overly partisan, and pick and choose states where he wants to gain more seats. This is a situation where he can pick up as many as 15 seats before we even have an election in 2026. This could fundamentally alter the way we have elections. It’s one of the most serious things Donald Trump has done since being president.

Totally. On the other hand, it’s also an incredible admission of political weakness: Trump is basically saying that without the extraordinary step of mid-decade gerrymandering in Texas, he’s going to lose the House—that, in order for the G.O.P. to win, they have to rig the system.

Yeah, that’s 100 percent right. I think Democrats are on track to win the 2026 midterms. All the indicators are there: Trump’s popularity has tanked. We’ve got great candidates across the country. He sees what’s going to happen, and now wants to pick his voters across the country and gerrymander these maps.

National redistricting should be done by nonpartisan commissions, not elected officials, and certainly not by members of Congress or the president. And we’ve been moving in that direction. We’re doing it in New York; we’ve done it in California—I supported that redistricting measure, but we boxed ourselves into blue states having nonpartisan commissions, and red states now going super partisan. It’s a shame that the Democratic Party, which tries to do good government, can no longer do that. And that’s really a sad moment for our politics. But we can’t continue to fight with one hand tied behind our back.

Believing that nonpartisan redistricting is the right thing to do, and that what sets Democrats apart from Republicans is being committed in a real way to principles, and not just the raw pursuit of power—but that in this circumstance, you have no choice but to act like the G.O.P.—dude, that’s a hard circle to square. For you, personally, how do you square it?

I think this is part of a broader debate that’s happening within the Democratic Party. We know what the right thing to do is, but we’re not all playing by the same rules. Whether it’s on redistricting or other issues, Democrats have been playing in a Washington and a politics that doesn’t exist anymore. And it’s a big reason why I think we’ve lost—not just the presidency, but why we’ve lost the communications game, and why we’re losing the information war. Because we actually think that we should be focused on research, and science, and doing the right thing, and being honest and helping as many people as possible.

I think Republicans are doing warfare every single day, and they don’t care who gets hurt, they don’t care that they lie, cheat, and steal to get there. Now, Democrats shouldn’t lie, cheat, and steal, but we certainly have to match the level of energy they’re putting out. As for myself, I’ve accepted the fact that I have to put some of my own personal and political values aside as it relates to the politics of what we’re doing—and go from there.

Do you see this as part of a larger project by Trump—that he’s laying down the tracks to make it possible for him to stay in office after 2028?

I’ve worried about that from day one. I’ve always believed that Donald Trump wants to stay in power and doesn’t really care about term limits, and that he could care less about the Constitution. I’ve always thought that if Donald Trump got reelected, at the top of his list would be staying in power as long as he can. I think he views himself as an authoritarian monarch in this country. I think he’s willing to destroy anything in his way to stay atop politics and wealth and celebrity. He loves all that the presidency brings. And if you have a Congress that you control, how do you stop and think about broader questions around election certification, for example? I think all these things are still on the table. I very much believe that Donald Trump wants to continue, and is starting to focus on staying in office, and that he’ll do whatever he can to make that happen.

Given all the evidence of Trump’s close, longtime friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, why do you think he persisted in stoking a conspiracy theory that could eventually be extremely complicated for him when he and his allies were in a position to reveal all the supposed secrets that they’d promised to reveal? And, you know, what do you think he’s hiding?

He obviously never had any intention of releasing the Epstein files, and I think he knew he was lying to his base and his supporters, because he clearly doesn’t care about betrayal. As far as what’s in there, I don’t know. I think it’s concerning that a known sex trafficker referred to Donald Trump as his best friend for 10 or 15 years, and I think that deserves answers. It’s concerning that he’s so obsessed with hiding how his name is mentioned in these documents. I’m not one to make an accusation. There’s no evidence yet of what he may or may not have done or been involved with.

It’s frustrating because folks are like, Well, it’s like a Pandora’s box and a lot of folks are gonna be in there. And I’m like, Who gives a fuck? Who cares? I don’t care how powerful you are, or what political party you’ve served in office—if you’re in those files, you should not be protected, and we should all want the truth. Anyone who was involved in the abuse deserves to be put out in the public. And certainly, the victims deserve justice.

In some respects, you could argue that Ghislaine Maxwell is an even worse criminal/degenerate than Epstein. Yet Trump can’t bring himself to say a single negative word about her—when condemning her is the easiest political slam dunk imaginable. That he’s refused to do it has no legal implications, but it sure suggests that something here really stinks.

She’s obviously a horrible monster. One of the things that’s been really hard over the last few weeks is seeing this lionizing of her, that somehow she’s been harmed. It’s so sick. This is a horrific person who did irreversible damage, and sexual exploitation, and inflicted incredible trauma on young women and girls, and is somehow negotiating some type of reduced sentence and being transferred to better facilities. And Donald Trump can’t find it in himself to say anything to support the victims, or give them any sort of peace or sense that they’re going to get more justice. He only cares about himself.

This is where I also blame folks like Speaker Mike Johnson, who calls himself a good Christian man, and yet can’t get himself to actually criticize [Ghislaine] Maxwell, and backs the president on these decisions. In the deposition that Ms. Maxwell is likely going to have in front of the Oversight Committee at some point in the weeks ahead, we’re going to ask very, very tough questions. And we’re going to make sure it’s not just the A.G. and Trump’s personal lawyer [and Deputy Attorney General] Todd Blanche who asks questions. I guarantee you that what we’re going to ask and demand will be much different than the questions that Donald Trump is asking.

From what I can see, heading home on recess hasn’t done anything to reduce the pressure on Congress regarding Epstein; if anything, it seems to have increased it. Is that what you’re seeing in your district?

This is really reaching folks who aren’t political watchers, people who aren’t reading The New York Times, or watching MSNBC, or listening to this podcast, or anything else. These are casual folks who know about the Epstein files, so it’s piercing through to this population of folks that Donald Trump is good at communicating to. I’ve talked to some Republicans who voted for Trump who are very upset about the Epstein files situation, which is another reason why we gotta link it back and be smart. This is about Trump’s betrayal of the American public. This is about his corruption. Donald Trump is gonna lie to you about the Epstein files. He’s gonna lie to you about ripping you off. He’s gonna lie to you about taking away your healthcare. He’s gonna lie to you about a lot of things, and that’s why it’s important that we talk about it.

On his show the other night, Bill Maher told Democrats that they need to “triage their outrage” over all the troubling stuff Trump is doing—that it wasn’t politically effective or really helpful to their cause to flip out over everything equally. What do you make of that argument?

Broadly speaking, I think we have to pick and choose what the focus is going to be, because in this kind of communication and media environment, not everything is going to break through. But I also don’t think that when there’s harm being inflicted on a marginalized group—when they’re rolling back the rights of gay people in the military, or they’re attacking a food program for immigrants—that we should just sit here and be quiet and not uplift people’s real pain.

For example, there are families across this country who are really concerned about their food nutrition benefits, and whether there will be cuts to SNAP and other programs around food. That may not be the most interesting thing to everyone, but it really matters to some people. So I think, yes, we have to stay broad, but we cannot just let injustices go unanswered.

Need help? Review our FAQ page or contact us for assistance. For brand partnerships, email ads@puck.news.

You received this email because you signed up to receive emails from Puck, or as part of your Puck account associated with {{customer.email}}. To stop receiving this newsletter and/or manage all your email preferences, click here.

Puck is published by Heat Media LLC. 107 Greenwich St, New York, NY 10006