Inside the Beltway
Inside the Beltway takes a deep dive inside the happenings of D.C. with our elected leaders and candidates for office.
Inside the Beltway
Rep. Nathaniel Moran
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Hey everyone, real excited to be joined this afternoon by Republican Congressman Nathaniel Moran of Texas 1st Congressional District. Thanks for coming on and talking with us this afternoon.
SPEAKER_01Brendan, great to be with you here today. I will start by saying we are the first congressional district of Texas for a reason. I think, I happen to think I represent the first and the best uh people in the absolute world, and so pleased to represent 17 counties in northeast Texas.
SPEAKER_00So northeast Texas, so northeast of Dallas?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, east and northeast. So uh I go from Tyler, Longview, Marshall over to the Louisiana border, up to Texas, Arkana, where uh Arkansas hits, and even a little bit of the Oklahoma southern southern border, and then down uh about two hours, two and a half hours from there, to some smaller rural counties. It is primarily uh rural uh rural east Texas. It's marked by a lot of pine trees, roses, azaleas, dogwoods, it's a beautiful place, a lot of a lot of good places to fish, a lot of good places to go golfing.
SPEAKER_00Awesome. I was actually I was gonna ask you a question at the end, but since we're talking about it now, if someone visits your district, what's one place that you would say if you come down here to the first district, make sure you go here? Whether that's a restaurant, a small business, a recreation area, what would you say to them?
SPEAKER_01I would say go to the Calwell Zoo. It's uh, I think the second largest private zoo in the nation. It's in located in Tyler. And then when you're done there, zip over to Stanley's Barbecue to get you some of the best barbecue. And then as you drive out of the state, uh stop again at uh Country Tavern Barbecue and get you some more barbecue uh before you leave the state.
SPEAKER_00All right, so you'll definitely have your fellow barbecue if you go to the first district then. Um let's let's kind of shift gears, talk about the issues a little bit. Obviously, what's been dominating the news these past few weeks has been what's going on in the Middle East. So I I do have a couple specific questions, but I just want to hear your top line thoughts on what you think of this entire situation right now.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, well, when we're talking about Iran, uh I've said on a number of interviews, I'm a guy that believes in a strong foreign policy, strong national defense. I'm a Reagan Republican. Folks know that about me. I don't hide that at all. So I believe in the this doctrine of what I call strategic interposition, and that is you've got to intervene. We as the United States have to intervene around the world when it is in the best interest of our American uh constituency, when it's in the national security interests of our folks here at home. And this is one of those clear cases, I think. This is part B to what was started last year with the bombing of the specific areas that were actually uh trying to produce a nuclear weapon. Uh, but it goes beyond that because once we did that, Iran, of course, doubled down. They said, you know what, we're not gonna stop pursuing a nuclear weapon. We're gonna keep going after that uh that. And by the way, when we get it, guess who we want to attack? We want to attack not just Israel, who I would say is the appetizer for them, but America. They chant death to America. We're the main course. So this is not primarily about standing with our allies and our friends or regime change. It's not, I mean, those things are good, but primarily this is about the national security interests of Americans here on American soil and our military men and women and our citizens abroad. And uh Iran, Iran being the top state sponsor of terror that seeks to do harm to us wherever we are and seeks to undermine American uh principles and American policies around the world.
SPEAKER_00So let me kind of give you my opinion on this, and I'm curious what you think. And I'm welcome to any sort of pushback or anything you have to give me, but as someone who's a Trump supporter and a Trump voter, I think I represent a pretty broad sense of what people who voted for him might be feeling right now, which is we have supported Trump's interventions when it comes to these really quick military interventions and then we get out, like in Venezuela, for example. But I'm someone who was 10 years old when we went into Iraq. I was in my 20s by the time we got out of it in Afghanistan. And I don't want to see that happening again. Uh, not only from the cost of American lives, but from the financial cost in general. I know that the Defense Department just asked for a $200 billion supplement. Um, I think that's gonna be a hard pill for even maybe some Republicans to swallow. But my main concern right now is getting entrenched with no way to get out. So what would you say maybe to one of your constituents who who shares my concern?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I agree with you on your concern, by the way. And that's why our the Article I branch of government has checks and balances and needs to be part of the conversation here under the War Powers Act of 1974. You know, if we get past 60 days or in some cases 90 days, uh this short-term action, if it looks like it's gonna be a long-term action, it needs to be ratified by or ended by Congress, by an act of Congress to say, no, no, no, no, we're we're we don't want to get into a protracted war because we don't. We we don't want to do that. These uh short-term uh interventions and short-term military strikes, uh, that comes under the inherent authority, in my opinion, of the Constitution for the Article II branch of government, the commander-in-chief to be able to make those decisions. But it's a it is a fact-specific uh balancing test, and there's got to be room for uh disagreement within the conservatives. There has to be, because this is a great discussion to have because none of us want a protracted war. We don't want to repeat the mistakes of what we did 25 years ago. We just don't want to do that because it did cost too many American lives. It didn't reach the objectives we wanted. We we misunderstood the factual basis in a lot of ways of what got us into that conflict. We want to be in and out. We want to chop the capacity of Iran to uh to build a nuclear weapon. We want to get some of those folks that are out of positions of leadership uh that are there that intend to do us a great harm. But frankly, we don't want a long protracted war. We do not want to do that. And if it gets to that point, I think you're gonna see our coin branch of government, both Republicans and Democrats, saying to the executive, hey, we need to uh take a different look at this and go a different route.
SPEAKER_00I don't want to sound like just a naysayer. So one angle I look at this from a positive perspective is how this will affect China. Uh China I'm a China hawk. So China had a very cozy relationship with Iran, uh, particularly when it comes to the oil. We all, you know, it's been out there, 20% of the world's oil goes through the Strait of Worm Mews. Most of that goes to Asia. It's not coming here to the United States. But I I do think this will negatively impact China from an economic standpoint, and that's something I support. So you mentioned it's kind of a balancing act. Yes, on one hand, I am concerned about costs. I am concerned about getting into a protracted war. But if we're thinking long-term strategically, I can also understand how this will be a detriment to our enemies, not just in Iran, but China and perhaps even Russia.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, and I agree with you. And look at it not just in this single instance, but look at the the other things that uh President Trump has done since he's come into office, particularly with respect to Venezuela and then what may or may not be the case with Cuba, but certainly with uh some other allies of China around the world, he is beginning to uh put China back into a box. And for about the last two decades, we've had presidents on both sides of the aisle that have allowed China out of their box and allowed China to start putting America in a box. China's influence had spread over the last 25 years immensely across the global south, in South America and in Africa, and even in Europe, uh their uh their impact was felt in foreign policy decisions and uh economic decisions. And what we didn't want to see happen was for China to then isolate the United States, because I'm a China hawk too. Uh, I mean, I think you gotta to these guys that have this totalitarian intent or expansionist intent under these totalitarian regimes like Putin and G. I mean, you've got to push them back and say, no, no, no, no, we're gonna show you the strength of America, and you need to stay in your corner. This world and and the influence in this world belongs to uh belongs to democracies, belongs to uh uh those that are freedom lovers, those that uh want to adhere to the rule of law, and they are going to be led by the United States.
SPEAKER_00What do you think of the role Europe has played so far? Are you satisfied with them because, and this is one of the reasons I support President Trump, is I do feel that Europe has taken advantage of the United States in many ways. I understand having gone through two world wars in the last century, Europe is probably very risk-averse when it comes to war, but we've been footing the bill for them in NATO. And from everything I'm reading so far, it doesn't sound like they've been stepping up to the plate here when it comes to Iran. So, how do you view their role?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, you know, we've we're asking a lot right now of Europe as far as shifting uh those uh paradigms that have existed for almost 80 years, and it was a necessary conversation on the trade front to shake things up, to get them away from using subsidies and uh tariffs and uh non-tariff uh entry uh level uh regulatory barriers uh to keep us out of uh European markets and to give them a marked advantage. When we were coming out of World War II, you know, the United States needed for the rest of the world to get their economies going. And so a lot of these tariff policies were set in place back in those times, but we're in a different era now. We need to have free and fair trade. And so I think President Trump has reset that stage. I often say he's gone on the playground. My kids are in elementary school, and I say, look, somebody's running the playground in every elementary school. And President Trump, when he showed up, America was sitting on the sidelines. America really wasn't talking about who was playing uh on what team or what games were being played or what the rules of the games were. And he is reshuffling the playground on the world, and frankly, he's re-establishing the order that is in the best interest of the United States, and that's what needed to happen because they were taking advantage of us. Uh, I think that uh uh as we move through this Iran process, they're gonna be a little slower to come along. They they've got their eyes still focused and set on Putin and Ukraine. They're worried about Putin. I was visiting with some uh folks from Poland yesterday. They're still very worried about Poland and his expansionist intent and what they are perceiving as threats coming from Russia.
SPEAKER_00Let's shift gears and talk about uh the DHS shutdown. So yesterday was the confirmation hearing for uh Senator Mullen. I did you serve in the House with him? Do you know him at all?
SPEAKER_01No, we didn't cross paths. He was already in the Senate before I got to the House, but I have been around him. He spends a lot of time on the House side, I ironically, more than just about any other senator who'll come over here. And so I do have some personal interactions with him, and I think this was a great pick, frankly.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I I would agree with that. Uh, you know, Christy Noam, I think, went in with good intentions, but somewhere along the line, things got muddled. And I think it's just one of those situations where you need a reset now in the department, and that starts with with the leadership. So I'd certainly hope to see him confirm, which it looks like it will. I know uh he got voted out of committee with Senator Fetterman's support. Um, so that's so that's great. But as far as the shutdown goes, has there been any news on that front that you can share with us? I know the White House had extended their latest offer to Democrats. Have you received any feedback on that?
SPEAKER_01To my knowledge, the Democrats are still gonna still digging in. And uh they're gonna continue to dig in, in my opinion, until uh you're gonna see more disruptions with respect to TSA. You're probably gonna have to have a FEMA emergency situation that causes the American public to stand up and say, whoa, whoa, Democrats, you had an agreement on this appropriations, full agreement with the DHS appropriations. Why are you standing on politics instead of policy in this moment when we need good policy to support the agencies that are there to do us some good? And frankly, we're gonna reject, I'm gonna wholly reject this notion that the Democrats are pushing, which is, hey, why don't we, they're saying, why don't we just divvy out? We're gonna set aside CBP and ICE and we'll we'll fund everything else, but let's set aside the law enforcement and immigration enforcement agencies. That's a no-go for me. Why? Because it's just another rebranding of the defund the police effort that they went through several years ago. And I'm not gonna go down that path. I'm not gonna let them uh get the things that they uh think politically might be advantageous for them, but then leave the really good policy law enforcement uh agencies out uh out of uh out of reach from uh the correct appropriations. So we're just not gonna let that happen.
SPEAKER_00I know one of the things that they're asking for is body cameras for all the agents to wear. To me, that's a demand that sounds somewhat reasonable. One of the things that they're asking for that doesn't sound reasonable, though, is getting judicial warrants for being able to arrest anyone that they go after, which would obviously be very time consuming and would limit the ability to deport people. Um, are there any sort of reforms to DHS currently that you think you could get behind?
SPEAKER_01Oh, yeah. I mean, the body cameras is one that a lot of Republicans have been talking about for a while. Before I came to Congress, I was a county judge. We, as a county judge in Texas, I worked very closely with our sheriff's office uh consistently to make sure that they had body cameras. It's not, uh, I tell you what, it's not opposed within the law enforcement uh agencies around the world. They want body cameras. They want more body cameras because they it protects them from false accusations and it keeps everybody uh running down the same path that they need to run when you're enforcing the law. So uh body cameras are something I would get behind immediately. It's something I think that helps everybody in the situation. Like you said though, after some of the events in in Minnesota, we did need a reset. I use the same word when I I think when I posted uh online about this issue and in my newsletter was we just need a reset. And sometimes uh that happens uh in a in a situation where you know you need somebody else to come in, and and Senator Mullen's the guy to come in that he's a he's an on-the-ground kind of guy and he's a no-nonsense kind of guy, but he is uh not uh not the kind of guy that's just gonna look for uh look for opportunities to get political wins. He's not gonna do that. He's in there for policy, and he's in there for good immigration policy enforcement and really strong sovereign secure borders. I think he's a perfect pick uh perfect pick. Again, he's kind of this blue-collar uh type of man that says, let's get let's roll up our sleeves and do this job together, and you'll get good response, I think, from the people in his in his department.
SPEAKER_00Let's talk about the Save Act now. So this is being debated over in the Senate this week. Sadly, it's not gonna pass. Senator Thune has already come out and said the votes are not there, so this thing is kind of a PR stunt, I think, to show that the Senate Republicans are at least trying to put up somewhat of a fight. Um, how disappointing is that for you? Because I'm really disappointed about it.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I'm super disappointed about it too. Uh the disappointment though, we've got to we've got to put the blame on the Democrats. Let's not let's not blame uh and turn and have friendly fire against our Republicans. The Senate guys are in a in a tough spot. I know we don't have some of the Republican senators on our side on this issue, but frankly, the issue is more about the Democrats. Why in the world would the Democrats as a party oppose this? And they have, both in the House and in the Senate. We passed it three times or more. Uh I lost count on the on the House side of how many times we passed the SAVE Act, and we cannot get Democratic support. Why in the world would that be the case when uh when you're watching a video with mom mom Donnie during the middle of the winter, uh winter storm and seeing that you've got to have two forms of ID in New York City just to shovel snow? If if we're gonna require two forms of ID to shovel snow in New York City, how much more important it is for us to have identification both when you register to vote and when you show up to vote, to make sure that only citizens, only those that are qualified, should be voting. I've always said we need SALTY elections. That's secure, accurate, legal, transparent elections. And the why for SALTY is you. It involves all the American people being in that in those voter box, uh being in the uh the voter stations, making sure that as votes are cast and votes are counted, that we are we are staying within the secure, accurate, legal, transparent world, and that we get the correct results on the back end. That's how come President Trump was able to win uh this last election was we had people there watching like hawks every move that they were making.
SPEAKER_00As we know, though, politics is the art of compromise. So if there's just no way the bill's gonna get passed as it is. Senator Fetterman, another guy who I actually wind up respecting a lot, has come out and said he'd be happy to vote if it was just showing a photo ID to go in and vote. He didn't address the registration part of things, but he said if you want to go in and vote on Election Day, you need to have a photo ID. That's something I could get behind. And he even said he thinks that could realistically pass the Senate. Given the nature of that there would need to be a compromise, what do you think of that thought? Is it better to take what we can get now or just not do anything?
SPEAKER_01Our founding fathers set up our system and our structure of government in a way that uh generally resulted in incrementalism. And though I would like everything that's in the SAVE Act now and more, uh any anything we can do to move it closer to those salty elections I talked about and to make sure that we have less people cheating in elections, I want to support that kind of uh that kind of proposal. But I'm not I'm not willing to say, okay, let's just go that route right now because we need to continue to stand firm and try to get as much as possible. But at the end of the day, if if you if you can move the needle in the direction that you want it and you can get it through into the president's desk to uh to sign, then let's let's get more security. Let's not miss an opportunity to do something better uh in the pursuit of the perfect.
SPEAKER_00How are you feeling about the midterms right now? I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not feeling great. And that just is because of number one, history. History has shown us that the president who's in party often loses seats, and because the wind seemed to be shifting against the president right now on a number of issues that he was actually elected on. Um but how how are you feeling?
SPEAKER_01Well, I'm glad you're not feeling great about it, and I hope all the other conservatives in America don't feel great about it because here's what I know about competition generally. We just started March Madness today, and when uh when the number one team in a bracket takes for granted that they're gonna win against the number 16 team in the bracket, guess what happens? You see an upset. And even in those moments when you think you have the victory, you need to work in a campaign like you're behind. You should never ever take a campaign or an election for granted. And so the more conservatives that are motivated to get out and block walk and call and talk to their friends and engage and get out the vote initiatives and talk about uh the realities of what we saw during the Biden administration, what will return from uh in a in another Democratic uh administration if they're re-elected, that's what we need. We need people engaged. And frankly, I don't mind if a little fear of losing the election promotes us to get out there to say, we're not gonna lose this election. Because if we really sit back in our lazy boy at home and say, you know what, we got this, we're not worried about this. That's when we will lose. So the more people that are anxious and concerned about the election, the better. That'll motivate them to get out. That's what we're gonna do. We're actually gonna spend a lot of time uh organizing the folks in East Texas to go elsewhere, to go to these districts that are these 50-50 districts and make sure that we do not leave anything on the table. I was, I played football in high school and I remember my coach saying, leave it all on the field, right? I mean, that's that's the plan. So let's leave it all on the field as conservatives between now and November so that nobody can take this house uh back from the Republicans and they don't cut short the presidency of Donald J. Trump because effectively, if we lose the House in the fall, we're gonna see two years of nothing but investigations and delay tactics and opposition to uh uh the president that's done so much already in 15 months.
SPEAKER_00All right, Congressman. Well, I want to thank you very much for coming on and speaking with me this afternoon. I really enjoyed the talk, and I uh hope to have you back on in the future.
SPEAKER_01My pleasure. Have a wonderful day.