March 26, 2025 • 31 mins
Senator Elizabeth Warren has been shaping US policy for years. She helped create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after the 2008 financial crisis, has been a senator since 2013 and ran for president in 2020. Today, she’s a key voice in the Democratic Party’s opposition to President Trump's agenda and the priorities of a Republican-controlled Congress.
Ahead of Thursday’s confirmation hearing of Trump’s Securities and Exchange Commission Chair nominee, Paul Atkins, Big Take host David Gura sat down with Warren for a wide-ranging interview on regulatory independence, the future of the Democratic Party and the Signal group chat leak.
Read more: Elizabeth Warren Warns Fed Chair Powell Could Be Fired by Trump
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
As the Democratic Party ramps up its opposition to President
Trump's agenda, to the priorities of a Republican controlled Congress,
and to the role of DOGE. Along with Elon Musk,
a few Democratic members of Congress have emerged as leading voices.
One of them has been central to discussions over financial regulation,
government accountability, and the future of the Democratic Party itself.
(00:29):
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. Warren has been a longtime advocate
for strong regulation. She helped create the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau after the two thousand and eight financial crisis. She's
been a US Senator since twenty thirteen, and in twenty
twenty she ran for president. Today, she sits on the
Senate's Armed Services and Finance committees, and she's the top
(00:51):
Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee. That means she's played
a lead role in vetting Trump's nominees for key positions
in his administration.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
Will you put your money where your mouth is? Is
there any billionaire rich enough who you wouldn't support a
tax cut for Are you willing to commit right now
that you will put enough people back to work so
they can do the job of delivering the benefits that
Americans earned.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Warren has gone viral for some of those moments, and
that's helped make her a prominent face of Democrats pushback
on Trump at a time when the party is in
the midst of a debate over its leadership and its future.
So I wanted to sit down with Warren to get
her sense of, well, everything that's happening now, from Trump's
efforts to reshape the federal government and the regulatory landscape,
(01:40):
to this week's explosive news that Secretary of Defends Pete
Hegseth shared information about US military operations in a signal
group chat, and where Warren thinks the Democratic Party is headed.
I'm David Gera, and this is the big take from
Bloomberg News today. On the show, my conversation with Senator
(02:02):
Elizabeth Warren, which has been lightly edited and condensed. I
sat down with her in a hearing room on Capitol Hill.
I wanted to ask you, first of all, about what
we've been learning about. The editor of The Atlantic found
himself in a chat with some of the most senior
members of President Trump's administration national security staff, and by
(02:24):
virtue of that was privy to plans for an attack
in great detail, your reaction to it.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
You sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
So let me just start with if Pete Hegseith had
a shred of self respect and decency, he would resign.
That's what leadership is about. And instead Pete Hegseth thinks
it's all about point at somebody else and minimize the
problem and sweep it under the rug and deflect. You know,
(02:57):
I want to be a leader of the finest armed
forces in the world and step up and take some responsibility.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Should he be fired, you talk about him, If you
won't quit, then.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
He should be fired because he has put our national
security at risk. That's part one. Part two is you
realize a bunch of this is potentially certainly breaking the law. So,
for example, because of the Freedom of Information Act, there
are laws that require that people in the administration, all
(03:29):
of them, have to preserve the records of their texting
back and forth. I know this from the days when
I served in the administration and we were carefully cautioned
about the importance of preserving records. Signal, as you know,
disappears those records. And I will say on this when
I read how casually they just formed this chat. Notice
(03:54):
that's how you refer to it to discuss the national
security issues and the bombing of another country. How many
other times are they using signal and what are they
using it for? So this is a moment. We need
some of those congressional investigations. We need a hearing in
(04:17):
the Senate, we need a hearing in the House. I
remember all of the hearings before when there was a
question about Hillary Clinton's emails. I want to run the
tape on how many Republicans talked about the importance of
accountability and getting to the bottom of this. Where are
they right now? I'm ready for those hearings, and the
(04:39):
FBI needs to step up.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
This was a chat that was organized by Mike Waltz,
the president national security advisor, and he addressed this in
an interview on Fox News.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
Here's what he said.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
We made a mistake, We're moving forward, and we're.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
I noted that Biden large The response from administration has
been there wasn't classified information here, and as a result
of that, the Atlantic release screenshots of a lot of
these conversations. We learned that there was information about planes
timing of this attack, you talk about the need for hearings,
are you optimistic that that's going to happen and that
you're going to get to the bottom.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Of what was in fact discussed on that chat.
Speaker 3 (05:11):
So I think this is a question fundamentally about where
is power in this country. I get it elections, we
pick a president. President picks a team, and that's where
power resigns in terms of the execution day to day
of various policies. But ultimately it's people across this country.
(05:31):
And when people across this country said, wait a minute,
the Secretary of Defense, I mean this is this is
not some random guy off the street who stumbled across
some secret information and kind of didn't know how to
handle it. This is the Secretary of Defense. And those
candid conversations need to be shielded from the rest of
(05:52):
the world. When the White House wants to say nothing
to see here, just flip at the other and ask
yourself if the Atlantic had called the White House and said,
let me show you what we've got in advance of
the bombing, you guys, okay, if we put it up
on our website, how many heart attacks would there have been?
(06:18):
Over the White House say no, no, no, no, no,
you can't do that. Well, if it wouldn't have been
okay for the Atlantic to publish all of that in advance,
you got to worry it's not published on a website.
But I don't know who's listening on signal, the Chinese,
the North Koreans, the Russians, some other bad actors out there.
(06:41):
It is important that we follow through as a nation
and say, look, you put our whole country at risk,
our allies. I'm getting asked in the hallways by foreign reporters,
can we actually trust the United States of America if
we tell secrets and they're going to end up on
some signal chat with the Secretary of Defense. So there
(07:02):
needs to be an investigation, but there needs to be
some accountability, and the accountability should start right now. Hegsas
should resign, and if he won't do that, then Trump
should fire him. He knows how to say you're fired.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
I want to ask you at the moment that we're in.
This is part of that moment. We're two months into
this administration's tenure. How are you thinking about the role
of the Democratic Party in this moment?
Speaker 1 (07:23):
And just it's gravity overall for the country itself.
Speaker 3 (07:27):
So let's set the table for this moment. Donald Trump
ran for office saying over and over and over and
over and over. I have a lower costs on day one.
Those are his words, not mine. I have a lower
cost on day one. He said that to millions and
millions of people. And right after he got elected he
was interviewed, his very first interview, he said that's how
(07:49):
I got elected, was saying I'm going to lower costs
on day one. So here we are two months in.
He has done nothing to lower costs. I mean no,
all that's happening is we're watching places where costs are
going up, up, up. But he and his co president
Elon Musk have been out there with a chainsaw moving
(08:13):
through government, trying to fire the financial cops, for example,
by trying to shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
laying off tens of thousands of federal workers who kind
of do the job of Social Security making sure people
get their Social Security checks each month, ending contracts for
(08:37):
medical research. So there's this and playing red light green
light with tariffs. Right, Yes there's a tariff, No there's
not a tariff, right, playing that game. So it's important
to remember we're in a system right now that is
deeply chaotic. I think that like a sand storm, you know,
the sand is blowing everywhere. I have. The job at
(09:01):
the Democratic Party right now is to say there's a
lot going on. We are in the fight. We are
in the fight to save social security. We are in
these fights, but to pull back and to look at
the bigger picture. The media will do the day by
day fights, but our job is to pull back and
the bigger picture is that other promise that Donald Trump
(09:23):
made when he was running for president. Remember, to millions
of people, he said, I will cut your costs someday.
One to a handful of what he called his richest
held donors, he said, I'm going to give you tax
breaks like you've never seen before, mostly sucked up by billionaires,
billionaire corporations, and then paid for on the backs of
(09:48):
elderly people in nursing homes who will lose federal support.
Your neighbor down the street who has a disability and
needs a home health aid paid for by the federal government.
Kids in public school who need help, and those public
schools need help. Cutting scientific research and medical research, And
(10:11):
that sets up what this fight is all about. Are
we going to be a nation that hands over four
point seven trillion dollars in giveaways to a handful of
billionaires and makes everybody else pay for it. Are we
going to be a nation that says no to tax
cuts for those guys and says we're going to invest
(10:33):
in in America where everybody gets an opportunity.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
Coming up next, I ask Senator Warren about her colleague,
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and how she sees her
own position in the Democratic Party. The leader of Democrats
and the Senate, Chuck Schumer has a book out, so
he's been talking a lot in Something he's brought up
over and over again is he doesn't think that we're
(10:59):
at a cuntstitutional crisis yet. I wonder if you agree
with him in that regard, and if so, what is
the threshold when we would be phasing one?
Speaker 3 (11:08):
So I have to say, before we got here in
the last two months, I would have described a constitutional
crisis is like a light switch. You're not in one,
you're not in one, You're not in one of them,
all of a sudden you are in one. I've come
to think about that differently. I worry that we move
increasingly toward an administration that's not just saying I'm going
(11:33):
to be a more robust president. And I get it.
Presidents look at this differently, some a little stronger, some
a little weaker. But a president that says there are
no constraints on me, and that takes me back to
constitutional law. One on one, legislature writes those laws. That's
our part. Congress, the administration, President and those who work
(11:55):
in the administration administer those laws, and the courts have
the responsibility if the administration steps out of line to
say you violated the law. We keep all three parts
in balance. And I'm watching Donald Trump and Elon Musk
(12:15):
say no, there are not three equal branches of government.
It's just one that smells a lot like a constitutional crisis.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
We've just been through a moment when Republicans wrote a
continuing resolution and Chuck Schumer said the Democrat Sho had
supported he did.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
You did not.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
I should say you did a town hall in Lowell, Massachusetts.
WBR was there and recorded it, and I got tape
of what you said.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
I think Chuck Schumer is wrong.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
You didn't linger on that, and I wonder if you
might hear just for a moment. Was he wrong about
the political calculation? Spell out for me what you disagreed
about that he did.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
In particular, I.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
Think there's a moment when you stand and fight, and
for me, that moment came with a continuing resolution was.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
A squaded opportunity to do so.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
It's more than that. Understand, Let's go back to what
we're trying. What is the big fight right now? The
big fight is going to be whether or not the
billionaires and Donald Trump and Elon Musk are just going
to take over our country and run it to suit themselves,
make everybody else pay for it. That's what the budget
is all about. We do a lot of other things
(13:23):
in Washington, but you want to know our values, take
a look at the budget. And so the question becomes,
in this fight, we got to stop and draw the
line and say it's time. It's time for us to
fight back. It's time to call on people of the
United States, because that whole constitutional structure that I was
(13:44):
talking about, the three parts of government, all rest ultimately
on the people, and it is time to have that fight.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Did it cause you to reevaluate your faith and confidence
in Senator Schumer is a leader of Demo rats in
the Senate.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
I want to be clear, we are heading into a
fight where we need every single Democrat pointed the same way.
We may still be bumping around on exactly what the
timing is going to be on that fight, exactly where
the trigger point is going to be, but there is
no doubt in the United States Senate, the forty seven
(14:21):
of us are locked arms and moving in the same direction.
And the same is true over in the House. This
fight is on top of us. We cannot avoid this
fight because Donald Trump and Elon Musk, truly they want
to take this country over for just a handful of people,
(14:41):
and they want even more wealth and more power to
go to them. Well, everybody else has to pay for
That is the fight.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Last question on this subject, sure, what is your role
as you see it in that fight? You write a
lot of letters to administration officials, you speak out quite
a bit. You are somebody identifiable with this oversight fight
and struggle with the administration. How do you see your
role in the Democratic Party broadly today?
Speaker 3 (15:07):
Look, I look at what are the tools in my toolbox.
I'll use every one of them that I possibly can.
Oversight is a big part this is part of your
job when you're a senator, and that is to look
at the agencies, to ask questions of these nominees, to
get them on the record, to press them, to ask
(15:28):
for investigations. This is why we need inspectors General. This
is why we need an active GAO. This is why
we need an FBI that is still functional. It's partly
just to say we already have laws and force the
damn laws. Make sure that people are doing that. That's
part of my job. Part of my job is to
be in the fight to give it everything I've got because,
(15:51):
as I said, ultimately it's going to be about people
across this country saying, look, I don't want in America
where it's all about a hand full of billionaires. I
want in America where we actually do invest in medical research.
I want in America where actually every kid has an
opportunity to go to public school, even kids who have
(16:13):
special need. To hear me talking as a special needs teacher,
I want in America where we're making investments in our
best resource, and that is our people.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
Talking to a former law professor.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
So Article two, Section two, Power of advice and consent
by virtue of the committees that you sit on, Armed Services, finance, banking.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
You have had the.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
Ability to question a lot of these highermobile nominees. Coming
up is the presence picked ahead the Securious and Exchange Commission,
Paul Atkins, And you've written a memo thirty four pages
in length.
Speaker 1 (16:43):
It starts with the congregations.
Speaker 3 (16:45):
Average for me.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
You say he has extensive experience in financial services and
capital markets. But I have concerns about your record if
you tick through what he's done as an sec staffer
and commissioner, and the work that he's done since in
the private sector as a consultant. He did work on
behalf of FTX, the fraudulent and failed crypto conglomerate that
Sam Bankman freed started. You point out things he said
(17:08):
about crypto and climate regulations. Given all of that, is
there anything that he could say to earn your vote
and committee?
Speaker 3 (17:16):
So let me back up just a little bit. Think
about the job that he's being interview top cop on
Wall Street, top cop on Wall Street and cop in
two meanings of that word. One is you've got to
catch the fraudsters. You've got to make sure everybody's dotting
their eyes and crossing their tees, because there's a lot
of value in having that stock market be an honest
(17:38):
and level playing field. But the other way in which
top cop it's to watch for risk building up in
the system. It's to make sure that the regulations that
are in place are appropriately calibrated to deal with those
risks and beat those risks out of the system. Paul
(17:59):
Atkins actually has a track record on exactly that issue
because he served as a commissioner in the SEC from
two thousand and one to two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
You remember what happened a crisis.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
Yes, so here we are in lead up to the
financial crisis, and over and over again, what does Paul
Atkins vote for? Loosen the regulations?
Speaker 2 (18:22):
What does his nomination say to you about the regulatory
framework this administration wants.
Speaker 3 (18:28):
Oh, I think this is entirely in keeping with what
Donald Trump and Elon Musk want to see us do,
and that is loosen regulations. Loosen regulations, loosen regulations. That
is what Paul Atkins did. He also said repeatedly that
no regulations just get in the way. Everybody needs to
do whatever they want. Those big Wall Street giants. We
(18:49):
saw the crash in two thousand and eight. And here's
what happens next. After the crash, he has the chance
to have a little twenty twenty hindsight. He has twenty zero.
Heindez site. He looks back and says, no problem with
having let those giant Wall Street banks run wild, and
the fact that the American taxpayer had bail them out
(19:11):
not a problem. That's my concern. If someone has demonstrated
such poor judgment, you've got to be really worried about
putting them in a job where the failure to have
good judgment could be like it was back then. Remember,
ten million families lost their homes, millions more people lost
(19:35):
their jobs. We watched Wall Street do a real tank then.
And here's the thing about Paul Atkins. We have both
his demonstrated experience, but also look at his experience overall.
So his time in government is a real problem. But
now he's someone who has built a very lucrative business
(19:59):
with the Potomac Partners. He charges evidently upwards of twelve
hundred dollars an hour to give advice, and he says, well,
I'm going to divest this interest. But he doesn't want
to tell us who he's divesting too. Who's buying and
for what purposes? And what are the long term plans?
(20:23):
Because here's the deal. SEC chairmanship doesn't last forever, right,
two years, four years, maybe longer? My concern is, And
so what happens on the other end. Does he just
come right back out and instead of charging twelve hundred
dollars an hour, it's now twenty four hundred dollars an hour?
(20:44):
But it's who do you work for? And why that
matters is it has an effect on the time you
sit as chairman of the SEC. So there he is
making decisions, and I look at someone like Paul Act.
How much time has he spent with families that are
(21:05):
working three jobs to try to make it to the
end of the month. How much time has he spent
with any of those ten million people who lost their
homes in the last crash. And how much time has
he spent with this handful of billionaires who really, at
least in the short run, love these deregulated markets and
taxpayer bailouts. And how much when he makes a decision
(21:28):
is he thinking about the guy working three jobs? And
how much is he thinking about his future clients whom
he could please. Wiley's at the SEC. So those are
the problems for me.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
After the break, my final questions for Senator Warren on
the independence of regulators and the judicial branches role in
the balance of power in Washington. Something about which I
(22:03):
know you're passionate is the independence of these.
Speaker 1 (22:05):
Regulatory always is.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
You look at the SEC today, there are two Republicans
on that commission, one Democrat whose term will be up soon.
There's been no indication the present's going to put forward
another Democratic nominee. I look at the FTC, the Federal
Trade Commission, and the two Democratic members were removed by
this administration. They're fighting to get back in those positions.
What is the practical implication of that, not having five
(22:28):
members in place, not having the kind of I imagine
ideological political diversity you would have under normal circumstances.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
Right. I'm glad you asked that, because it's a reminder
that when those agencies were designed FTC, of course the oldest,
the SEC, during the Great Depression. They were made bipartisan
from the beginning in an understanding that yeah, it's going
to move a little, there's going to be a little shift,
(22:56):
but we need buy in across the political spectrum. And
we need the stability all the way through the entire system.
I think of it this way, even for companies that
are saying, let's do regulately, you know, turn us loose,
let us do whatever we want. At the end of
the day, Yeah, make me feel good. In the short term,
(23:17):
you may be able to figure out how to cut
a corner here and make a little more money. But understand,
the reason our stock market is so valuable is in
part because it has level, transparent rules that are strictly enforced.
And you start to weaken that and in the short
(23:39):
run you may make a profit and that guy over there,
but how many other people say, you know what, I
don't think that's where I want to invest my money.
I think I'm just going to slow down on how
much of my wealth, my energy, my time, my talent
I put in there. We have built a legal structure
(24:00):
that in many ways is the envy of the world.
There's a reason investment comes into the United States, and
it's because you count on those structures independent of where
they've got a Democrat or Republican in the White House.
The structures work when Donald Trump and Elon Musk come
in and don't just say, you know, let's give a
(24:22):
little different emphasis. But they want a chainsaw. They want
to just get rid of everyone who doesn't follow their
deregulatory agenda. They're boost the billionaire agenda. That's going to
cost everybody in this country.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
I want to stick with the FTC and what happened there,
because we've heard from the FED chairman, with whom you've
had your sheriff disagreements, I should say over policy and
ticket hearings. He's not over his independence, not over his independence,
and that's where I want to go. Should he be
worried as he watches what happened at the FTC about
his and his colleagues ability to keep their positions in
the Federal Reserve?
Speaker 3 (24:57):
I want to say, no, he shouldn't be worried because
I stand staunchly behind the independence of the FED. But damn,
I stand staunchly behind the independence of the FTC and
behind the independence of the SEC within their statutory neighborhoods.
But that's the question. If Donald Trump can just start
(25:20):
getting rid of everyone who disagrees with him anywhere in government.
For me, it started actually with the Inspectors General. If
he can just fire those inspectors General, even though the
statutes say that they have job protection and can only
be fired for cause. If he can just mow through
every civil servant, if he can just mow through the
(25:42):
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, it's a form of lawlessness and
all the power belongs to the king. That it suggests
nobody is safe, not even the chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
I want to guess that the person you'd most like
to have in seat in front of you in the
hearing room is Elon Musk.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
Of course, is not a cabinet appointee.
Speaker 3 (26:04):
In fact, what is he? Can you just tell me?
I recurt here it documents, and I hear that he's nothing.
He's just the guy who stands her in the White House.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
But it gets to this issue of who does hold
him to account? And in your capacity as senior center
from Massachusetts, ranking member of the banker, how do you
get answers from somebody who again has no official position,
traditional official position, but is doing so much to reshape
the bureaucratic landscape, the regulatory landscape, in fact the whole government.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
Yeah, so let me do two parts here. The first
one is I want to remind you after Donald Trump
was elected. One of the very first letters I wrote
was to Elon Musk, and I said, I've read the declaration.
You want to cut two trillion dollars from the budget,
which he then trimmed down to a trillion, which he
(26:54):
then trimmed down to half trillion. I said, don't give up,
don't give up. You can cut two trillion dollars in
waste and fat out of the budget. And here's a
list of thirty things that I've been working on for
a long time here in Congress that I've seen kind
of an insider's view on some of this, places where
we could make cuts that would make our government actually
(27:17):
more efficient, that would make our government work better. You
want to go to work, I'm ready.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
I'm ready.
Speaker 3 (27:23):
And you don't have to promise to do all thirty
just pick any of them. This is a menu, Just
take whatever you like on this. No answer. And instead
he goes out there and just starts firing people. And
now this moves into the second part of the answer.
He does things that are illegal, and there's just not
much doubt about this. He fires people who under law
(27:48):
have certain job protections, can only be fired in certain ways.
He goes out there and cancels contracts government contracts that
can only be canceled by a federal contracting official may
look at the laws, boring old laws about this stuff.
So what we have is a lawlessness that has been
set through our entire government. And this is a threat
(28:16):
to democracy. It is also a threat to our economy.
You can't build a strong and stable economy in the
middle of this. It is also a threat, damn it,
to good government. I go back to my list, there
are things I really wanted to cut to something else
I want to do. I think we ought to have
simpler regulations. I'm not a no regulations gal, but I
(28:40):
am definitely like there are a lot of places we
should simplify our regulations, make them clearer, easier to understand.
There are things we could do to run this government better.
And in that sense, I want to cheer when someone
says I want to be a reformer, but you got
to be a reformer within the law that is possible.
(29:01):
Right now, Republicans are in control of the House, the Senate,
of the White House. You guys want to do reform,
pass some damn laws, but do not set elon Musk
to take a chainsaw of cancer research in America and
put old people out of the nursing homes that they're in.
That is not how America builds a future, and frankly,
(29:24):
that is not the kind of people we want to be.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Last question here, we've talked about the three branches of government.
Let me ask you about the judicial one in particular,
drawing from your experience again as a professor of law,
are you confident that the courts will be able to
keep up with all of the challenges that we've seen here?
There has been this flurry, the sandstorm, as you described it.
Can the courts keep up?
Speaker 3 (29:44):
It's tough. Look, we're at over one hundred lawsuits. I
no longer can keep the number in my head because
it keeps shifting. But the judges, by and large have
stepped up. Courts are designed to go slowly, right, and
Elon Musk is moving fast. Right. You can break laws
(30:05):
a lot faster than you can actually hold people accountable
for that. But at the end of the day, the
three parts of government. Congress writes those laws, the administration
administers those laws. We count on the courts to hold
the first two to their roles. I think the judges
(30:27):
are stepping up. So I say this half out of
hope but half out of conviction. I still believe in
the Constitution of the United States. I think most judges do,
and I think they're going to hold.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
This is the Big Take from Bloomberg News. I'm David Gera.
This episode was produced by Alex tie. It was edited
by Aaron Edwards and Mike Dorning. It was fact checked
by Adriana Tapia and mixed and sound designed by Alex Sagura.
Our senior producer is Naomi Shaven. Our senior editor is
With Ponso. Our executive producer is Nicole Beamster Borer. Sage
Bauman is Bloomberg's head of podcasts. If you liked this episode,
(31:07):
make sure to subscribe and review The Big Take wherever
you listen to podcasts. It helps people find the show.
Thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
As the Democratic Party ramps up its opposition to President
Trump's agenda, to the priorities of a Republican controlled Congress,
and to the role of DOGE. Along with Elon Musk,
a few Democratic members of Congress have emerged as leading voices.
One of them has been central to discussions over financial regulation,
government accountability, and the future of the Democratic Party itself.
(00:29):
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. Warren has been a longtime advocate
for strong regulation. She helped create the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau after the two thousand and eight financial crisis. She's
been a US Senator since twenty thirteen, and in twenty
twenty she ran for president. Today, she sits on the
Senate's Armed Services and Finance committees, and she's the top
(00:51):
Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee. That means she's played
a lead role in vetting Trump's nominees for key positions
in his administration.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
Will you put your money where your mouth is? Is
there any billionaire rich enough who you wouldn't support a
tax cut for Are you willing to commit right now
that you will put enough people back to work so
they can do the job of delivering the benefits that
Americans earned.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Warren has gone viral for some of those moments, and
that's helped make her a prominent face of Democrats pushback
on Trump at a time when the party is in
the midst of a debate over its leadership and its future.
So I wanted to sit down with Warren to get
her sense of, well, everything that's happening now, from Trump's
efforts to reshape the federal government and the regulatory landscape,
(01:40):
to this week's explosive news that Secretary of Defends Pete
Hegseth shared information about US military operations in a signal
group chat, and where Warren thinks the Democratic Party is headed.
I'm David Gera, and this is the big take from
Bloomberg News today. On the show, my conversation with Senator
(02:02):
Elizabeth Warren, which has been lightly edited and condensed. I
sat down with her in a hearing room on Capitol Hill.
I wanted to ask you, first of all, about what
we've been learning about. The editor of The Atlantic found
himself in a chat with some of the most senior
members of President Trump's administration national security staff, and by
(02:24):
virtue of that was privy to plans for an attack
in great detail, your reaction to it.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
You sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
So let me just start with if Pete Hegseith had
a shred of self respect and decency, he would resign.
That's what leadership is about. And instead Pete Hegseth thinks
it's all about point at somebody else and minimize the
problem and sweep it under the rug and deflect. You know,
(02:57):
I want to be a leader of the finest armed
forces in the world and step up and take some responsibility.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Should he be fired, you talk about him, If you
won't quit, then.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
He should be fired because he has put our national
security at risk. That's part one. Part two is you
realize a bunch of this is potentially certainly breaking the law. So,
for example, because of the Freedom of Information Act, there
are laws that require that people in the administration, all
(03:29):
of them, have to preserve the records of their texting
back and forth. I know this from the days when
I served in the administration and we were carefully cautioned
about the importance of preserving records. Signal, as you know,
disappears those records. And I will say on this when
I read how casually they just formed this chat. Notice
(03:54):
that's how you refer to it to discuss the national
security issues and the bombing of another country. How many
other times are they using signal and what are they
using it for? So this is a moment. We need
some of those congressional investigations. We need a hearing in
(04:17):
the Senate, we need a hearing in the House. I
remember all of the hearings before when there was a
question about Hillary Clinton's emails. I want to run the
tape on how many Republicans talked about the importance of
accountability and getting to the bottom of this. Where are
they right now? I'm ready for those hearings, and the
(04:39):
FBI needs to step up.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
This was a chat that was organized by Mike Waltz,
the president national security advisor, and he addressed this in
an interview on Fox News.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
Here's what he said.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
We made a mistake, We're moving forward, and we're.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
I noted that Biden large The response from administration has
been there wasn't classified information here, and as a result
of that, the Atlantic release screenshots of a lot of
these conversations. We learned that there was information about planes
timing of this attack, you talk about the need for hearings,
are you optimistic that that's going to happen and that
you're going to get to the bottom.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Of what was in fact discussed on that chat.
Speaker 3 (05:11):
So I think this is a question fundamentally about where
is power in this country. I get it elections, we
pick a president. President picks a team, and that's where
power resigns in terms of the execution day to day
of various policies. But ultimately it's people across this country.
(05:31):
And when people across this country said, wait a minute,
the Secretary of Defense, I mean this is this is
not some random guy off the street who stumbled across
some secret information and kind of didn't know how to
handle it. This is the Secretary of Defense. And those
candid conversations need to be shielded from the rest of
(05:52):
the world. When the White House wants to say nothing
to see here, just flip at the other and ask
yourself if the Atlantic had called the White House and said,
let me show you what we've got in advance of
the bombing, you guys, okay, if we put it up
on our website, how many heart attacks would there have been?
(06:18):
Over the White House say no, no, no, no, no,
you can't do that. Well, if it wouldn't have been
okay for the Atlantic to publish all of that in advance,
you got to worry it's not published on a website.
But I don't know who's listening on signal, the Chinese,
the North Koreans, the Russians, some other bad actors out there.
(06:41):
It is important that we follow through as a nation
and say, look, you put our whole country at risk,
our allies. I'm getting asked in the hallways by foreign reporters,
can we actually trust the United States of America if
we tell secrets and they're going to end up on
some signal chat with the Secretary of Defense. So there
(07:02):
needs to be an investigation, but there needs to be
some accountability, and the accountability should start right now. Hegsas
should resign, and if he won't do that, then Trump
should fire him. He knows how to say you're fired.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
I want to ask you at the moment that we're in.
This is part of that moment. We're two months into
this administration's tenure. How are you thinking about the role
of the Democratic Party in this moment?
Speaker 1 (07:23):
And just it's gravity overall for the country itself.
Speaker 3 (07:27):
So let's set the table for this moment. Donald Trump
ran for office saying over and over and over and
over and over. I have a lower costs on day one.
Those are his words, not mine. I have a lower
cost on day one. He said that to millions and
millions of people. And right after he got elected he
was interviewed, his very first interview, he said that's how
(07:49):
I got elected, was saying I'm going to lower costs
on day one. So here we are two months in.
He has done nothing to lower costs. I mean no,
all that's happening is we're watching places where costs are
going up, up, up. But he and his co president
Elon Musk have been out there with a chainsaw moving
(08:13):
through government, trying to fire the financial cops, for example,
by trying to shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
laying off tens of thousands of federal workers who kind
of do the job of Social Security making sure people
get their Social Security checks each month, ending contracts for
(08:37):
medical research. So there's this and playing red light green
light with tariffs. Right, Yes there's a tariff, No there's
not a tariff, right, playing that game. So it's important
to remember we're in a system right now that is
deeply chaotic. I think that like a sand storm, you know,
the sand is blowing everywhere. I have. The job at
(09:01):
the Democratic Party right now is to say there's a
lot going on. We are in the fight. We are
in the fight to save social security. We are in
these fights, but to pull back and to look at
the bigger picture. The media will do the day by
day fights, but our job is to pull back and
the bigger picture is that other promise that Donald Trump
(09:23):
made when he was running for president. Remember, to millions
of people, he said, I will cut your costs someday.
One to a handful of what he called his richest
held donors, he said, I'm going to give you tax
breaks like you've never seen before, mostly sucked up by billionaires,
billionaire corporations, and then paid for on the backs of
(09:48):
elderly people in nursing homes who will lose federal support.
Your neighbor down the street who has a disability and
needs a home health aid paid for by the federal government.
Kids in public school who need help, and those public
schools need help. Cutting scientific research and medical research, And
(10:11):
that sets up what this fight is all about. Are
we going to be a nation that hands over four
point seven trillion dollars in giveaways to a handful of
billionaires and makes everybody else pay for it. Are we
going to be a nation that says no to tax
cuts for those guys and says we're going to invest
(10:33):
in in America where everybody gets an opportunity.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
Coming up next, I ask Senator Warren about her colleague,
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and how she sees her
own position in the Democratic Party. The leader of Democrats
and the Senate, Chuck Schumer has a book out, so
he's been talking a lot in Something he's brought up
over and over again is he doesn't think that we're
(10:59):
at a cuntstitutional crisis yet. I wonder if you agree
with him in that regard, and if so, what is
the threshold when we would be phasing one?
Speaker 3 (11:08):
So I have to say, before we got here in
the last two months, I would have described a constitutional
crisis is like a light switch. You're not in one,
you're not in one, You're not in one of them,
all of a sudden you are in one. I've come
to think about that differently. I worry that we move
increasingly toward an administration that's not just saying I'm going
(11:33):
to be a more robust president. And I get it.
Presidents look at this differently, some a little stronger, some
a little weaker. But a president that says there are
no constraints on me, and that takes me back to
constitutional law. One on one, legislature writes those laws. That's
our part. Congress, the administration, President and those who work
(11:55):
in the administration administer those laws, and the courts have
the responsibility if the administration steps out of line to
say you violated the law. We keep all three parts
in balance. And I'm watching Donald Trump and Elon Musk
(12:15):
say no, there are not three equal branches of government.
It's just one that smells a lot like a constitutional crisis.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
We've just been through a moment when Republicans wrote a
continuing resolution and Chuck Schumer said the Democrat Sho had
supported he did.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
You did not.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
I should say you did a town hall in Lowell, Massachusetts.
WBR was there and recorded it, and I got tape
of what you said.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
I think Chuck Schumer is wrong.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
You didn't linger on that, and I wonder if you
might hear just for a moment. Was he wrong about
the political calculation? Spell out for me what you disagreed
about that he did.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
In particular, I.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
Think there's a moment when you stand and fight, and
for me, that moment came with a continuing resolution was.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
A squaded opportunity to do so.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
It's more than that. Understand, Let's go back to what
we're trying. What is the big fight right now? The
big fight is going to be whether or not the
billionaires and Donald Trump and Elon Musk are just going
to take over our country and run it to suit themselves,
make everybody else pay for it. That's what the budget
is all about. We do a lot of other things
(13:23):
in Washington, but you want to know our values, take
a look at the budget. And so the question becomes,
in this fight, we got to stop and draw the
line and say it's time. It's time for us to
fight back. It's time to call on people of the
United States, because that whole constitutional structure that I was
(13:44):
talking about, the three parts of government, all rest ultimately
on the people, and it is time to have that fight.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Did it cause you to reevaluate your faith and confidence
in Senator Schumer is a leader of Demo rats in
the Senate.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
I want to be clear, we are heading into a
fight where we need every single Democrat pointed the same way.
We may still be bumping around on exactly what the
timing is going to be on that fight, exactly where
the trigger point is going to be, but there is
no doubt in the United States Senate, the forty seven
(14:21):
of us are locked arms and moving in the same direction.
And the same is true over in the House. This
fight is on top of us. We cannot avoid this
fight because Donald Trump and Elon Musk, truly they want
to take this country over for just a handful of people,
(14:41):
and they want even more wealth and more power to
go to them. Well, everybody else has to pay for
That is the fight.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Last question on this subject, sure, what is your role
as you see it in that fight? You write a
lot of letters to administration officials, you speak out quite
a bit. You are somebody identifiable with this oversight fight
and struggle with the administration. How do you see your
role in the Democratic Party broadly today?
Speaker 3 (15:07):
Look, I look at what are the tools in my toolbox.
I'll use every one of them that I possibly can.
Oversight is a big part this is part of your
job when you're a senator, and that is to look
at the agencies, to ask questions of these nominees, to
get them on the record, to press them, to ask
(15:28):
for investigations. This is why we need inspectors General. This
is why we need an active GAO. This is why
we need an FBI that is still functional. It's partly
just to say we already have laws and force the
damn laws. Make sure that people are doing that. That's
part of my job. Part of my job is to
be in the fight to give it everything I've got because,
(15:51):
as I said, ultimately it's going to be about people
across this country saying, look, I don't want in America
where it's all about a hand full of billionaires. I
want in America where we actually do invest in medical research.
I want in America where actually every kid has an
opportunity to go to public school, even kids who have
(16:13):
special need. To hear me talking as a special needs teacher,
I want in America where we're making investments in our
best resource, and that is our people.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
Talking to a former law professor.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
So Article two, Section two, Power of advice and consent
by virtue of the committees that you sit on, Armed Services, finance, banking.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
You have had the.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
Ability to question a lot of these highermobile nominees. Coming
up is the presence picked ahead the Securious and Exchange Commission,
Paul Atkins, And you've written a memo thirty four pages
in length.
Speaker 1 (16:43):
It starts with the congregations.
Speaker 3 (16:45):
Average for me.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
You say he has extensive experience in financial services and
capital markets. But I have concerns about your record if
you tick through what he's done as an sec staffer
and commissioner, and the work that he's done since in
the private sector as a consultant. He did work on
behalf of FTX, the fraudulent and failed crypto conglomerate that
Sam Bankman freed started. You point out things he said
(17:08):
about crypto and climate regulations. Given all of that, is
there anything that he could say to earn your vote
and committee?
Speaker 3 (17:16):
So let me back up just a little bit. Think
about the job that he's being interview top cop on
Wall Street, top cop on Wall Street and cop in
two meanings of that word. One is you've got to
catch the fraudsters. You've got to make sure everybody's dotting
their eyes and crossing their tees, because there's a lot
of value in having that stock market be an honest
(17:38):
and level playing field. But the other way in which
top cop it's to watch for risk building up in
the system. It's to make sure that the regulations that
are in place are appropriately calibrated to deal with those
risks and beat those risks out of the system. Paul
(17:59):
Atkins actually has a track record on exactly that issue
because he served as a commissioner in the SEC from
two thousand and one to two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
You remember what happened a crisis.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
Yes, so here we are in lead up to the
financial crisis, and over and over again, what does Paul
Atkins vote for? Loosen the regulations?
Speaker 2 (18:22):
What does his nomination say to you about the regulatory
framework this administration wants.
Speaker 3 (18:28):
Oh, I think this is entirely in keeping with what
Donald Trump and Elon Musk want to see us do,
and that is loosen regulations. Loosen regulations, loosen regulations. That
is what Paul Atkins did. He also said repeatedly that
no regulations just get in the way. Everybody needs to
do whatever they want. Those big Wall Street giants. We
(18:49):
saw the crash in two thousand and eight. And here's
what happens next. After the crash, he has the chance
to have a little twenty twenty hindsight. He has twenty zero.
Heindez site. He looks back and says, no problem with
having let those giant Wall Street banks run wild, and
the fact that the American taxpayer had bail them out
(19:11):
not a problem. That's my concern. If someone has demonstrated
such poor judgment, you've got to be really worried about
putting them in a job where the failure to have
good judgment could be like it was back then. Remember,
ten million families lost their homes, millions more people lost
(19:35):
their jobs. We watched Wall Street do a real tank then.
And here's the thing about Paul Atkins. We have both
his demonstrated experience, but also look at his experience overall.
So his time in government is a real problem. But
now he's someone who has built a very lucrative business
(19:59):
with the Potomac Partners. He charges evidently upwards of twelve
hundred dollars an hour to give advice, and he says, well,
I'm going to divest this interest. But he doesn't want
to tell us who he's divesting too. Who's buying and
for what purposes? And what are the long term plans?
(20:23):
Because here's the deal. SEC chairmanship doesn't last forever, right,
two years, four years, maybe longer? My concern is, And
so what happens on the other end. Does he just
come right back out and instead of charging twelve hundred
dollars an hour, it's now twenty four hundred dollars an hour?
(20:44):
But it's who do you work for? And why that
matters is it has an effect on the time you
sit as chairman of the SEC. So there he is
making decisions, and I look at someone like Paul Act.
How much time has he spent with families that are
(21:05):
working three jobs to try to make it to the
end of the month. How much time has he spent
with any of those ten million people who lost their
homes in the last crash. And how much time has
he spent with this handful of billionaires who really, at
least in the short run, love these deregulated markets and
taxpayer bailouts. And how much when he makes a decision
(21:28):
is he thinking about the guy working three jobs? And
how much is he thinking about his future clients whom
he could please. Wiley's at the SEC. So those are
the problems for me.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
After the break, my final questions for Senator Warren on
the independence of regulators and the judicial branches role in
the balance of power in Washington. Something about which I
(22:03):
know you're passionate is the independence of these.
Speaker 1 (22:05):
Regulatory always is.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
You look at the SEC today, there are two Republicans
on that commission, one Democrat whose term will be up soon.
There's been no indication the present's going to put forward
another Democratic nominee. I look at the FTC, the Federal
Trade Commission, and the two Democratic members were removed by
this administration. They're fighting to get back in those positions.
What is the practical implication of that, not having five
(22:28):
members in place, not having the kind of I imagine
ideological political diversity you would have under normal circumstances.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
Right. I'm glad you asked that, because it's a reminder
that when those agencies were designed FTC, of course the oldest,
the SEC, during the Great Depression. They were made bipartisan
from the beginning in an understanding that yeah, it's going
to move a little, there's going to be a little shift,
(22:56):
but we need buy in across the political spectrum. And
we need the stability all the way through the entire system.
I think of it this way, even for companies that
are saying, let's do regulately, you know, turn us loose,
let us do whatever we want. At the end of
the day, Yeah, make me feel good. In the short term,
(23:17):
you may be able to figure out how to cut
a corner here and make a little more money. But understand,
the reason our stock market is so valuable is in
part because it has level, transparent rules that are strictly enforced.
And you start to weaken that and in the short
(23:39):
run you may make a profit and that guy over there,
but how many other people say, you know what, I
don't think that's where I want to invest my money.
I think I'm just going to slow down on how
much of my wealth, my energy, my time, my talent
I put in there. We have built a legal structure
(24:00):
that in many ways is the envy of the world.
There's a reason investment comes into the United States, and
it's because you count on those structures independent of where
they've got a Democrat or Republican in the White House.
The structures work when Donald Trump and Elon Musk come
in and don't just say, you know, let's give a
(24:22):
little different emphasis. But they want a chainsaw. They want
to just get rid of everyone who doesn't follow their
deregulatory agenda. They're boost the billionaire agenda. That's going to
cost everybody in this country.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
I want to stick with the FTC and what happened there,
because we've heard from the FED chairman, with whom you've
had your sheriff disagreements, I should say over policy and
ticket hearings. He's not over his independence, not over his independence,
and that's where I want to go. Should he be
worried as he watches what happened at the FTC about
his and his colleagues ability to keep their positions in
the Federal Reserve?
Speaker 3 (24:57):
I want to say, no, he shouldn't be worried because
I stand staunchly behind the independence of the FED. But damn,
I stand staunchly behind the independence of the FTC and
behind the independence of the SEC within their statutory neighborhoods.
But that's the question. If Donald Trump can just start
(25:20):
getting rid of everyone who disagrees with him anywhere in government.
For me, it started actually with the Inspectors General. If
he can just fire those inspectors General, even though the
statutes say that they have job protection and can only
be fired for cause. If he can just mow through
every civil servant, if he can just mow through the
(25:42):
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, it's a form of lawlessness and
all the power belongs to the king. That it suggests
nobody is safe, not even the chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
I want to guess that the person you'd most like
to have in seat in front of you in the
hearing room is Elon Musk.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
Of course, is not a cabinet appointee.
Speaker 3 (26:04):
In fact, what is he? Can you just tell me?
I recurt here it documents, and I hear that he's nothing.
He's just the guy who stands her in the White House.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
But it gets to this issue of who does hold
him to account? And in your capacity as senior center
from Massachusetts, ranking member of the banker, how do you
get answers from somebody who again has no official position,
traditional official position, but is doing so much to reshape
the bureaucratic landscape, the regulatory landscape, in fact the whole government.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
Yeah, so let me do two parts here. The first
one is I want to remind you after Donald Trump
was elected. One of the very first letters I wrote
was to Elon Musk, and I said, I've read the declaration.
You want to cut two trillion dollars from the budget,
which he then trimmed down to a trillion, which he
(26:54):
then trimmed down to half trillion. I said, don't give up,
don't give up. You can cut two trillion dollars in
waste and fat out of the budget. And here's a
list of thirty things that I've been working on for
a long time here in Congress that I've seen kind
of an insider's view on some of this, places where
we could make cuts that would make our government actually
(27:17):
more efficient, that would make our government work better. You
want to go to work, I'm ready.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
I'm ready.
Speaker 3 (27:23):
And you don't have to promise to do all thirty
just pick any of them. This is a menu, Just
take whatever you like on this. No answer. And instead
he goes out there and just starts firing people. And
now this moves into the second part of the answer.
He does things that are illegal, and there's just not
much doubt about this. He fires people who under law
(27:48):
have certain job protections, can only be fired in certain ways.
He goes out there and cancels contracts government contracts that
can only be canceled by a federal contracting official may
look at the laws, boring old laws about this stuff.
So what we have is a lawlessness that has been
set through our entire government. And this is a threat
(28:16):
to democracy. It is also a threat to our economy.
You can't build a strong and stable economy in the
middle of this. It is also a threat, damn it,
to good government. I go back to my list, there
are things I really wanted to cut to something else
I want to do. I think we ought to have
simpler regulations. I'm not a no regulations gal, but I
(28:40):
am definitely like there are a lot of places we
should simplify our regulations, make them clearer, easier to understand.
There are things we could do to run this government better.
And in that sense, I want to cheer when someone
says I want to be a reformer, but you got
to be a reformer within the law that is possible.
(29:01):
Right now, Republicans are in control of the House, the Senate,
of the White House. You guys want to do reform,
pass some damn laws, but do not set elon Musk
to take a chainsaw of cancer research in America and
put old people out of the nursing homes that they're in.
That is not how America builds a future, and frankly,
(29:24):
that is not the kind of people we want to be.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Last question here, we've talked about the three branches of government.
Let me ask you about the judicial one in particular,
drawing from your experience again as a professor of law,
are you confident that the courts will be able to
keep up with all of the challenges that we've seen here?
There has been this flurry, the sandstorm, as you described it.
Can the courts keep up?
Speaker 3 (29:44):
It's tough. Look, we're at over one hundred lawsuits. I
no longer can keep the number in my head because
it keeps shifting. But the judges, by and large have
stepped up. Courts are designed to go slowly, right, and
Elon Musk is moving fast. Right. You can break laws
(30:05):
a lot faster than you can actually hold people accountable
for that. But at the end of the day, the
three parts of government. Congress writes those laws, the administration
administers those laws. We count on the courts to hold
the first two to their roles. I think the judges
(30:27):
are stepping up. So I say this half out of
hope but half out of conviction. I still believe in
the Constitution of the United States. I think most judges do,
and I think they're going to hold.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
This is the Big Take from Bloomberg News. I'm David Gera.
This episode was produced by Alex tie. It was edited
by Aaron Edwards and Mike Dorning. It was fact checked
by Adriana Tapia and mixed and sound designed by Alex Sagura.
Our senior producer is Naomi Shaven. Our senior editor is
With Ponso. Our executive producer is Nicole Beamster Borer. Sage
Bauman is Bloomberg's head of podcasts. If you liked this episode,
(31:07):
make sure to subscribe and review The Big Take wherever
you listen to podcasts. It helps people find the show.
Thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow.
Hosts And Creators
Sarah Holder
Saleha Mohsin
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.