CSPAN - Sen. Chris Van Hollen Discusses Leadership

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 25, 2025 05:09-06:06 - CSPAN

56:55

Sen. Chris Van Hollen Discusses Leadership

Participants

Main

chris van hollen

sen/d 41:25

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Toothy Rebels in Yemen was accidentally shared with a member of the media on a group chat.
		And then we'll discuss President Trump's recent moves to dismantle the Department of Education with Moms for Liberty's Tina Descovich.
		Also, Illinois Democratic Congressman Sean Kasten, a member of the New Democrat Coalition, and the Financial Services Committee will talk about the Democratic Party divisions and how best to counter Republicans and the Trump administration.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
		Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern this morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN now, or online at cspan.org.
		C-SPAN, democracy unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Comcast.
		Oh, you think this is just a community censor?
		No, it's way more than that.
		Comcast is partnering with a thousand community centers to create Wi-Fi-enabled lifts so students from low-income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything.
		Comcast supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
		Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Holland talked about leadership during a discussion at George Washington University.
		During his remarks, he highlights Republicans not speaking out against President Trump.
		The discussion runs about an hour.
		I am ready.
		All right, good afternoon.
		My name is Chris Cojum.
		I direct the Leadership Ethics and Practice Initiative.
		As many of you know, we seek to bring distinguished practitioners to the school, and so we are so doing today.
		I will make my introduction of the Dean brief so that we can get on with the program.
		Dean Alyssa Ayers has been the Dean of the Elliott School.
		She's now in her fifth year.
		She's also a professor of history and international affairs here at the Elliott School and at GW.
		She's a distinguished practitioner, served in the Department of State as a Deputy Assistant Secretary for a part of the world, South Asia, that the Senator knows well.
		She received a Superior Honor Award at the Department of State.
		She's a practitioner, a professor, and she's the leader of our school.
		She will introduce our speaker.
		Thank you.
		Thank you, Professor Cojum.
		We are so excited to host Senator Van Hollen today.
		And I want to again thank it's wonderful to be able to look and see a very full room.
		So thanks to everyone for joining us here this afternoon.
		I have the distinct pleasure of being able to welcome Senator Chris Van Holland of Maryland to our school today.
		I'm going to read a little bit from his bio.
		He's got a fascinating bio that will provide some context for his lessons on leadership.
		Following his time in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Maryland General Assembly, so he has prior political office experience before becoming a senator.
		He was elected by Marylanders to serve in the United States Senate in 2016 and then re-elected in 2022.
		Now as Maryland's senior senator, he is committed to fighting every day to ensure that his state and our country live up to our full promise of equal rights, equal justice, and equal opportunity.
		Senator Van Holland is a staunch defender of Marylanders' rights and values.
		He serves on the influential Senate Appropriations Committee, where he fights to deliver critical investments in Maryland communities and local priorities.
		He also serves on the Senate Budget, Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and Foreign Relations Committees, so that's three committees.
		And he has successfully led a number of bipartisan initiatives in these areas.
		In the foreign policy space, the senator works to ensure that the United States uses its leverage to support policies that are in line with our nation's interests and values.
		And he has been focused on pushing back on foreign policies that undermine American national security and our standing around the globe.
		I would like to add a little bit of personal background to his bio here.
		This is of great interest to me.
		He grew up as the son of a diplomat, was born in Karachi, Pakistan.
		He lived in Sri Lanka, in South India, in Tamil Nadu, and in Turkey.
		So he grew up abroad and has had incredible exposure throughout his childhood to the world and had a front-row seat to U.S. foreign policy and action.
		So he really brings a special perspective to all that he does for the United States and for Marylanders in the Senate.
		So please join me in welcoming Senator Chris Van Holland of Maryland.
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
unidentified		Thank you for joining us here today.
		Let's kick things off.
		I have a first question for you, and it's about leadership.
		What do you consider to be the most essential qualities of effective leadership, particularly in today's challenging policy environment?
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		So, first, if I might, Dean Ayres, it's great to be with you.
		I do want to thank my long-term friend, Chris Cojum, for reaching out a little while ago.
		I originally met Chris Cojum decades ago through my wife Catherine when they were both working on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
		I was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff at the time, and you can imagine all sorts of jokes about House affairs and Senate relations.
		The reality is that that was an important experience as a staff member.
		Look, I think there are many important qualities to leadership, but I do think at the end of the day, probably the most important one is courage, courage to speak up and stand out and express your views, even when others may take a very different position, especially others sometimes in your own party.
		So, this is actually a moment that I think it's very important for people to be speaking out very clearly, because I think we're facing lots of challenges in our country, deep challenges to our democracy and the rule of law and the Constitution.
		So, that is, I think, the most important quality.
		Obviously, working to persuade people, respecting other people's views while also listening carefully.
		I think there are many qualities, obviously, that go into leadership, but at the end of the day, I do believe that political courage and moral courage are probably the most important qualities.
		And all of us, I think, have to work hard to achieve that goal.
unidentified		Can I just follow up on the thread of persuasion?
		How do you persuade people?
		How do you think about persuasion as an effective tool in quality?
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		Well, the first step toward persuasion is listening and listening carefully to what other people are saying, respecting their views even when you disagree, to try to have a better sense of where they're coming from, to see if you can find any common ground and try to build on that common ground.
		Persuading does not mean lecturing.
		Persuading doesn't mean talking at people.
		Persuading, as I say, means doing your very best to come at an issue from, I think, sort of core values and hopefully find some core values in the person you're trying to persuade that the two of you or more share.
		At the end of the day, I think obviously there are conversations, you know, small conversations, and then there are large speeches.
		I think in this day and age, persuasion is especially challenging given our fractured media environment and ecosystem because we've gotten to a place, and this is not just now in 2025, it's been true for decades now, but getting worse in my view, which is that, you know, people, there are more information sources than ever before, but people tend to tune into the information sources that already reinforce their opinions.
		And that's true whether you're talking about cable television, it's true whether you're talking about online.
		And algorithms, of course, are trained to then begin to feed people more of what they already are looking for.
		So I think it's become really challenging because of this multiplicity of different channels of communication.
		So persuading obviously means being able to communicate with the other person.
		And if there's nobody listening on the other side, obviously they're beyond persuasion.
		So part of it is the content and approach, but it's also how do you reach people who may not be tuned into the channels that you're communicating on.
unidentified		Thank you.
unidentified		I want to follow up and ask you for any examples that you might have of significant leadership challenges that you've experienced in your career and lessons that you've learned from them.
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		And, you know, as I think of this question, I think the, you know, I think of others who I've watched confronting leadership challenges in the past.
		Way back in the day, I worked for Senator Mac Mathias, who was a very liberal Republican from Maryland.
		He used to say he was a Lincoln Republican, because that was the last Republican that he identified with at the time.
		But I mentioned him because he sort of was a singular lone voice within his party, and many often took a very different position that he did.
		Look, I think there are a number of examples.
		In more recent times, when it comes to foreign policy issues, I've tried to be a very strong proponent of speaking out in support of American values and principles in foreign policy.
		And in order for that to be meaningful, I believe you have to apply those principles not just to your adversaries, but to your allies and friends.
		And so I was critical in many instances of the approach the Biden administration has taken to the situation in the Middle East, especially after the outbreak of the war in Gaza, where I strongly condemned,
		of course, the October 7th attacks of Hamas, but believed that the United States should do a better job of using our leverage to advance our principles and how the aftermath of the October 7th unfolded with respect to the conduct of the war in Gaza.
		So, you know, as you can imagine, you know, it was a president of my own party who I worked with closely over the years.
		In fact, I was his, when he was running for vice president second time around, I was his fake debating partner.
		I played Paul Ryan in the practice debates for days up in Rhode Island where we have the debate stage and we set it up and we debate.
		My point is that I've known him for a very long time.
		So it wasn't easy, you know, making it very clear that I disagreed with him on some important points that he was trying to take, which I didn't think he was taking adequately.
		So I think those are, you know, leadership, I think, exemplifies itself in uncomfortable moments, which is why I say I think qualities of moral courage are probably the most important signifiers of leadership.
unidentified		You spoke a little bit about Senator Matthias.
unidentified		Do you have other leadership role models that you come back to as kind of touchstones?
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		Well, I go back to, you mentioned I was born in Krochi, Pakistan, grew up overseas.
		So my father and mother were both the most formative characters in my belief system.
		They were people who believed deeply in public service and the golden rule, treating others as you would hope they would treat you.
		Mac Mathias was also a role model.
		I was a staffer for him on foreign policy issues, and he stood up against his own party repeatedly, including when President Reagan was in the White House and there was the legislation to impose sanctions on the apartheid regime of South Africa.
		And I had been very involved at Swarthmore College in the anti-apartheid movement there.
		And so I was pleased that Senator Matthias was a strong advocate against the apartheid regime in South Africa, despite the fact that President Reagan at the time took a very different approach.
		Then it was constructive engagement, which I thought was the wrong approach.
		So he was another good example that I got to see up close.
		Dr. King has always been to me a role model.
		I remember when I was going to school in southern India, I went to a boarding school called Kodi Canal.
unidentified		I visited.
		I've been there.
		I know exactly where it is.
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		And we had a speech class, and we were all asked to sort of memorize a speech by some figure, and I picked Dr. King.
		I have a dream speech.
		But what I think is sometimes underappreciated about Dr. King is not only was he a great leader and civil rights leader, he's a great philosopher.
		And so when you read his sort of complete works, it really gives you that sort of breadth and depth of his world philosophy.
		So I think all of us, there are many others who I would put in that category, but those are probably the top tier.
unidentified		Those are great models to follow.
		This is a program in our leadership ethics and practice initiative.
		So I'd like to ask you a question about ethical challenges.
		Undoubtedly, you've had some tough ethical challenges along the way, difficult issues that you've had to really confront head-on.
		So how did you think about those issues and what factors influenced your decisions and actions?
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		So in terms of ethical challenges, you know, I think it depends on what if you're taking a narrow view of ethical challenges, my view is the best, you know, the best way to address them is transparency and disclosure and sunlight, and that provides for more accountability.
		So that is why we do have sort of systems, regimes set up on Capitol Hill to try to make it clear what people's private interests may be so people can make their own determination about whether they're impacting their public decision-making.
		And I'm a big believer in that transparency effort.
		So disclosing assets, disclosing income.
		One of my concerns at this moment is that we don't have enough disclosure with respect to what's happening right now, for example, with what Elon Musk and Doge are doing.
		And in fact, one of the things I've taken on is trying to make sure that what they're doing is ultimately subject to the public disclosure regimes.
		So I think when it comes to ethics in that sense, it's very important that when you're dealing with public officials, that you be transparent as to potential conflicts of interests.
unidentified		So let me follow that up.
unidentified		How do you, in the Senate, how do you and your Senate colleagues think about and foster a culture of accountability and ethical leadership?
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		So, I mean, again, there are very clear rules that have been established for disclosure of assets.
		I've also been a big supporter of what we call the STOCK Act, which was enacted a number of years ago, where everybody's got to list their stock holdings, if they have any, your home, all sorts of areas where people might believe that there's a conflict of interest.
		And that is a pretty well-established tradition now.
		I think it should be extended.
		We had a debate the other day in the Banking and Housing Committee that I serve on on trying to regulate what are called stable coins, sort of a cryptocurrency.
		I offered an amendment saying that people's holdings and stablecoins should be added to the list of things that members of Congress disclose.
		Unfortunately, it did not pass.
		I believe we'll get it attached to this legislation at some point in the future.
		But those are, I think, those disclosure transparency regimes, again, they're the way we're in a place like the Senate or the House in a very politically polarized environment.
		You're trying to agree on some basic rules of the road that apply to everybody.
unidentified		So here's a question thinking about our students and their future as leaders.
unidentified		What do you see as the most pressing leadership challenges or opportunities for the United States in the coming years, and how would you suggest current and future leaders address them?
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		So that's, of course, a big question.
unidentified		That's a big question.
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		And my answer today probably would be a little different than it was even 65 days ago.
		And I know this is going to come across as a partisan statement, but in my view, this is the reality that we face in this world today, which is that we are here at home facing every day challenges to the rule of law.
		I mean, I don't have to make that up.
		There are 120 court cases that have been filed against the actions of the Trump administration and Elon Musk.
		And that's why you have courts and judges issuing temporary restraint orders and preliminary injunctions by the day, whether it has to do with the wrongful termination of federal employees, Doge efforts to get access to very sensitive information, the Social Security Administration, withholding of appropriated funds.
		The list goes on and on.
		So I do think at this moment that's the challenge we face here at home.
		I've never seen a challenge like that in my entire time in public service.
		And when you talk about political courage, this is a moment, in my view, where some of my Republican Senate colleagues and people in the House really need to step up and not just go along.
		So I'm still hoping to see a little bit more political courage on that front.
		Internationally, I also think that in the very short period of time the Trump administration has been ripping up kind of the sort of fundamental basis of American foreign policy.
		We've never been perfect.
		I want to be clear.
		I mean, I grew up in a Foreign Service family.
		You know, we've laid out our values and our principles.
		We have worked hard to try to be true to them, and I think one of our challenges is making sure that we're more true to them.
		But under this administration, they've literally, I mean, they've torn up the rule book, and they're quite open about it, right?
		I mean, look at what's happening with respect to Ukraine and Russia, where you have, you know, the President of the United States refusing to acknowledge who the aggressor was.
		And you have this, and essentially they've put the issues of human rights and rule of law to the side.
		And they're very open about it.
		So this is not a statement that should be controversial from a factual point of view.
		They're quite open about the fact they're going, they want to move toward a more dog-eat-dog world where, you know, the United States is a big power, a big dog, and forget about the rule book, which is why so many of our allies and friends around the world are so worried at this moment and why, frankly, so many of our adversaries are quite happy.
		I mean, folks in Moscow and Beijing are very happy when you get rid of the voice of America, for example, or when you get rid of AID, or when you talk about freezing foreign assistance.
		That, in my view, serves the interests of our adversaries and definitely undermines our relationship with our friends and partners.
		And so that is, in my view, I believe that a lot of damage has been done in just 65 days, and I think it's going to take a long time to repair.
unidentified		And now, if you had to give advice to our young people, to our students, who want to make a positive impact on our country and on the world, what specific advice would you offer to them?
unidentified		And then after this, we'll open it up for questions.
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		So I do believe that you should, you know, do not in this moment lose your idealism.
		If you're somebody who believes in sort of a values-based, principles-based foreign policy, again, however imperfectly we've implemented, I still believe that that is the way the United States should lead going forward.
		Obviously, taking into account our regional interests, but I do believe that having those fundamental principles and values has been one of our strengths over time, not just the power of our military, but the power of our example.
		So I would say follow, pursue your dreams.
		Persistence is very important.
		Do not be sort of thrown off track.
		You know, I'm not getting a lot of sleep these days, frankly.
		I've been to many town halls and meetings across my state of Maryland where people are understandably very concerned about the moment that we are living through.
		But I think it's more important than ever that those of us who believe in democracy and the rule of law, that we step forward.
		Because those who want to go in a different direction would like nothing more than for everybody else to just shut up and go away.
		So this is a moment where I think patriots need to stand up for our country.
		There's a lot of pressure being brought on lots of institutions, on colleges and universities, on law firms where the Trump administration came after a bunch of law firms and lawyers.
		And my plea to everybody, including students, is this is not a time to sort of back down because bullies are counting on other people backing down.
		This is a time when institutions need to stand firm in support of values because the whole approach here is to try to pick people off one at a time, institutions, individuals.
		And only if those who support these important values stand up and stand together, will we persevere?
unidentified		Just a quick follow-up on this and then open for questions from everyone here.
unidentified		Do you have any particular recommendations for our students, things they might want to additionally study or think about as they try to build their own skills and strengthen their leadership abilities?
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		You know, my major advice there would be to, well, first of all, just in terms of intellectual curiosity, I mean, really, and I said it in a different way before, but make sure you understand the perspective of those who have a different opinion than you.
		Because it really, it is important, and it is easy these days to fall into a trap of just having your own views reinforced in the ecochamber.
		And, you know, so for example, I'm a believer that, you know, I don't, when I go on a cable channel, it's not just CNN or MSNBC.
		I do Fox News.
		You know, I think it's important that we all be challenged and we challenge listeners who are only getting information from other places as well.
		So I will say that that is a, you have to work at that these days.
		It may sound like an easy thing to do, but in our information environment right now, you really have to work hard at hearing the other side because as I say, we get sort of fed information that comes through channels that reinforce our current thinking.
		So I think that's really important.
		Beyond that, look, I think you're here at George Washington University.
		You've already come a long way.
		I would just stick to following your passions and your ambitions because I'm confident that with hard work and persistence, you will achieve your goals.
unidentified		So let's open this up.
		I know we're going to have a lot of questions from people here.
		And do we have someone bringing a mic around?
		Okay.
		I see two here, one and two.
		Hi, Senator.
		My question refers to the recent occurrences in Turkey in which Erdogan has banned the de facto leader of the opposition, Mayor Imamoglu of Istanbul.
		And recently, just today, it's been said that over a thousand people have been detained, but also that Elon Musk's ex has banned a lot of accounts that were sharing protest information in cities like Istanbul and Ankara.
		So, my question for you is: even though the current administration seems to have shown unofficially a, but even officially a liking of Erdogan by not taking away aid from everybody, but not necessarily from Turkey.
		So, my question is: how do those not currently in the ruling administration keep these neoliberal traditional American foreign policy values in this administration?
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's a great question.
		And I think that the short answer is we just have to keep pushing back because it is easy in this moment to say there's so much going on, let's ignore this particular outrage or situation.
		But it is in many ways all of one thing.
		And so, for example, the arrest of the mayor of Istanbul brought over 300,000 people to the street in Turkey, showing that there's obviously a lot of protests there, and then you're seeing the crackdown, right?
		You're seeing the crackdown from President Erdogan.
		And I think I actually put out a tweet on that this morning or whatever, because I do think that it's important that the United States continue to stand up for the principles of democracy and human rights.
		And in this administration, you know, President Trump has said a lot of nice things about Erdogan in the past.
		There was just a report recently they're thinking about renewing this attempt to sell the F-35 advanced fighter to Turkey, which is something that many of us had put on hold for a variety of reasons before.
		So, you know, if the United States is just rewarding undemocratic behavior, that sends exactly the wrong message.
		So all of us need to push back.
		I'm going to be working with colleagues to push back on that.
		And I will say the effort of X to throttle information about protests is really incredibly hypocritical, since part of the whole idea that at least promoted by X was that they were going to be a channel of free speech.
		And we can get in a whole debate about exactly where the guardrails should be when it comes to social media.
		But if you're going to claim you're in favor of free speech, then you shouldn't be throttling information about free speech and protests and democracy and people who are trying to stand up for freedom in Turkey.
unidentified		We have a question right here.
		Senator, I want to start off by saying that I am Syrian American, and I really want to thank you for the bipartisan legislation that you passed with Senator Lindsey Graham.
		I also really appreciated what you said about speaking up and having political courage even when it's uncomfortable.
		So I'm trying to practice that a little bit.
		So right now, the collective of Syrian American political organizations have been meeting with senators and congress members to discuss sanctions relief.
		And I know that you sit on the Foreign Relations Committee, and Senators Reese and Senator Shaheen have shown support for the Syrian people.
		So what I wanted to ask is, is there any kind of plan moving forward for bipartisanship and to introduce legislation that is going to revise these sanctions or perhaps allow access to the SWIFT banking system?
		I am very privileged as an American, and we all are, and we want to, and the sentiment right now is that we want to be able to contribute and to rebuild and to spread democracy and liberal values.
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		Sure, and thank you for the question.
		Coincidentally, just earlier today, I reached out to a Republican colleague to ask if he wanted to join me in crafting legislation to do what you say.
		Let me now back up for a moment, right?
		Because as we know, the current leadership in Syria has a very toxic genealogy, right?
		I mean, their DNA is really dangerous and abhorrent, right?
		They have their roots in al-Qaeda-related organizations.
		So the question is whether what they're now saying is something that we can trust or whether it's just trying to put up a good face to the world.
		And I do think we should test them.
		Because I do think that if we continue to keep the sanctions in place, the people who will be punished the most are the people of Syria, as you said.
		And so, you know, my view is that we should conditionally lift the sanctions, or you could lift the sanctions and have them conditionally reinstated.
		We call it snapback, if certain requirements are not met.
		And there are a couple core requirements that I think would be absolutely necessary, which is a more representative sort of framework, maybe a constitutional assembly for a new constitution where all groups within Syria would have their rights protected, all religious and ethnic groups.
		But I do believe that we should give that process a chance, because you can always, if you've lifted sanctions and you've done it conditionally, you can always put them back in place.
		What you can't do is if too much time passes between the moment we're in and the future, that things could just descend into total and further chaos in Syria, and that the worst actors will actually be even further empowered and the whole place just splinters.
		And you have a total failed state.
		And Syria is very close to that already, if not there.
		So my belief is try to see if we can use this opportunity to benefit the people of Syria along the lines we just talked about.
		I'm hoping there will be some bipartisan support for that.
		There's been a lot of discussion on a bipartisan basis.
		To my knowledge, the Trump administration has not yet agreed to this framework, especially some of the folks in the White House who currently have this portfolio.
		And I just hope we don't wake up one day, weeks, months from now, and say that we could have done something to prevent things from getting worse, that we could have done something to make things better.
		Because I think, as I said, it's worth testing, testing that.
unidentified		Let me check on if we have questions that came in online.
		Not yet.
		Not yet.
		Okay, great.
		Next questions.
		This side back.
		Okay, I see one and then two in the back.
		Hi.
		Hi.
		What suggestions would you have for it's clearly a very competitive market right now in terms of jobs for students as well as a reduction in leaders coming out of the government?
		You know, what suggestions do you have for galvanizing students and experienced leaders that are being reduced in the workforce to come together in terms of mentorship or advocacy?
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		So this is an especially challenging moment, right, if you're a student who's interested in going into the areas of foreign policy or certainly if you want to go into the development field like AID.
		And again, let me just back up for a moment.
		I've always believed that there are a number of important pillars of U.S. foreign policy instruments.
		Obviously, defense is one.
		I mean, military power is one.
		But so is development, right?
		That's what AID does.
		And I think there are many, many examples of where AID has not only done good things to help people around the world, but advanced American interests around the world to the power of our example.
		And diplomacy.
		We call it the 3Ds, right?
		And diplomacy is really important because it's, in my view, should try to talk things out before you start bombing.
		But it is a hard time because I've been fighting against this dismantlement of AID.
		And we actually had a judge, a Maryland federal district court judge, who found within the last 10 days that dismantling AID the way they've tried has been illegal.
		But now we've got to try to put the pieces back together.
		This is a long wind up to saying I recognize that it's more challenging, certainly on the executive branch side.
		But again, I think that if we all use our voices and push back, that we will be able to limit the damage that's being done in the moment.
		I think that these are important institutions.
		They can be reformed.
		I mean, AID definitely can be reformed.
		A lot of these entities should be reformed.
		But I do think that we should not allow them to be destroyed.
		And so I think all of you can lend your voices to trying to make sure that we uphold a values-based foreign policy.
		In the meantime, if people are looking for positions right now, like here in Washington, the Capitol Hill is, of course, a place that people should look.
unidentified		You're going to get a lot of risk.
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		You should look.
		And let me just say, and to your point, I don't have a great answer to your question because to your point, we had an opening for a position and got a ton of resumes from people who'd been at AID.
		So again, I think in this moment, we have to be fighting back to prevent even further damage.
		Because I think it's really important that young people be engaged in these important questions, obviously questions right here at home about our democracy and our future, but also engaged about the world that we live in.
		And, you know, putting up walls all over the place won't work.
		Getting rid of exchange programs like the Fulbright program, that's going to hurt us.
		That's going to hurt us.
		If we don't engage with the world, it's going to hurt us badly.
		I mean, you're already seeing scientists from the United States who are being recruited to go and work in other countries.
		And they will leave.
		Immigration, travel, travel to the United States is going down.
		So, you know, if you're in the tourism industry here in the United States, you're taking a hit because people around the world are getting the message, don't go there, it's scary.
		Or, you know, or you'll get, you know, there was some, I've got to double check it, but there's a story about a French researcher who was coming through customs.
		They checked the guy's phone and been critical of Trump, and they turned him around, right?
		So, you know, that is a very scary road to be on, and the rest of the world is quickly, you know, changing their approach.
		I mean, you look what happening in Canada.
		Our NATO allies are already trying to figure out how they can better ensure their collective defense if the United States is not going to be a reliable partner.
		So now I'm just saying that we have a, as I said in response to earlier question, I mean, in my view, a lot of damage has been done in the last 65 days.
		All of you can be part of pushing back if you believe in a U.S. foreign policy that's, again, however imperfectly based in values and principles.
		And I should say, you know, as you heard, I grew up some of my early years overseas back and forth.
		And one of the things that did cause me to do is hold up a mirror to America, right?
		Because America, you know, is a country that wants to be seen and is seen in many parts of the world as a beacon for democracy and human rights and rule of law.
		But when you hold up that mirror, obviously we were very imperfect here at home, whether it came to social or racial equity.
		And so, you know, I think that adhering to those principles is not only the right thing for a foreign policy point of view, but getting closer and closer to meeting the principles here at home also strengthens us here at home.
		And I think all of you are really a part of that.
		I mean, this is a really important moment.
		And, you know, students historically have stepped up at very important moments in our history.
unidentified		So that's a bit of a challenge as well.
		Please come talk to us because we are committed to helping all of our students find next opportunities, whatever sector, private sector, nonprofit, or public sector.
		We're committed to helping all of you.
		So happy to follow up after this.
		I know we had a question in the back here.
		Thank you, Senator Van Holland, for joining us today.
		You mentioned the necessity of persuasion and communication as a staple of leadership acumen.
		In that vein, are there new tactics or communication styles and platforms that political leaders could or should adopt today?
		A la Bernie Sanders, AOCs, and Tim Waltz's town halls and rallies, or even Gavin Newsom's controversial podcast.
		Regardless of party affiliation, are these strategies effective for broadening a leader's outreach capacity?
		If not, what is?
		Well, there you go.
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		So I would say yes, yes, and yes in this sense, right?
		My view is that elected officials need to try to communicate through every possible channel out there, right?
		From door to door when you're campaigning, through old-fashioned mail, through cable and regular broadcast TV, but definitely through these other venues as well.
		Now, you know, one of the things that made the first Obama campaign very successful was they were very adept.
		This makes it seem like ancient history, but they were adept at using Facebook, right?
		At helping to organize.
		And I do think that Democrats have been sort of slow on the uptake on some of these other means of communicating, certainly on podcasts, but also other forms of communication.
		And so we have a lot of catching up to do.
		The other thing I will say, though, is that we should not be afraid to go on channels, let's say a podcast, that may have a sort of political orientation that is different than ours, right?
		Not to say we all agree, but simply to have to be challenged by going on those podcasts, but also to challenge listeners.
		Because if we don't go on them, then listeners will not hear a different perspective.
		And if we don't go on them, we won't be challenged on some of our assumptions.
		So I think that you'll see and are seeing a much bigger effort now among Democrats, for example, to try to reach out across these different channels.
		There's been a lot of talk within sort of the Democratic Party of trying to create more of our own channels.
		And I'm very much in favor of supporting infrastructure, but I also think that you can try to create more sort of podcasts that have a sort of more democratic orientation.
		That's fine.
		But it doesn't mean you should not go on the other podcasts.
		I remember years ago, you know, Air America was a radio station designed to be an alternative to some of the more right-wing conservative talk radio shows.
		And it didn't last very long.
		And so people shouldn't just go where they're comfortable, is my point.
		You should go on channels where you're uncomfortable, not to agree, although maybe you do sometimes find common ground, but to be challenged and to challenge listeners.
		So the short answer is yes.
		I think we should do all of the above.
unidentified		So I think we have time for a last question right here.
		Hi, Senator Van Hollen.
		My question is, you brought up NATO and the decreasing trust that our European allies have in America's willingness to bulk up collective security.
		I wanted to share that I was at a roundtable recently and one of the European thought leaders who was sitting at the table ended the meeting by saying, you know, Europe is used to having threats from the East and the South and now we have a threat from the West.
		And I was just wondering, what do you think legislators can be doing to shore up the U.S. relationship with our European allies, particularly as the war rages on in Ukraine?
		Thank you.
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you.
		And that is very much a concern That's being expressed by European leaders.
		I went to the Munich Security Conference a number of weeks ago and a lot of concern and fear, and I think well placed in the sense that the United States was once seen as a reliable ally.
		We had to constantly sort of reinforce that message, but now people are getting the opposite message.
		So I will say what happened during the first Trump administration, which was a mild version of what we're seeing now.
		Congress on a bipartisan basis did pass legislation, for example, requiring Congress to agree if any executive, any president wanted to withdraw the United States from NATO.
		So we said we can't do that unilaterally.
		We also revitalized what was called the NATO Observer Group.
		This is a bipartisan group of members of the Senate that are engaged on NATO issues.
		I'm a member of the group.
		There are about eight of us.
		And so we met recently, for example, with the new NATO Secretary General.
		So there are things I think we can do on a bipartisan basis.
		I think there is still fairly strong bipartisan support in the Senate for NATO.
		But the dangerous trend we're seeing is this fear of many Republican House and Senate members to speak out very clearly in this moment.
		Anything that is seen to challenge Donald Trump or Elon Musk is something they're fearful of, which is why I say I do think the most important quality of leadership is the willingness to speak out, even when it's sort of in conflict with your group.
		I mean, that could be your peer group.
		It could be any group that you're a part of.
		In this case, it's the Republican Party being scared to speak out with respect to Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
		But I just think that's a normal rule.
		So we will try.
		I will say that quietly, many Republican senators seem to be very, very worried about the direction that the Trump administration is going.
		But that worry needs to be translated into words and action.
		And my view is it's not much point in being in elected office if you have to always be worried about your own shadow.
		The best thing for an elected official, the best attitude to take is that you don't have to be in that position, right?
		That you need to be able to take risks to do what you think is the right thing, to look yourself in the mirror the next day.
		Because it can be very easy to justify not sticking to your principles by sort of the means justified at the ends.
		Well, if I don't speak out, if I don't speak out now, then I'll be able to win my next reelection.
		And after my next reelection, then I'm going to speak out, right?
		And by the way, if it's not me, it might be someone who's worse than me.
		So, I mean, there's a lot of sort of sort of self-justification for people not wanting to stand up and speak out.
		So I do think that that is, when I get the question about what's the most important attribute of leadership, I do think it's political courage, not courage in saying the right thing, but recognizing that saying the right thing is important even when there are political costs to it.
unidentified		And you just have to be willing to live with the cost.
		Thank you.
		Senator, I understand you may actually have a few more minutes, if that's right.
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		That's what my team says.
		That's accurate.
		I can take a few more.
unidentified		Okay, so let's take one or two more questions.
		We have one here and then one over here.
		Thank you for the extra time.
		Thank you for us all.
		Thank you for coming.
		Speaking with us, and thank you for your lifetime and service to Maryland and the U.S.
		So I was reading about your background and saw that in 2022 you flipped a number of counties that voted Republican in 2016.
		So as I get into politics and I intend to take a more bipartisan approach to things to try to over the temperature in politics, what are your recommendations for reaching out to and providing leadership for people who might not agree with us?
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		Sure, I appreciate that.
		And I think there really is no substitute for really actually going to where people are who disagree with you.
		Again, whether that's on a cable news show, whether it's on a podcast, or literally geographically, going to an area that may be, in my case, more of a Republican area, Red area.
		So in Maryland, we're a very diverse state geographically, demographically.
		The more conservative areas tend to be the Eastern Shore and Western Maryland.
		I really work hard to try to get out to those places as much as I can and talk to people directly because it's true.
		At the end of the day, everyone wants to make sure their kid goes to a good school.
		They want to make sure they have decent health care.
		I mean, there really is so much more that unites us than divides us, in my view.
		But it is a credibly polarized environment, right?
		And so I have to work hard to do, even if I go to the Eastern Shore.
		Let's say I had a big meeting on the Eastern Shore.
		I have to worry about just self-selection, right?
		Of the people who come.
		So you really have to work to try to connect with people who disagree with you.
		But I do believe having those conversations is important for the good of our country and our civic fabric.
		So I would encourage you, if you're interested in politics, just to get out and talk to people with different points of view.
		And obviously, disagreement is the nature of a democracy.
		It's not about everybody agreeing.
		I mean, there's going to be disagreement.
		I mean, we should fight like hell over a lot of issues in terms of our engagement.
		But what's really scary about this moment is just how toxic and poisonous and sometimes even physically threatening it has become.
		Because that will be the end of us if we can't have vigorous disagreements without coming to blows, literally.
unidentified		And one last question right over here.
		Hello, Senator.
		I'm also from a Foreign Service family, and given your parents' extensive background in South Asia, I was wondering how it had an effect on your foreign policy outlook in general.
		Sure.
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		So you're from a Foreign Service family as well?
unidentified		Okay.
chris van hollen ▲ ● ▼		So look, I know people have different experiences growing up in Foreign Service families.
		Mine was a good one.
		And I will say it did two things, and I've kind of referred to them a couple times today, but just to go a little deeper.
		Number one, it does, I think, give you a sense of how other people around the world perceive the United States, both good and bad, in terms of the good, clearly the principles that we've espoused.
		I think those are universal principles.
		I think the idea of human freedom and human rights and democracy and self-determination and rule of law, these are all very important universal principles that people around the world aspire to and embrace.
		And so that's a really good thing.
		Obviously, as I've said a number of times, we implement them imperfectly.
		And so, you know, you have to beware to try to apply those principles to not just your adversaries and your foes, but to your allies and your friends.
		The other thing it did is, I said, I was very proud to be part of a family that represented the United States overseas.
		But it does cause you to hold up that mirror to how things are here back at home and say, are we really living up to the principles that we say we stand for at home and around the world?
		And, you know, a lot of the work I've done in both the Maryland Legislature and now has been to try to address those fundamental issues of racial justice, social justice, wealth and income inequality.
		Big, big issues, but also being true to the dynamism that is America.
		I mean, the freedom of America is something that I think has been helped propel our country forward.
		It's why I'm so worried in this moment about some of the actions that are being taken to try to literally sow fear among law firms, lawyers, colleges, universities, and people around the country.
		And so it is a moment where we all have to stand up.
		So those are lessons that, you know, I learned in part from growing up in a Foreign Service family.
unidentified		Thanks.
		Thank you, Senator.
		I think Professor Kodrim is going to help us thank you and close out.
		Join me in thanking Senator Van Hollen for today's session.
		Thank you.
		Thank you all.
		Thank you so much for the extra time.
		What an incredible experience for our students to be able to ask you questions.
		I appreciate it.
		Live today on the C-SPAN networks.
		At 10 a.m. Eastern, the House meets for morning speeches and at 12 p.m. for legislative business.
		Members will consider a bill to establish new foreign gift and contract disclosure requirements for colleges and universities and also work on legislation related to energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and freezers.
		On C-SPAN 2 at 10 a.m., the Senate returns to resume consideration of the nomination of Michael Krazios to be the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
		On C-SPAN 3, also at 10, CIA Director John Radcliffe, FBI Director Kash Patel, and other officials will give their assessment of worldwide threats before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

▲