Florida Governor Ron DeSantis joined me this morning:

Audio:

10-31hhs-desantis

Transcript:

HH: Joined now by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Good morning, Governor. Great to have you back on the Hugh Hewitt Show.

RD: Thanks for having me, Hugh. How are you doing?

HH: I am great. Last night, Senator Cotton, who you know well, posted, “Our policy should be clear. We back Israel to the hilt as they destroy Hamas.” Do you agree with Senator Cotton, Governor DeSantis?

RD: Amen to that. No, absolutely. They’re our top ally in the Middle East by far. We have great relationship economically, culturally, all these other things. They are facing an existential threat to their existence. Hamas would wipe Israel off the entire map if they could. In fact, the textbooks that are taught to kids in the Gaza Strip do not even have Israel listed on the map. So if they don’t, if they just do glancing blows and they don’t deal with this finally, then they’re just going to face additional attacks in the future. We know that it’ll be a vicious cycle. So just end it. We’ve seen, since Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2006, and you know, a lot of people act like Gaza is occupied by Israel, which is totally false. Israel forcibly removed a lot of its own citizens in 2006 and forced them to leave. The people of Gaza had an opportunity to make something of that. They cast their lot in with Hamas. Hamas has used money that’s flowed there to build a massive terrorist infrastructure so that they could kill Israelis. And so I agree with Senator Cotton. They’ve got to get the job done.

HH: Now Governor, you aspire to be the commander-in-chief. President Biden has sent two carrier taskforces. That’s 160 combat aircraft. And we’ve got an assortment of ships with Tomahawks. Admiral Stavridis was talking about that. What would be your red line to unleash that massive American power on, say, Hezbollah or Iran itself? What would trigger that for you if you were in the Oval?

RD: Well, I think what we would want to do is we’d want to support Israel to take care of Hamas, and hope that that doesn’t lead to a wider conflict. And I think that Hezbollah is going to do, obviously, some things. I think Israel probably could handle most of that. I am concerned what Biden’s doing with our troops that are in the Middle East. We’ve got troops in Syria and Iraq. It’s not clear what their mission is. They’re there, and in sufficient numbers to probably make a huge impact. But they’re there in sufficient numbers to be an inviting target. And Iran has lobbed attacks on our troops. Biden has responded with, I think, striking these buildings that are IRGC buildings. But that was a weak response. So I think he’s inviting more attacks against our troops. And so I definitely wouldn’t have that policy where they’re sitting ducks, and then it’s a weak response. If they shouldn’t be there, if it doesn’t make sense, then they shouldn’t. If they’re there and they’re attacked, then you’ve got to go fight back. You can’t let people mess with Americans.

HH: What would you do, Governor, if you were in charge right now? Would you remove the troops? Or would you escalate the response to the attacks, which are documented? There have been more than a dozen.

RD: Well, we definitely would respond to the attacks, 100%. But stepping out of the kind of here and now, I’d want to know the intelligence about what mission they’re accomplishing. I mean, I think ostensibly it would be a counterterrorism mission, which of course that’s something generally that I’m going to support. At the same time, Biden’s letting terrorist into our country through our own southern border. I mean, we used to say fight them over there so we you don’t have to fight them here. He’s letting them in here. And I mean, we know that, and they’re not lifting a finger to secure our own country. But a lot of that will be based off intelligence and things that you would have access to as the president.

HH: Now Governor, last hour, Admiral Stavridis mentioned the possibility that Iran is sending people over our southern border. Last month, 18 people on the terror watch list were arrested as they crossed the southern border and contacted American officials. 169 last year. Do you think the threat is real from terrorism? Or are the problems presented by the border different than the terror aspect?

RD: No, I think the problems are real for terrorism. Obviously, you have a lot of deaths from narcotics that’s coming across the border. You have criminal aliens coming across the border. You have a lot of sex and human trafficking. So there’s a whole mas of problems and misery that’s being unleashed because of what Biden’s policy at the border is. But we know that there are a certain number, 140 on terror watch lists. That’s just what the administration will admit. So there’s definitely more than that. And yes, Iran has sent. Other Middle Eastern countries have people coming. China, Russia, if you think about people that want to do us harm, there is no way that they are going to allow that southern border to go unnoticed. That is an obvious vulnerability for this country. And of course, our enemies are going to exploit it. I’ve said publicly even before the Hamas attack on Israel that there would be a terrorist attack on this country that we would be able to trace to the southern border. And I always say I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think the math lies. I think you’ve just had too many people have an opportunity to come in the country that mean us ill.

HH: Now Governor, I’ll see you next week across the debate stage. There are debate questions, and there are interview questions. I want to focus on some interview questions. And you’re a very fine lawyer, so I want to start with the 1st Amendment. You know the Brandenberg doctrine. You can only prohibit speech when it attempts to incite violence and has the present and immediate ability to do so. Do you believe the anti-Semitic demonstrations on college campuses that have put students, for example, at Cornell in fear of their physical safety meet the Brandenberg test and can be punished by state authorities?

RD: I think in some instances, it can. I think when you have these students in Cooper Union fleeing for their lives, when you have an angry mob that’s out there, yes, being incited with a lot of nasty rhetoric, I think, and it’s a tough test to meet, as you know, but I think in those instances, you probably meet that test for sure. Now in Florida, what we did was we have this groups, Students For Justice In Palestine. And after the Hamas attacks, that group came out and said that they don’t just stand in solidarity with Hamas, they are basically one and the same, that it’s all one effort. And so I delisted them in Florida, because you know, these student groups can get taxpayer dollars and all this stuff. So we delisted them, and that is material support to terrorism. If you’re casting your lot and you’re saying you’re part of this, then that takes you out of protected speech. And I think that is well-documented in court cases all the way up to the Supreme Court.

HH: I agree with that. If you were the president, would you have the Department of Justice Civil Rights division and the Department of Education office of Civil Rights on every campus where this intimidation is occurring?

RD: 100%. Absolutely. I mean, this is, can you imagine, Hugh, if this were done against any other group? They would be, it would be huge. And yet, it’s almost like the powers that be think that this is an acceptable form of bigotry. But this has been a lot uglier than anything that we’ve seen in modern American history. And it’s worse than even I thought. And I’m somebody, we’ve done a lot in Florida on combatting anti-Semitism on college campuses. We’ve signed legislation. We’ve done a lot. You look at like the University of Florida president came out with a statement after this, very strong, very clear, no equivocation, not an Ivy League statement like some of those other presidents. So we’ve done a lot, and we’ve taken this issue serious. But what I’ve seen on some of these campuses is nastier than even I would have envisioned.

HH: You and me, both. One more interview question on the 1st Amendment, Governor. Do you think the gag orders on President Trump are Constitutional, both in New York and in the District of Columbia?

RD: You know, I don’t really know the particulars of them, so it’s hard for me to say. I mean, I will say that people have 1st Amendment rights, and it’s one thing to say if you’re doing something to actually manipulate a juror or something. But to just go out and police people’s statements out of court, probably not something that would sit nicely with the 1st Amendment. And you know, the thing is, you know, he’s making statements that can prejudice a jury, they say, but it could also prejudice against him. I mean, he may be making mistakes by making some of those statements. So I’d error on the side of more speech, not less speech.

HH: Now Governor, I don’t like horse race questions especially on a debate stage, but I do want to ask you a couple here. The new Des Moines Register poll came out yesterday, and the former President is under 50%, as he is in New Hampshire. But the field is split, and you and Ambassador Haley are leading. I asked Senator Scott yesterday, and he said it’s Iowa or bust. If someone doesn’t either win or finish second place in Iowa or New Hampshire, ought they to exit the race?

RD: Look, I’ll let people make those determinations. I can tell you this, Hugh, about Iowa. And you know, we looked at that poll. It did say that I have the highest favorability and the highest percentage of Iowans that are considering voting for me, and I clearly have a path to win the caucus. I don’t think anyone else other than me or Trump has that path based on the underlying data. But put that aside. Donald Trump is spending a million dollars attacking me in Iowa. Haley’s superPAC is spending big money to attack me in Iowa. You don’t do that unless you view me as the threat. So I think it’s fine, some of the public data that gets put out. How accurate it’s been over the year, I think is definitely open to question. But look at how the campaigns behave. And if Donald Trump had it sewed up, he would not be spending that kind of money there. If we weren’t doing well, we would not be the focal point of the attacks. And so I think what we see in Iowa is very positive. We’ve got 20-some thousand already committed to caucus, and we still have most of the vast majority of voters haven’t even made up their minds, yet. So we’re going to keep doing what we’re doing. We’ve built a strong base of support. And then it’s all about bringing it in for a landing as people make their decisions. But I’m just happy that because of the work we’ve done, we have the widest possible pool of voters to draw from of any candidate that’s running, just based off that poll yesterday.

HH: Now Governor, I studied this pretty closely, and I’ve interviewed everyone. I am in Switzerland. I don’t have a favorite. But the only significant contrast I find between you and Ambassador Haley have to do with Tommy Tuberville’s hold on military people. She is against it. You, I believer, are for it. And on Ukraine, where she wants full-throated, 100% support for continuing aid, and you have reservations. Are those the two big differences? And if so, how should that matter to a voter?

RD: I don’t think those are the two, I don’t think those are the only two. I mean, I think on the Tuberville thing, we have a Defense establishment that has let our Defense industrial base atrophy. It’s not up to the task of meeting the challenges, and yet they want to fund abortion tourism? So it’s a total, total disgrace what they’re doing, and it’s right to do what Tuberville is doing. And of course, there are officers getting confirmed. It’s just on an individual basis. The other thing I think we had a big difference on is China. She really brought Chinese businesses in when she was governor. She had, gave land near a military base, even, and really, this is a huge part of her economic development strategy. In Florida, we did the opposite. I banned China from purchasing land in the state. We got rid of the Confucius Institutes at our university, and we policed the ability of China to put other money into our university, because they’ve done that in a lot of places. So I think we have differences there. The other thing we had a difference on, and she’s attacked me over, is the whole Disney where we had the Parents Rights In Education bill. The issue was should you have sexuality and transgender ideology in elementary school. Disney worked very aggressively to try to make that happen in Florida. I stood up to them and said no, we’ve got to stand with the kids. She said Disney should go to South Carolina. She took their side on that. I think we’ve got to stand with our kids. I mean, parents need to have their rights respected in this country. And if we can’t get it right to say that it’s wrong to tell a 2nd grader that they can’t just change their gender, or it’s wrong to tell them they can change their gender, parents don’t want that. And our society’s just not going to work. So I think that’s another one. Are you willing to stand up to powerful interests if it goes against the well-being of your citizens? And I’ve shown a willingness to do that time and time again.

HH: Two last questions, Governor. I know you’ve pledged to support the nominee whether or not it’s you. My question about former President Trump. Can he win, in your assessment, in 2024?

RD: No, I don’t think so, because I think that there’s just too many vote built in against him. I think he energizes the Democrats more than anybody. You could have Jack Kennedy come back and show up, and he wouldn’t energize the Democrats as much as Trump does. And there’s a reason. You see how the media is treating this. They want Trump to be the candidate. They know. The Democrats want Trump. They’re open about saying that, because their base is not excited for Biden, and I think they need a way to mobilize the base. And then I think what happens with independents is the independents that disliked both Biden and Trump tend to dislike Trump more. We saw that in the midterm in 2022, and we’ve seen that with a lot of the losses that we’ve had. But even if somehow I’m wrong about that, I’m not sure what the path to make America great again would be for a lame duck president who would, I mean, I guess he would have to use, you know, Constitutional authority on his own cases, which would create a crisis. I don’t think he could get the personnel that would be necessary to be able to get these policies implemented. And then you have the fact that his core promise from 2016, build the wall, have Mexico pay for it, he’s now on the campaign trail saying you’re a loser if you believed him on that, because he said that there’s no legal mechanism he could have done to make Mexico pay for the wall. But that was not what he said in 2016. In 2016, he was very clear on that. But he could have imposed fees on remittances, and I will do this, that people send back to Mexico and Central/South America. It would raise billions of dollars. So I don’t know like the promises he’s making, a lot of them are similar to what he did in ’16. And if he didn’t do it the first time, I don’t know he would get it done going forward. You’ve got to be able to win Georgia. You’ve got to be able to win Arizona. You’ve got to be able to win these states, and I don’t think he’s expanded his voter pool. I think his voter pool is less than it was in 2020.

HH: My last question, Governor. You often refer to the administrative state. When I hear that, I think the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, all the people I dueled with for 30 years when I was practicing law. But I don’t know that the audience understands what you mean by the administrative state. Some people think it’s the deep state, the intelligence agencies. What do you mean when you say the administrative state? And we’ve got about two minutes.

RD: Well, I think it’s all of the above. I think the issue is you have a concentration of power that’s been detached from Constitutional accountability. And some of that is because of neglect of the elected branches. For example, the DOJ and FBI, a lot of conservatives, and me included rightfully point out the weaponization and the abuse of power. But you also have the fact that presidents of both parties for decades have not done a lot to police that. Congress has not used the power of the purse. So I think it’s all of those agencies, and I think the question is are they exercising power without any clear legislative mandate? A lot of the stuff that happens in the bureaucracy with the rules and the regulations, you know, no one actually voted for that. They’re taking kind of vague statutes, and they’re using that to really do policy that makes a big, big difference. Now on some of the intelligence and some of the national security, we saw this with former President Trump when he was in office. Some of those people worked to kneecap his agenda. I mean, he had situations where he would do a phone call with a foreign leader. It would get leaked to the Washington Post. And it was almost of the idea that hey, you may have gotten 270-plus Electoral Votes, but ultimately, you know, they still control the show. That’s not the way the Constitution was designed. So I think we need more Constitutional accountability. We have three branches of government. We do not have four branches of government. The president that comes in with a Constitutional mandate of winning the Electoral College has a duty and the right to enact the agenda, and these agencies need to do it. I mean, the State Department, some of these people complaining about standing up for Israel, I mean, I would show them the door. They don’t have a right to go against policy. I mean, their job is to implement policy. But yet, we’ve gotten so far away from that, that we don’t really have a government that is reflective of the American people.

HH: And thank you, Governor DeSantis. I will see you in Miami next week, and we will make our time limit on today, and we’ll make our time limits next week. Thank you, Governor.

RD: Look forward to welcoming you to Florida, Hugh. Thank you.

HH: Thank you.

End of interview.