Ro Khanna on Crime, Censorship & Congress: Fixing What’s Broken in America

Can immigration policy be both tough and humane?

Here’s what stood out: a candid lawmaker who refuses easy labels and pushes for a middle way. He argues that the H-1B system has been gamed, but that the country still needs the brightest minds to keep America competitive. That tension — enforcement versus openness — threaded through nearly every subject he touched.

Fixing a broken H‑1B without killing startups

He admits abuse. He also warns against blunt instruments. The most surprising part? He rejects a flat, punitive fee on employers because it would harm startups that rely on scarce technical talent. Instead he prefers a prevailing-wage requirement and clearer skill categories. The bigger idea is practical: turn temporary visas into a bridge to permanence. Move people quicker to green cards so companies don’t offshore jobs and talented graduates stay and build here.

Border control, asylum and political credit

He gave grudging credit for border enforcement while refusing to celebrate the cancellation of asylum claims. That nuance felt refreshingly honest. He framed enforcement as trust-building — reclaim credibility for the system — and then argued that trust can be spent on targeted, compassionate fixes: legalization paths for long-term undocumented workers and faster green-card tracks for college graduates. I found myself nodding; it reads like a political hedge that could win bipartisan traction.

Winning back tech: culture, not just cash

One of his sharper observations was about Silicon Valley’s estrangement from Democrats. Money wasn’t the real issue, he said — cultural respect and shared aspiration were. Young people idolize entrepreneurship. Demonizing founders turned a whole generation away. The lesson? To get tech back you need vision, not fundraising dinners. That was an angle I hadn’t heard put so plainly.

Economic patriotism versus crude tariffs

He champions a version of "economic patriotism" that sounds like a Marshall Plan for neglected American cities: targeted investments, AI academies, regional industrial revival. That differs from a sledgehammer approach to trade or research. He warned that slapping tariffs or gutting university research won’t produce the long-term competitiveness the country needs.

AI: race, risk and real human costs

AI prompted two linked anxieties: global competition and domestic displacement. He believes AI will do more good than harm — better diagnostics, smarter factories — but also insists on federal planning for workers. His pitch: mobilize young people into community and care roles while the economy adjusts, and use public-sector deployment to make government actually work better. It’s an unusual, optimistic take that mixes techno-enthusiasm with social policy.

Polarization, censorship and lawfare

His language hardened when the conversation turned to civic norms. He calls extremism and hate the country’s biggest problems, and argues both sides amplify them in an attention economy. He defended free speech consistently — even when criticized by his own side — and warned against the corrosive cycle of lawfare. His plea was simple and human: if politics becomes pure vengeance, the country loses.

Public safety, local leadership and affordability

Crime and homelessness, he said, are not abstract statistics: they are lived realities that can sway voters. He praised pragmatic local leaders who couple safety measures with social services, temporary housing and treatment options. When asked about bold progressive newcomers promising freebies, he acknowledged the power of economic messaging — but stressed execution and accountability.

Small but telling policy fixes

• Stock trading ban for Congress: He supports it and has led the push to eliminate conflicts of interest.
• Free transit and affordability: He praised candidates who talk about the rising cost of everyday life; policy must meet that urgency.
• Civic tone: He believes a better political tenor would allow agreement on concrete wins, like prescription drug pricing.

What really caught my attention was how consistently he stitched practical prescriptions to moral language. He didn’t romanticize markets or demonize tech; he wanted a policy architecture that kept America open to talent while defending workers and communities. That balance is politically risky, but it also feels necessary.

There are moments here that grate — the interviewers press and tease, and he sometimes resorts to political shorthand — but the central thread remains: govern with ambition, not grievance. Imagine an agenda that pairs AI training programs with accelerated green cards and targeted city investments. It’s not the loudest vision, but it might be one of the most durable.

Ultimately, the conversation leaves you with a question: can a politics of competence compete with a politics of rage? I walked away wanting to believe it can, and a little unsettled by how fragile that possibility still feels.