Senator Andy Kim, it's good to see you.

Let me ask you first about this Supreme Court decision on the Tik Tok ban, which will ultimately lie with the Trump administration.

You had expressed concerns about this ban.

You felt that it didn't necessarily address privacy.

National privacy concerns.

What's your takeaway here?

Well, I think I think we're seeing the problems play out right now, which is that, you know, we can't be getting into just a situation of playing whack a mole when it comes to the security challenge.

I don't discount that there are concerns with regards to TikTok, but I'll be honest with you.

You know, I don't have those concerns just about TikTok and about the Chinese Communist Party.

I have a concerns just about, you know, big, you know, multinational corporations, you know, having that much information about Americans.

And what we're seeing right now is, as there are threats of a ban on TikTok.

We're now seeing, you know, people, joining up with other apps that are Chinese owned, that are doing, you know, similar types of, of of actions like TikTok.

So, you know, what's the, you know, so we're just going to continue to see that kind of effort.

And again, that's how I kind of whac-a-mole approach.

What I was calling for was a comprehensive approach that can try to address our ability to be able to dictate our own, information and data online.

And something that can try to help secure that for all Americans.

And I think that's still the approach we should be taking rather than these one off, efforts to target certain companies.

And then we see, you know, the problem move just to someone else.

All right then let me ask you about another vote that, just came up, for you in the Senate on the Lake and Riley Act, of course.

An important immigration bill.

Ten Democrats joined, Republicans in voting for it.

You and Senator Booker did not.

Why?

Well, look, I think we start by saying, like, we should absolutely have bipartisan action when it comes to securing our nation.

I'm prepared for that.

You know, I, we we've seen the Senate take actions like the bipartisan compromise last year.

Those are good foundations.

This one.

Yes.

We want to make sure that we're keeping our country safe.

And I think when it comes to those that are convicted of crimes, we can all get around that.

The challenge here is that this legislation would allow for the mandatory did not even just allow it would require detention, even for those that are accused of crimes and the crimes of this bill.

These are violent crimes that are associated in this bill.

This the this bill is predominantly about shoplifting, theft.

And so the accusation of that would require mandatory detention, which, frankly, would sometimes take detention facilities away from those that have committed violent crimes.

You know, and I and I think that that prioritization is wrong, and I think that infringes upon the constitutional rights of people in this nation.

So, you know, I want to take the actions, but this is not the right way to build it, where there are amendments that you would have supported, perhaps if that language had been changed to only constitute violent crimes, if it was, about, convict ins.

You know, I think you would have you would have seen a lot more engagement.

There are other provisions of this bill that are challenging.

For instance, it allows for state attorney generals to be able to sue the federal government and try to dictate immigration law, immigration actions.

This is something that's, you know, that goes against our division of, of action, that what the powers are in terms of the federal government.

For instance, if we allow a state to sue the, the United States and prevent our country from issuing visas to a different nation, you know, and putting that power into the states rather than federal government is is wrong.

So, yes, you know, I, we would try to see if there are ways to, to come up with some amendments.

But it was clear from the outset that, they were not going to budge on this issue about going after people for accusations, not just convictions.

And as a result, you know, I just feel like this is not the right start to infringe on our Constitution in this way.

Yeah, I know the H-1b visas in particular is something that you've raised concerns about.

Let me switch gears.

You and I have spoken several times over the last 15 months about the war in Gaza, about potentials for ceasefire.

Do you believe that this deal right now is a step toward more lasting peace, or is this just a temporary solution?

Are we going to have, a more of a mess on our hands six weeks from now?

Well, I'm hoping that this is something that is going to lead to that durable peace that I've been calling for for so long.

And and not just these kind of cycles of violence that we continue to see, you know, affecting Israel and Palestine.

But there's no guarantee.

And I think that that's something that, you know, in these, you know, early moments, you know, as this is being, agreed upon and codified, we need to see that level of commitment.

And I think we're going to see that commitment, hopefully in a more tangible way when we see the hostages being released.

In particular, I know in new Jersey we're all pushing to have Aidan Alexander released.

And trying to engage and make sure that he is back with his family, as soon as humanly possible.

I still cannot imagine how traumatic and difficult that's been.

So once we see those types of steps in action, you know, I hope it gives people a sense that, yes, this is important.

And and this is something that that needs to happen.

We cannot have these tragedies like, you know, what we saw, with the attack by Hamas and other problems, again, and we need to have a durable peace.

And I hope to be seeing the United States play a role, to be able to bring that about.

You are fresh off questioning, president elect Trump's, choice, Kristi Noem, to lead Homeland Security.

What in particular, about her qualifications, or specific issues do you find problematic?

Or did you see that perhaps you liked in going through the confirmation hearing?

Well, with this hearing in particular, I mean, she is someone that has worked as a governor, worked in Congress before.

She certainly has a lot of skills when it comes and knowledge and experience when it comes to, issues facing our nation.

You know, I've had a chance to really talk to her one on one.

And in particular, I've been talking to her about, you know, the need for us to have judicial, increases in judicial investments when it comes to immigration.

Right now, we have only 680 some immigration judges.

We have a 3 million case backlog.

I'm trying to see if she's somebody that's a partner she's watching.

I've had some back and forth on that.

You know, I have concerns that, you know, the focus is going to be overwhelmingly the on on actions that I find, would be a, again, not in line with our Constitution and be potentially cause an even greater mess and difficulties.

As I said, you know, I think we should have sovereign control over our borders.

We should be able to make sure that we have an orderly system with immigration.

But I also want to make sure that the Secretary of Homeland Security, someone that understands that that department is created after nine over 11 to keep our country safe from terrorist attacks.

We can't lose focus on those key missions and those key focus, those key priorities.

And so, you know, that's something that I can continue to press her on.

You know, I've had a number of other, confirmation hearings.

Some of them are people that I think I can work with.

You know, people that I don't agree with all their policies, but people who I think, would be able to do the job.

There are others that I have serious concerns about in terms of not only just qualifications, but the types of actions that they might try to do to our government that I, in particular, strategic leadership, sorry, say, who in particular concern to them, for instance, you know, I have real concerns about Kash Patel for FBI director, for instance.

You know, I have not had a chance yet to be able to talk to him.

I've been requesting and trying to have an opportunity to engage.

But, you know, for him, somebody who has overwhelmingly talked about, you know, using these types of positions to go after political opponents to, to, to, to seek out vendettas.

And that is an organization in particular that has enormous access to information, surveillance of American people, even kinetic actions like, you know, the law enforcement side, you know, that is something that I worry about.

And so, you know, that's something I'm going to continue to try to push back against.

Before I let you go.

Obviously, you've had to hit the ground running, but I imagine you're settling in.

What surprised you the most about the transition from the House to the Senate?

Anything?

Well, it does feel very different.

I'll be honest with you.

Even more so than I think I expected.

I think having only 100 senators, you know, very much an expectation to build a relationships with every single one.

And I do have to say that the the atmosphere of collegiality, while there may be very clear policy differences, a level of respect for one another and engagement in that way is, strikingly different than the atmosphere in the House of Representatives, which is often much more combative and much more personally, combative.

So, you know, I appreciate that environment.

And I think, frankly, that's what the American people want.

They want people that understand, like, I represent all 9 million people in new Jersey, not the one not just the ones that voted for me.

You know, every single one of them is my boss.

And I think that that's the kind of politics that people want to see a lot more of.

Senator Andy Kim, good to talk to you.

Thanks for making yourself available.

Thanks so much.