- From castrating pigs in Iowa to the United States Senate.

This week on "Firing Line".

- I'm Joni Ernst.

I grew up castrating hogs on an Iowa farm.

So, when I get to Washington, I'll know how to cut pork.

- [Hoover] Republican Senator Joni Ernst was the first female combat veteran in the United States Senate, and the first woman elected to Congress from Iowa.

- I wept.

(people talking indistinctly) - [Hoover] A survivor of domestic abuse, she has reached across the aisle to confront sexual assault in the military.

- We can help prevent sexual assault and hold accountable those who commit such atrocities against our service members.

- [Hoover] As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, she is a strong supporter of US aid to Ukraine.

- They need those weapons, they need that lethal aid right now.

Not tomorrow, not in two weeks, they need it right now.

- [Hoover] And an advocate for Americans still held hostage by Hamas.

- We stand here united across party lines and across countries for one cause.

And that cause is to bring our hostages home.

- [Hoover] As the 2024 presidential race heats up, what does Senator Joni Ernst say now?

- [Announcer] "Firing Line" with Margaret Hoover is made possible in part by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, the Fairweather Foundation, and by the following.

Corporate funding is provided by Stevens Inc. - Senator Joni Ernst, welcome to "Firing Line".

- Thanks, Margaret, so much.

I'm glad to be with you.

You are the first woman to be elected to Congress from the state of Iowa.

You are the first female combat veteran to be elected to the United States Senate.

What are some of the ways that your biography and your life experiences have given you a different perspective than most of your Republican colleagues in the Senate?

- Well, thank you, Margaret.

And I think just growing up in Iowa, I am a home girl, I'll admit that.

- And a farm girl.

- And a farm girl, yeah.

And I grew up in rural Southwest Iowa.

And I lived, of course, in a family that wasn't politically connected, wasn't big business or industry, but certainly tied to the farm, a great farm family and a great work ethic.

Having that background coming up and then going on to serve my state, my nation in uniform, I think it's something that people they know they respect.

It's extremely important here in Iowa and it just led into a lifetime of service to my community, my state, and my nation.

- Does that stand apart in some way your biography from some of your Republican peers in the Senate?

- I think it does.

And I see this both Republicans and Democrats.

The fact that I still live in my hometown of about 7,000 people.

Montgomery County is maybe 10,000 people.

But knowing everyone I live around and having that sense of community and just knowing and trusting who I am, where I came from, I'm extremely proud of that.

And because I still live there today, I interact with the same friends I've had since I was a child.

I think that's important, because I give voices and thoughts that are shared with me that maybe other people don't necessarily when they go on to serve in Congress.

- You are currently running for the number three Republican leadership position in the Senate this fall.

And I just reflect on when you first ran for Senate in 2014.

And how you replaced Democrat Tom Harkin, a leading progressive, who decided to retire, decided not to run, and how Iowa has really changed in the decade since you've been in Senate.

From being a swing state to being a reliably red state.

How do you understand that transition in Iowa?

- Oh, Margaret, so many people have asked me, how did Iowa become such a red state?

And we really are, because it was very purple when I ran the first time for the United States Senate in 2014.

But the way I explain it to a lot of people is that the Democratic Party is what has changed.

Good old Iowa common sense has not changed, but the Democratic Party has gone so far to the left that it left a lot of Iowa Democrats and those in the middle, those independents or non-party affiliated people, it left them wondering, where do I belong?

And so, they have trended more to the right, to the Republican Party.

We still are the party of hardworking Americans.

You know, I have a sister who farms, I have a brother who is a union laborer with the railroad.

They are good solid Republicans, because they feel that the values of our party are more reflective of them than the Democratic Party.

So, it's not that Iowa has become much more Conservative, it's just I think that the Democrats have gone much further to the left than many Iowans are comfortable with.

- You are a survivor of sexual assault and rape and domestic abuse, which you write about in your book very poignantly.

And you've also spent years working with Democrats to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.

You have been a leader confronting sexual assault in the military as well, and have talked about how working with women at the federal level in the Senate has been an area of bipartisan consensus.

Have you found it easier to work with your female counterparts on the other side of the aisle, when it comes to these issues?

- I actually have.

I do find that oftentimes it's easier working with the women.

And what I have found, no offense to my male colleagues, but with the women, they are very solutions driven.

They don't care who is going to get credit, whose name is going to be listed first on the bill.

They don't care.

They see an issue.

They want it resolved.

And so, I think it's really important to work with those women both on my side of the aisle as well as across the aisle.

- You served in combat in the Middle East.

You were a lieutenant colonel in the Iowa National Guard and feel very strongly about America's role in the world.

You have a personal connection to Ukraine where you lived and studied as an undergraduate in college.

You write about it in your book "Daughter of the Heartland", visiting Soviet-controlled Ukraine.

And you say the entire experience changed you.

How did your introduction to Soviet-era Ukraine impact your worldview and your support for Ukraine now as a US senator?

- Well, it impacted in so many ways, Margaret.

18 of us traveled from the United States, from Iowa, got on a plane in Des Moines and traveled across the world, landed in Moscow, and headed to Kyiv.

And then onto a collective farm in Ukraine where we worked with our host families on the farm.

We connected with that community.

And I share this, because what I found out is, yes, we are the world's superpowers, but the Soviet Union did not offer the same types of opportunities, advantages, and liberties, the freedoms that the United States did.

So, the first night in that community, as we sat down with the community members, the first question that they asked us Americans was, "What is it like to be an American?

What is it like to be free?"

And that hit me, it really hit me, and it went on to form who I was and how I view the world, because there's a lot of great people around this world, but they don't have the same level of opportunity.

So, with the Ukrainians, just a couple years after that exchange, they separated from the Soviet Union.

It fell apart and they so much wanted to be a democracy and to live the way Americans do with the same types of freedoms.

If they are willing to fight for that themselves, I think it's incredibly important and we support the leadership there that wants to fight for their freedoms.

- You have in the United States Senate been a staunch supporter of US support to Ukraine.

Many of your Republican colleagues in the Senate are not.

And there's a debate on the Republican Party about whether we should have a leading role in the world or we should retreat and worry about our own backyard.

Perhaps the most outspoken supporter of Ukraine in the Senate is you.

On the other hand, the vice presidential nominee, J.D.

Vance, has been one of the most outspoken against supporting Ukraine.

How do you persuade your fellow Iowans who have doubts about whether the Republican Party and the United States should continue to take a leading role in Europe and abroad?

What do you say to them?

- Well, I say it's important that we remain engaged on the world stage, because if we don't invest in activities that protect our own national security, and do it abroad, then we face those challenges here on our homeland.

I think about 9/11, what happened on 9/11 was a direct result of not being engaged, not protecting our interests in the areas where there are terrorist organizations that are budding and developing and training.

We didn't push back on that.

We didn't identify it soon enough.

And because of that, we had nearly 3,000 people in the United States that lost their lives, because we weren't engaging.

So, I don't ever wanna see a point where we've pulled away from the rest of the world so much that we allow Russia, that we allow terrorist organizations supported by Iran, that we allow China to occupy the areas where we don't.

We have to engage.

And it doesn't mean America needs to do it all on our own.

We have so many great partners and allies around this world.

We need to work in conjunction and collaboration with our partners to push back against those adversaries that would do harm to us here in the United States, if we allow them to grow and spread.

- You were in Saudi Arabia on the 7th of October 2023 when Hamas attacked Israel.

And three days later you went to Israel.

In that visit, you were able to meet with victims of the attack, with the Prime Minister of Israel, with families of the hostages.

What do you remember most about your visit to Israel three days after its attack by Hamas?

- Probably the most memorable visit that I had was meeting with the families of the victims.

Hearing them talk and they fully still didn't understand at that time what had transpired.

They were still trying to deal with it in whatever way they could, and it was heartbreaking.

And Margaret, we have to remember, these were Americans.

There were over 40 Americans that were killed.

We have eight Americans still being held hostage, and no one seems to talk about these hostages.

And so, it has been my mission ever since going into Israel on that day.

It has been my mission to get these hostages home to their families.

- Is the Biden administration doing enough to get these hostages to return home?

- I would say that there are a number of people within the administration that care very deeply about those hostages.

And the CIA director, Director Burns, has been very good to work with.

He cares very deeply.

But I think in any other day or time, any other country, if we had, had 40 Americans murdered by a terrorist organization, we would've heard an outcry from any administration, Republican or Democrat.

But I think because it happened in Israel, we have an administration that's not willing to talk about it, because it might upset some of the supporters of the administration.

But folks, these are Americans and we need to make sure that Hamas is on notice from the United States of America.

Not just Israel, but the United States of America.

- [Protesters] From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!

- You're a sponsor of the Stop Antisemitism on College Campuses Act, which proposes to cut off federal funds to colleges that, "Excuse or encourage antisemitism."

And you, less than two weeks after the attack of 10/07, were warning the Secretary of Education about the need to protect Jewish students on campuses.

Did you have a sense of the budding antisemitism on campus before the October 7th attacks?

- We started seeing it immediately, and I have a number of Jewish friends and they were very concerned about this.

And Senator Bill Cassidy and I started working together very early on, on this issue, because we started seeing those incidents, incidents of supporters of whether it's Palestine or supporters of Hamas, some of them have started blending together.

And I would challenge a number of them too, when they're chanting, "From the river to the sea."

Which river, which sea?

- Which river, which sea?

Many of them couldn't point out Israel on a map.

(audience cheering) - Vice President Harris selected Governor Tim Walz to be her running mate this week who beat out Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who is Jewish, while praising the choice of Walz, Democratic commentator, Van Jones, said this.

- But here's the challenge you've got in this party.

Antisemitism that has gotten marbled into this party.

You can be for the Palestinians without being an anti-Jewish bigot, but there are some anti-Jewish bigots out there, and there's some disquiet now, and there has to be.

How much of what just happened is caving into some of these darker parts in the party?

- He said that there has been antisemitism that has been marbled into the Democratic Party, and he questioned whether the choice of Walz was a choice to intentionally avoid having a difficult conversation within the Democratic Party about antisemitism.

Do you think that the choice of Walz intentionally avoided that conversation?

- Well, I would say that it most certainly it did.

I don't know if that was part of their process.

I can't speak to the decision that was made by Vice President Harris, but it certainly, does avoid this huge elephant that's in the room.

And while Van Jones and I don't agree on a lot of anything, I would agree with his perspective is that there is something that has been marbled into the party now.

It is very dark, and it is very ugly.

So, while the Democrats would say that they're a very welcoming party, they represent all these different interests, what they're representing is not truly America now.

We really do want to make that very clear that antisemitism is never okay, never ever.

And yet, a number of my colleagues, they can't say it in plain language that antisemitism is not okay.

Being anti-Zionist is not okay.

So, Democratic Party, you've got some work to do.

But what they are evolving into those dark threads, not the entire party.

I would never cast this upon every Democrat.

But the dark parts of the party, we should not see that here in the United States of America.

- Senator, as a representative of an agricultural state that relies on trade and as a proponent of free trade.

We know that former President Trump, as he is running, has been a supporter of tariffs in the past and is proposing a tariff regime that will be even greater and go beyond what he did in his first term.

10% tariff is the proposition on all imported goods from overseas and a 60% tariff on Chinese imports.

This is an issue for Iowa farmers.

You've spoken to Trump I know at length about this issue.

How have those conversations gone?

- Yes, and we dealt with this in the former administration, so it was really important to have those conversations.

And I do know having worked with Donald J. Trump on so many of these issues, that he cares about the American farmer.

He cares about American business and industry.

So, before those tariffs are put into place, he will always weigh what is the value, who is going to come out ahead?

We have had those conversations.

- So, it sounds like you have a degree of confidence that even though he is threatening major tariffs, that Iowa's farmers will ultimately, not be on the downside of any new policies.

- Yes, and I do believe that as he goes through those negotiations and leverages what he can from the United States to protect American business, he will always think of farmers and business here first.

So, he is a great negotiator, there is no doubt about it.

And so, he will take those skills to the table and he will push back against the Chinese, because the Chinese for decades have undercut our American farmer.

- As a combat veteran, I think you'll have something to say about a debate that William F. Buckley Jr. hosted in 1993, some time ago.

But it was a debate about whether women should be allowed in combat.

Take a look at Buckley in 1993 arguing against the motion.

Here it is.

- Given that combat duty exacts the most that the human body can deliver, does it make sense to admit the combat duty agenda whose members are physically weaker than males.

And are we not in suggesting that the male predisposition to protect the female should be ignored, Sticking on meddling little fingers into the chemistry of biological relationships, from which much that is conceitedly civilized issues.

- Senator, there's a debate in Washington right now about whether women should be required to register for the draft.

And this is an idea that you support and you have support it for some time.

What do you say to your Republican colleagues who say, "Not only should women not register for the draft, they should not be in combat?"

- Well, I would say one that women are perfectly capable of contributing in combat, whether it's combat arms or someone like me that was supporting combat operations with the movement of goods up into combat zones.

I was a transportation company commander in Kuwait and Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom 1, 2003 to 2004.

But we have women that are more physically capable than some of the men you might find.

Isn't it funny?

We wanna focus on standards.

It's okay, if women meet the physical standards to engage in combat, they should be allowed that opportunity.

If there are men that don't meet the physical requirements to engage in combat, they shouldn't be allowed either.

So, it shouldn't be, you know, a back and forth about male female.

It should be about what is required of the duties that go into successful missions within the military.

- Obviously, you support women being able to serve in combat.

You broke with President Trump on his ban of transgender people from the military.

Some Republicans today argue the military has become sort of marred with a sentiment of wokeness, some social experimentation.

Do you agree with the sentiment that the military has become too woke?

- I don't agree with that, but let me finesse it.

So, when it comes to wokeness in the military, I always push back, because our military is not woke.

I would say that there is civilian leadership of the military that is woke.

- I see.

- Okay?

So, there is a difference between the leadership and those that serve in uniform.

So, the example of transgender people serving in our military, we have transgender people serving in our military.

They will bleed red just as the rest of us.

But I also take a stance that we should not be integrating transgender people into certain situations where it does make, if you have a female barracks and you have a transgender woman who has not transitioned, we shouldn't make the rest of the unit uncomfortable about that setting.

There are certain accommodations we can make for that transgender individual.

But if they bring value to our unit, if they have specialties that we can use, especially.

if we want to maintain an all volunteer force, we want to bring that talent into our services.

And I know that's controversial, but again, I'm looking at what's good for our nation.

And believe me, when we're facing a recruiting challenge right now, if people are physically willing and able to serve our country, we want them to do so.

- That's a delightfully refreshing, a nuanced perspective.

Final question, you wrote in your book, "Both sides demonize their opponents and make them into caricatures of evil.

It can get exhausting.

But I refuse to accept that it's the only way to operate."

In this hyper-partisan political season, Do you see hope for another way?

- I do.

I'm always, always optimistic, Margaret.

I think we have to treat each other with respect and dignity, and if we can lend ourselves to more of that, we will have a more civil society.

So, I look at my fellow Democrats across the aisle.

I look at them first as human beings and people that love their country.

We see things differently on occasion, but it doesn't mean we can't work together to solve issues that are important to all of our constituencies.

You mentioned Tom Harkin in the beginning of our conversation.

So, longtime Democrat that served in the United States Senate.

He proceeded me in my seat.

I always looked at him with respect.

I didn't agree on all the stances that Tom Harkin would take, but I respected him as an individual and someone who was representing the state of Iowa.

We shouldn't be name calling, we shouldn't be, you know, downplaying other people's successes.

I think it's incredibly important that we maintain a civil society.

And the best way that I can do that is by treating others the way I want to be treated as well.

- Politics is the golden rule.

- Absolutely.

- Senator Joni Ernst, thank you for joining me.

- Thank you, Margaret.

- [Announcer] "Firing Line" with Margaret Hoover is made possible in part by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, the Fairweather Foundation, and by the following.

Corporate funding is provided by Stevens Inc. (upbeat music) (upbeat music continues) (upbeat music continues) (gentle upbeat music) (bright music) - [Announcer] You're watching PBS.