Where S.F. congressional candidates stand on Israel, China, and foreign policy, part 1

Trump has proposed a $1.5 trillion defense package for 2027, up from $900 billion in 2026. What do you think the right level of military spending is?

Wiener: I don’t support what Trump is proposing. I want our military to be strong, but there’s so much waste in the military. Maduro is horrific, but what [Trump] did in Venezuela was not for the benefit of the Venezuelan people. It was for the benefit of Trump and his cronies. They’ve already taken over the Venezuelan oil industry and it was just a money grab more than anything. And I want to be clear, Maduro is horrific and he’s not the legitimate president of Venezuela. He stole the election and he’s a tyrant and he’s really imploded the Venezuelan economy and destabilized the region because of the mass migration that his actions have caused. But again, Trump did not do this to help the Venezuelan people. 

I’m not saying the U.S. should never, ever intervene because I’m not an isolationist. I do think that the U.S. plays an important leadership role in the world. 

Chakrabarti: For decades, America’s foreign policy position, I’d summarize it as, “We will keep the world within our sphere of influence and subjugate the world through military might.” And that’s been reflected in our budget, where we have a constantly expanding defense budget. 

This foreign policy position has been a bipartisan consensus. That $900 billion defense budget, 150 Democrats voted for that, right? But it’s very unpopular. If you look at the polling, only 16 percent of Republicans want a larger defense budget and only 3 percent of Democrats want it. 

The reason it’s unpopular is it’s been disastrous. It’s led to countless deaths. It’s turned half the world against us. We’ve basically destroyed our relationships and our legitimacy in the Middle East and we can’t lead peace processes in that part of the world. We’ve destroyed multiple countries in South America. 

We have to switch entirely to a new mode of foreign policy where we respect the sovereignty of other nations, we drastically reduce our military budget, and we’re actually trying to help develop other nations as a way to bring them into an alliance with us. 

Before we even start talking about where to cut, I would say we don’t increase the budget until the Pentagon passes an audit. Part of what I will do is create a coalition that will actually block funding of the defense until we get a real audit passed and we start getting to a realistic defense budget. But I can tell you right now, our defense budget is more than, I want to say, the next ten countries combined. So clearly it doesn’t have to be that big.

Chan: I don’t think it’s just the level of spending, but also on what. Right now what Trump has done is to give away to billionaires and cut our Medicaid, cut our food security for the American people and then also increase the military budget. That is unacceptable and further puts us in debt.

Congress theoretically has the power to declare war, but it hasn’t done so since World War II. In 1973, Congress passed The War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to notify Congress within two days of taking military action and prohibits armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days unless the president obtains congressional approval through an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) or a declaration of war.

Do you think that Congress should reclaim control of its power to declare war? If so, how?

Chan: Yes. Congress has relinquished its oversight power of the Trump administration. The GOP speaker, Mike Johnson, has not asserted Congress’ power of oversight on a variety of issues, be it on Trump halting spending on what Congress has approved for federal departments, or DOGE, or the most recent, the act on Venezuela, and going after Jerome Powell, our chair of the Federal Reserve. I can name so many actions in addition that Congress has not asserted its power or oversight over. I truly believe if the Democrats take back the House there will then be oversight strongly pushed onto the Trump administration on a whole variety of issues, including the power to declare war.

Wiener: Congress hasn’t declared war, but the War Powers Act was passed. I know there was an effort recently that died on the Senate floor to invoke the War Powers Act with respect to Venezuela. What Trump did was illegal, he should have gone to Congress. I think this Congress has abdicated so much of its role in everything, including the budget. 

Chakrabarti: Yes, Congress should reclaim control of this power. The first step of this is repealing the AUMF which currently gives the president unilateral ability to do military strikes on any groups that he considers a terrorist group. It’s what Trump was using to do the strikes off the coast of Venezuela. 

[In 2001, in the aftermath of 9/11, Congress passed an AUMF that allowed the President to take action against those responsible for 9/11 and to “prevent any future acts of international terrorism” by those parties. It has been used to justify a number of military actions including the War in Iraq, domestic surveillance programs, and attacks against Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. 

Trump has not used that AUMF to authorize his recent strikes on Venezuela. A memo from the Justice Department argued that the force the President used in Venezuela “does not rise to the level of war in a constitutional sense” and that the President has “inherent constitutional power” to back the FBI on drug trafficking cases and to manage foreign affairs.]

The other piece is Congress needs to change the War Powers Resolution. I believe the president needs to tell Congress before they take military action. 

But even beyond that, multiple presidents, both Republicans and Democrats, have violated the War Powers Resolution and Congress did not use its power of impeachment to actually hold the president accountable. What we’re seeing with Trump right now with his excessive use of the executive branch, doing unilateral military action, is a result of a slow erosion of war powers to the executive branch that happened under Democratic and Republican administrations, starting with Reagan. Reagan did this to go into Panama and Grenada. Clinton did this to go into Kosovo. Obama did this to go into Libya. And Bush famously used the AUMF to go into Iraq. So this has been a consensus that has to fundamentally break.

Under what scenario would you support the use of nuclear weapons by the United States?

Wiener: [He laughs anxiously.] We should not be using nuclear weapons. That’s like end times. We need to move towards a nuclear-free future.

Chakrabarti: I don’t think there’s any scenario in which I’d support the use of nuclear weapons by the United States because I don’t want the world to end.

Chan: I will say no. No condition. And that’s not just for the United States.

Ever since I took office but also growing up, I have attended the Japanese American Hiroshima summit that is oftentimes in Japantown. And just having that understanding of the impact of nuclear weapons on Japanese people and how it actually, not just for the moment that Hiroshima took place, but to the generation thereafter, and still today, much, much later, decades later. That is a learned lesson that I think not just the United States, but everyone around the globe should take note that under no circumstance should we ever use nuclear weapons.

Other than Israel and Gaza are there any other genocides that you think are ongoing in the world right now? If so, please describe what the U.S. has done in response to them so far and whether you think the U.S. should change what it has been doing.

Chakrabarti: The other major genocide occurring in the world right now is happening in Sudan, and that’s happening with support from the U.A.E, which is a U.S. ally. We are indirectly currently funding and supporting that genocide by providing military arms and support to the U.A.E. So the U.S. should withhold arms and support to U.A.E. and use that as leverage because the unlimited funding from the U.A.E. is allowing this genocide to continue unabated.

Chan: How about also just mass killings? I think that right now Iran’s protesters, it’s an issue. Sudan and Darfur. And obviously still ongoing, Ukraine. Not to mention the Congo. There’s a lot of ongoing conflict around the globe that is not just now. They actually have been going on for quite some time. 

I think this is why one of the most detrimental things that Trump has done under his administration in 2025 is dismantling USAID. Conflict and killings have been ongoing around the globe, and the U.S. has been playing a very critical role of providing humanitarian aid. USAID has been giving people around the globe a fighting chance to survive and to be able to fight for their independence, their democracy, for their power of self-determination. The loss of that department is what has brought on so many of this suffering that we’re witnessing around the globe right now. 

Wiener: Whether it’s a genocide or just something horrific happening, we know that there’s a genocide of the Uyghurs in China. We know that in Sudan there is, again, whether you call it a genocide or just an absolute mass killing, it’s just horrifying what’s happening in Sudan. Also in Yemen, and the mass starvation that’s happened in Yemen. We know that in Syria, Bashar al Assad exterminated a huge number of people. I think hundreds of thousands of people that were killed in Syria. There are various areas in the world where there are just catastrophic levels of civilian death, whether it’s through famine or through killing, it’s all unacceptable.

ML: What do you think the U.S. should be doing in response to these, if anything?

Each one of them is unique, right? In Syria, it was good that the Assad regime was toppled. I hope that Syria can stabilize and be a constructive country in the region and not a rogue state. Each situation is very different. The situation with the Uyghurs is very different from the situation in Yemen. Each one has its own context. They’re all terrible. And the U.S. of course, should always do whatever we can to put a stop to it. But that looks very different in each situation.

On Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas, a terrorist organization in Gaza, attacked Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking around 250 hostages. Since then, Israel has bombed Gaza, killing over 71,000 people and injuring 171,000, most of whom were civilians. Many international organizations have condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza and called it genocide, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. The United States has given billions of dollars in aid to Israel since Oct. 7, providing the nation with offensive weapons and defensive missile systems. 

The Blocks the Bombs Act would prohibit the President from selling certain types of weapons to Israel. Do you support the Act? Why or why not?

Wiener: The Block the Bombs Act is aligned with where I am. The one caveat I would say is that the Block the Bombs Act right now is permanent. I think that it should be for a set period of time and then reviewed to see if the situation has changed in terms of the Israeli government. 

As a Jew, I believe strongly in the critical importance of Israel’s existence as a Jewish homeland that matters to Jews globally. Israel matters to me. That’s why it’s particularly painful to me that we have a government in Israel that is so extremist and messianic. That includes people who are just vile in my view, such as Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. My hope as a Jew is that in the future, Israel will have a different kind of government that’s committed to peace and democracy. 

Chan: I would co-sponsor the Block the Bombs Act with the understanding that the Netanyahu government at this moment has violated human rights and committed war crimes and the United States should not be aiding that effort.

Chakrabarti: Yes, I would support the Block the Bombs Act. I’ve been very clear that I believe we should have no military funding to Israel. And that’s the bill that has the most traction right now.

In the Senate, Bernie Sanders has proposed several joint resolutions of disapproval, which would block the sale of rifles and bombs to Israel. If you were to vote on a resolution like those ones in the House, how would you vote and why?

Wiener: I’m not speaking about specific bills because that’s all in the past, but going forward, I’ve been very clear that I’m not going to support U.S. funding for the destruction of Palestinian communities. I’m not going to support offensive arm sales to any Israeli government that’s not committed to peace, and the Netanyahu government is clearly not committed to peace.

Chan: I think definitely Block the Bombs Act. I don’t have the details of those resolutions that you’re making reference of. 

Chakrabarti: I would vote in favor of disapproval. Israel is committing genocide in Gaza right now, and that’s a legal term that’s defined under international law from the genocide conventions after the Holocaust. When a country is committing genocide, we actually have a duty to try to use our position to stop that genocide. That means at the bare minimum, we are not providing any military funding to that country, but it actually should mean that we’re going beyond that to try to actually use our leverage to stop the genocide that’s going on.

Congress has historically voted overwhelmingly against cutting aid of any sort to Israel. What would you do to get offensive weapons sales to Israel blocked? Would you be proactive? 

Wiener: I told you what my position is, what I will support and what I won’t support. To me, it’s really important for the U.S. to be a positive force in encouraging peace in the region, encouraging the creation of a Palestinian state that is not governed by Hamas. 

Chan: First, of course, I would be a co-sponsor of the Block the Bombs Act. It’s part of conversation, dialogue, and education about the situation currently in Gaza and West Bank. 

Chakrabarti: We’re going to have to replace a lot of the people who are in Congress right now. Right now there’s popular support to stop military funding of Israel but our politicians are not voting that way, and it’s largely because of money. There’s a large Israeli lobby that spends a lot of money in campaign contributions to stop any efforts to end the military funding of Israel. 

What I’d like to have is in 2026 at least a faction of us who can demand real concessions from leadership in exchange for our votes on certain issues like the speakership vote or budget bill. And one of those issues that we’re going to fight on is ending military funding of Israel. 

Israel and the United States work together to develop and produce defensive missile systems such as the Iron Dome and David’s Sling. These systems typically work by launching missiles at incoming threats, intercepting them midair. 

This past July, the House voted on an amendment authored by then-Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green to cut $500 million to Israel for defensive missile systems. Would you have voted yes or no on that amendment? 

Wiener: I support U.S. support for Israel’s defense, such as Iron Dome and David’s Sling, which are defensive systems. I’m not sure what specifically you’re referring to in Marjorie Taylor Green’s amendment, but I believe the U.S. should support Israel’s defense.

Chan: If and when the U.S. Congress continues to provide funding for Iron Dome it has to be part of a package to provide aid for food and medicine for Gaza and to mandate the Netanyahu government to comply with the ceasefire terms and conditions.

Chakrabarti: I would have voted to cut the money. I don’t make a distinction between offensive and defensive systems because Israel doesn’t. If we’re giving the Israeli military money, whether that’s on a defensive or offensive system, that means they have money that they’re going to be able to use to spend on bombs that are dropping on children in Gaza.

BDS is a global movement that calls for three things: boycotts of Israeli cultural institutions, universities, and companies; universities, pension funds, banks, and others divesting from Israel by withdrawing their investments in Israel-supporting and Israeli companies; and government sanctions on Israel by banning certain businesses, ending free trade agreements with Israel, and trying to get Israel removed from international organizations like the UN and FIFA.

Do you support the BDS movement? Should it be legal for universities to have BDS policies?

Chakrabarti: So, two things. One, there’s there’s been multiple attempts to stop the BDS movement. And this is happening both in California and at a federal level where people are trying to pass laws making any attempts to make BDS illegal. Those are gross violations of fundamental First Amendment constitutional rights. I believe in the Constitution. And separately, if you are somebody who believes Israel is committing genocide and you want to use economic leverage to stop that, you should have the right to do that. So yes, I support it.

I believe the federal government should be looking at sanctions as a way to use our leverage to stop the genocide in Gaza. We should be treating Israel like any other country. If any other country is committing genocide, we look at all the economic tools we have available to us to stop that genocide.

Wiener: No, I don’t. The goal of the BDS movement is to destroy Israel. Sometimes that gets sold as some sort of limited, temporary boycott to stop Israel from bombing Gaza, for example, but that’s not what the BDS movement is. The BDS movement is about destroying Israel, and I do not support it.

I don’t support universities having BDS policies. The idea that we would punish Israeli universities, Israeli academics, Israeli scientific researchers for what their government has done, that makes no sense to me. That would be like punishing American universities and American professors and researchers and students because of what Donald Trump does. I think it is really wrong, and I don’t support that.

ML: Should it be legal for universities to have BDS policies that forbid working with Israel?

Wiener: I don’t think it’s about banning or not banning. It’s about my opinion that it’s wrong.

Chan: I believe that boycotting is anybody’s First Amendment right. They should have the right to be able to boycott and support boycotts.

ML: Should it be legal for universities to pass BDS policies? 

Chan: If that’s what the university has decided, they can boycott. I’m not here to stop any action to boycott. On one hand, I respect and support the action of boycott. On the other hand, my question will always be, “Is this going to yield the results that it intended?”

ML: Should the U.S. government be considering sanctioning the Israeli government?

Chan: I think that we can talk more specifically about what kind of sanctions and what impact we can actually deliver when it comes to sanction policies. 

If you were invited on a diplomatic mission to Israel, would you go? Why or why not?

Chan: For what purpose? Who am I accompanying? And what action and results are we looking for? If this is so we could make sure that humanitarian aid is being delivered in Gaza, absolutely.

Chakrabarti: It depends on who is inviting and for what purpose. There are groups in Israel that bring legislators along just to try to push Israeli propaganda and create a consensus for continued funding of Israel. I would not join one of those delegations. But there are other groups that also bring legislators along that try to show the truth of what’s happening in Palestine. I would go visit Palestine. I’d like to see what’s going on on the ground. 

Wiener: I’ve been to Israel many times, both on official delegations and for family reasons. When I’ve gone to Israel, I’ve always met with opposition parties, I’ve met with Palestinians, with Bedouin tribes. I’ve met with LGBTQ leaders. 

I’m not speaking to any specific delegation, but you’re saying in general. I’ve never gone on an AIPAC trip, just to clarify that.

[AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobbying group, regularly sponsors trips to Israel for government officials. They often sponsor a trip for freshman Congresspeople.] 

In 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. Since then, the U.S. has given over $134 billion in military, financial, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Europe has provided around $195 billion. Trump has repeatedly suggested that Europe should contribute more to Ukraine’s defense. 

Do you think that the U.S. should continue supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia? If so, what sort of support should it be providing?

Chan: Absolutely yes. We ought to continue to support Ukraine. I have many Ukrainian residents as a supervisor in the Richmond. I have heard from many of our Ukrainian residents since the war broke out urging for support not only from the local government for Ukrainian immigrants and for asylum support, but as well as being able to advocate for them on a national level. This is the moment that we will continue to advocate for Ukraine and its independence and democracy.

Wiener: We should be fully supporting Ukraine’s ability to defend itself from Russia, and that includes both defensive and offensive arms. We have a fascist dictatorship that is trying to conquer a democracy. This is exactly what happened during World War II, and we should be supporting Ukraine’s ability to preserve itself as a country and not be conquered by Russia.

Chakrabarti: Yes, I think we should be continuing to support Ukraine. That was a foreign aggressor that invaded Ukraine, so I do believe we should be supporting our allies, defending our allies. I think, similar to Taiwan, we should be providing weapons that allow for defense rather than more offensive capabilities. 

How do you think the responsibility should be split between Europe and the United States in defending Ukraine? 

Chan: This question came about because of Trump. Trump is the one who somehow is deciding who should give more and who should be giving less. And that is a problematic view of the world. 

The United States ought to give what the United States can give to the support of Ukraine and the expectation is so will every European ally. We will all do what we can to ensure the independence and the democracy of the Ukrainian government. That frame of questioning and mindset is problematic and coming from Trump.

Wiener: It’s a joint responsibility. Absolutely, Europe should be contributing to Ukraine’s defense as well, and they are, but so should the U.S. It’s shameful how Donald Trump is Vladimir Putin’s stooge. It’s both humiliating the U.S. and despicable. I oppose Donald Trump’s pulling back from Ukraine’s defense. We should be absolutely, fully supporting Ukraine in its fight to retain its independence and not be conquered by Russia.

Chakrabarti: Europe has been pitching in a decent amount. I think this is a question of how much can each country do? I believe we’ve got to do what we can do, but we have to get back to a place where we’re actually in alliance with our European neighbors and not fighting with them constantly so that we can come to a collective conclusion on how much we’re putting in together to actually serve the needs of the Ukrainians.

In late December, people in Iran began protesting the country’s economic collapse, with many calling for political change. The Iranian government responded by violently cracking down on protesters, with over 24,000 protesters arrested and over 2,000 killed during the two weeks of unrest. From Jan. 8 to Jan. 13, a blackout cut off almost all Iranians from cell service and the internet. Throughout the protests, Trump repeatedly threatened military intervention and increased tariffs on Iran. The protests were largely over by Jan. 15. 

Do you think that the U.S. should strike Iran because its government killed protesters?

Chakrabarti: No, it’s a terrible idea. We do not want to go into a war with Iran. And we have to realize how we got to this place in Iran in the first place. I don’t like the Ayatollah, but after Obama did the nuclear deal, Iran, for the first time in decades, started to have single-digit inflation numbers, and they were starting to get to a path of some sort of stability in that region. And the reason Iran had double-digit inflation numbers for so long was because we’d had crippling sanctions on them before the nuclear deal happened. After the nuclear deal, we were getting to a place where there was more stability in the region.

And then Trump came in, threw out the nuclear deal, and did crippling sanctions starting in 2018. And since 2018, Iran’s economy has been in freefall. So, of course, the people are protesting. Our response to that, I don’t think, should just be, ‘Now let’s start a war which will create more destruction.’ It’ll destabilize that whole region and it’s going to get us tied up in another endless war in the Middle East, which does not go well.

Wiener: No. I want to be clear, I support the protesters. The government of Iran is a fascist regime that kills its own citizens, kills women, forces women into servitude basically, kills LGBTQ people. It’s a horrific government. I hope it falls. The people of Iran are such an amazing people. It’s so sad to me that this country, which has so much to offer, is being held back by these tyrants. I hope Iran gets a government that will help the country flourish. I think that the U.S. starting to bomb is something that does not make a lot of sense to me.

Chan: The U.S.’s role is to intervene and to ensure peace for any region. In this case I think we should learn and understand what is happening. We understand there’s blackouts of communications right now and it doesn’t seem like we have — at least from the view of the public — we do not have good intel on exactly what is happening.

If we only had USAID then we can make sure that there are supports and resources for the local people and especially for those who are actually protesting peacefully, similar to the situation in Minnesota right now. Then Congress should find ways to intervene to make sure that people are actually safe. I would say that the Congress should intervene in Minnesota just as if they were to intervene in Iran.

ML: So would you support military strikes?

Chan: No. Congress needs to assert oversight on the Trump administration on military action. It should be briefed on strikes in foreign countries and not to do so casually. This frame of questions has everything to do with the fact that we have normalized the Trump administration’s military strike on foreign land and therefore, the questions that we immediately ask ourselves in the case of the Iran protester killings is “Should the U.S. strike?” I would like to think that the long-established intelligence community in foreign policy and through our diplomats would have better tools in our toolbox before we go and strike using military force on another country.

In the 2000s, countries around the world imposed sanctions to discourage Iran from developing its nuclear weapons program. By the mid-2010s, Iran’s economy had been deeply damaged by the international sanctions. In 2015, Iran agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which required Iran to reduce its nuclear capabilities in exchange for sanctions being lifted. During Trump’s first term, he withdrew the U.S. from the nuclear deal and the administration reimposed sanctions, which have hurt Iran’s economy. 

Should the U.S. get rid of its sanctions on Iran?

Chakrabarti: I believe we’ve got to move back to the same framework we had for the nuclear deal where it was a reduction of sanctions over time, specifically targeting the ones that were the most crippling consumer products at the time. And then eventually we were going to get to a place where international finance could start operating in Iran as well. 

Wiener: I don’t think we should remove sanctions on Iran. The government of Iran is, in addition to being so brutal towards its own people, one of the main global sponsors of terrorism. Iran is the patron of Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis, and also the militias in Iraq. Iran is an absolutely toxic force in the Middle East, in the world. I support the sanctions against Iran. And we do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. That would be horrific.

ML: Is there a scenario in which you would think that the sanctions should be removed?

Wiener: I supported the last nuclear deal with Iran that President Obama negotiated. There are always going to be criticisms of it, right? No deal is perfect. But it was a reasonable deal that Iran agreed to, to create a path towards no nuclear weapons in Iran and perhaps Iran reentering the world order. Iran needs to stop sponsoring terrorism, but at least it created a path to not having a nuclear Iran and being able to do it peacefully instead of bombing Iran. 

Donald Trump screwed that up by pulling us out of that agreement. It was a terrible decision. I hope we can have a new deal with Iran to make sure that it does not get nuclear weapons.

Chan: Not at this time. I would like to think that our Congressional members would have consistent and regular intelligence briefings that help us make policy decisions that are based on verified intelligence information and that we have a bit more data to be able to determine the existing sanction policy and whether we need to change them according to the most recent circumstances. And so I don’t want to say yes or no without that information.

ML: Is there intelligence you could get that would lead you to thinking that we should remove the sanctions?

Chan: Anything that is threatening, again, the national security of the United States. That should be the priority of any sitting Congress member.

In the fall, the U.S. began bombing boats off the coast of Venezuela that allegedly had drug dealers aboard. On Jan. 3, Trump bombed the capital of Venezuela and captured Venezuelan President Nicholás Maduro, bringing him to the U.S. to face charges. Trump then announced plans to install a puppet government and control Venezuela’s oil production. 

What role should the U.S. play in the future of Venezuela?

Wiener: That’s another country with wonderful people. Historically, it’s been a really successful country. It’s not just the oil wealth. Now that this has happened, I would like to see Venezuela be able to hold elections, elect a government that’s committed to prosperity and democracy and healing the harm that Chavez and Maduro have done. The U.S. should help facilitate that and be supportive of that without trying to control Venezuela and steal its oil wealth.

ML: Your answer seems to be a bit different from what Donald Trump has envisioned for the future of Venezuela. As a member of Congress what would you do to make the future that you described a reality?

Wiener: Trump wants Venezuela to be basically a colony of the U.S. where the U.S. controls Venezuela, controls its wealth, tells its government what to do. That’s what he wants. He’s jealous of Russia. He wants to be like Russia, where he has his sphere of influence and gets to control the countries around him. And not just Venezuela, I think he’d like to control Mexico as well. And that’s not okay. Venezuela is an independent country. And the people of Venezuela should decide the future of Venezuela, and the U.S.’s role should be to support that and to help make sure that Venezuela can have a democratic process and decide its own future. And Congress has a role to play in demanding that the law be complied with, which Donald Trump doesn’t like to do, and blocking him from treating these other countries like colonies and vassal states.

Chakrabarti: I believe sovereign nations should be sovereign. And so the people of Venezuela should be able to determine the future of their country. That should not be somewhere where the U.S. is trying to prop up any government.

ML: The direction Trump seems to be going is very different from what you just expressed. As a member of Congress what could you do to make this more independent future a reality?

Chakrabarti: I’d say it’s the same thing I’ve said for how I can make any of this a reality. It’s going to be a fundamental change in our foreign policy doctrine and in this nation. And part of that is going to come from Congress, and it’s not going to be just from me. It’s going to come from a cohort of us who are working together to actually exact leverage, pass bills, reclaim Congress’s authority in declaring war. 

Then the larger piece of it is going to be trying to build a movement going in 2028. Have someone running for president, have hundreds of people running for Congress who hold this kind of foreign policy stance. And then we have to fundamentally shift what America’s foreign policy doctrine is away from, not just Trump, but away from the bipartisan consensus we’ve had for war for decades now. 

Chan: We should provide support and resources to ensure its people can have integrity in their election.

ML: Trump seems to have expressed a different vision for the future of Venezuela.

Chan: I think his goal is really just to steal their oil. Because Trump doesn’t really care about election integrity even in our own country. So I don’t trust that he would want to care about Venezuela’s election integrity.

ML: As a member of Congress, what would you do to try to make sure that Venezuela can have these fair and free elections? 

Chan: I don’t mean to just keep referencing back to USAID, to providing aid and support for the people. Through those diplomacy and aid efforts we can help them reestablish themselves, to be in power in a space where they can have election integrity. And I truly believe in the power of our ambassadors and our diplomacy and in our intelligence agencies like the CIA.