How Would You Feel About Ilhan Omar Being Deported?
A prominent progressive senator is distancing his political movement from several positions that have become liabilities for Democrats in recent elections.
His comments prompted questions for one of Congress’ best-known progressive lawmakers, who was pressed on whether activists and candidates associated with the movement had actually embraced the policies he was dismissing.
Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., responded Friday after Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said that “no serious person” running for office supports defunding the police, despite the issue’s prominent role in progressive politics following the 2020 death of George Floyd.
Sanders made the comments during an Aug. 5 appearance on the “Pod Save America” podcast with former Obama administration speechwriter Jon Favreau.
Favreau asked Sanders about Democratic Socialists of America-backed candidates who have supported policies including abolishing prisons, defunding or abolishing police departments and eliminating national borders.
“No serious person that I know who is running for office believes in, quote unquote, defunding the police,” Sanders responded.
Sanders acknowledged problems within some law enforcement agencies while arguing that police officers continue to perform a necessary and difficult job.
“We need to get rid of racism” in police departments, Sanders said while discussing reforms he believes are necessary.
CNN’s Kaitlan Collins subsequently confronted Omar about Sanders’ characterization and asked whether the Vermont senator was correct that no serious candidates were advocating defunding the police.
Omar pointed to Minneapolis and the political environment following Floyd’s death while explaining why the issue became particularly important in her community.
“For us in Minneapolis, with the murder of George Floyd, we had to have a deeper conversation about what really it looked like for us to address public safety here,” Omar said.
“We had a police department that was essentially problematic,” she continued.
Omar argued that the discussion changed once the Minneapolis debate became a national political issue.
“And when that conversation becomes nationalized, then you sort of get the kind of messaging that gets sort of lost in the void,” she said.
“Minneapolis has come a long way. We still have a long way to go. And I think that is sort of what Bernie was speaking to,” Omar added.
Collins pressed Omar specifically on Sanders’ assertion that “no serious person” running for office supported defunding police departments.
“I mean, when he says that, I think he’s talking about someone putting forth a piece of legislation,” Omar responded.
“And to that regard, I would say that he is right,” she continued. “I haven’t seen any pieces of legislation or ordinances come through in the United States since 2020.”
The exchange comes as DSA-backed candidates have scored victories in several Democratic primaries, bringing renewed scrutiny to some of the organization’s more controversial positions.
DSA national co-chair Megan Romer defended the organization’s support for abolishing institutions including the Senate and Immigration and Customs Enforcement during a Fox News appearance last month.
Sanders, who identifies as a democratic socialist but is not a member of the Democratic Party, also rejected several other positions associated with elements of the socialist movement during his conversation with Favreau.
Asked about abolishing prisons, Sanders said he wants the United States to incarcerate fewer people but rejected eliminating imprisonment for dangerous criminals.
“I hope the day comes when we don’t lead the world in the number of people who are in custody,” Sanders said. “That speaks very poorly of our society.”
“But does that mean that there should not be dangerous people who should be behind bars? Of course, everybody agrees with that,” he added.
Sanders was equally direct when discussing immigration and the idea of eliminating borders.
“Open borders? No,” Sanders said. “We all, most of us, believe in comprehensive immigration reform, not opening up all the borders.”
Sanders argued that conservatives amplify the most controversial proposals associated with the political left, but maintained that “most serious candidates” do not embrace those positions.
CBS Host LOSES IT After Sen. Kennedy FACT CHECKS Her Trump LIES… THIS GOT BAD!...
CBS Host PRESSES John Kennedy on Trump’s Spending — His Answer Takes an Unexpected Turn
The interview began with some of the biggest questions facing Washington: the conflict with Iran, rising fuel costs, and the approaching midterm elections. But when Republican Senator John Kennedy appeared on Face the Nation with CBS host Margaret Brennan, the conversation quickly moved toward an issue that could shape the political debate for months to come: how the government spends taxpayers’ money.
Kennedy did not pretend that the economic pressure facing American families was insignificant. He argued that voters were far more concerned about the cost of living than the daily battles playing out on television. With oil prices affected by disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz, he said, the consequences of foreign policy were reaching directly into household budgets.
Kennedy Brings the Conversation Back to Affordability
Kennedy’s message to the White House was unusually direct. He predicted that the midterm elections would be close and argued that Republicans needed to keep their attention on the financial concerns of ordinary Americans.
“When moms and dads lie down to sleep at night and can't,” Kennedy told Brennan, they are worried about the cost of living.
He also called for a nationwide address explaining why the United States entered the conflict with Iran, what the administration hoped to achieve, and how it intended to bring the situation to a conclusion.
His position was not a blanket rejection of the administration’s strategy. Kennedy defended continued pressure on Iran while acknowledging the economic consequences of the partially closed strait. He opposed sending American troops into the situation, warning that deploying them could create a new set of problems.
That combination—support for pressure abroad alongside concern about prices at home—set the tone for the rest of the interview.
Nearly $1 Billion in Cuts Sparks a Constitutional Dispute
The conversation became more pointed when Brennan asked about the White House’s decision to cancel nearly $1 billion in previously approved federal funding without congressional consent.
Brennan raised concerns expressed by Senator Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, who argued that the move threatened Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending.
Kennedy disagreed.
“I love Susan like a taco, but she's wrong,” he said before explaining his view that Congress often appropriates money in broad categories, leaving agencies with considerable discretion over how funds are ultimately used.
He then deployed the phrase that would become the interview’s most memorable sound bite: “Spending porn.”
Kennedy used the expression to criticize what he considers wasteful government expenditures, pointing to funding for circumcision programs in Zambia and electric buses in Rwanda. He also argued that Congress should take greater responsibility for identifying and eliminating spending it believes is unnecessary.
But the disagreement was about more than whether particular programs were worthwhile. It raised a larger question: when Congress approves funding, how much authority should the executive branch have to cancel or redirect it?
Kennedy defended the cuts, while Brennan’s question highlighted the legal and constitutional objections. The interview did not resolve that dispute, but it brought the competing arguments into sharp focus.
Then Kennedy Turned the Standard on Trump
The most revealing moment came when Brennan shifted from the proposed cuts to taxpayer-funded advertising.
She asked Kennedy about a government-funded commercial prominently featuring President Donald Trump and praising his leadership. The question echoed earlier controversy surrounding former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose department had spent $220 million on a border-security advertising campaign in which she appeared prominently.
Kennedy had previously criticized Noem’s campaign. Now, with Trump featured in another advertisement paid for by the federal government, Brennan asked whether that spending was appropriate.
Kennedy’s response was notable because he explicitly included his own political allies—and himself—in the principle he was defending.
“I don't think any public official, including President Trump or Kristi Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves,” he said.
He acknowledged that the White House viewed the issue differently but argued that public funds should not be used to promote individual politicians. He also suggested that politicians should not have buildings named after them while they are still alive.
That answer complicated any attempt to portray his position as simply a defense of the administration. Kennedy supported the proposed spending cuts, but he also applied his criticism of taxpayer-funded self-promotion to Trump.
The Real Takeaway From the Interview
The exchange was not a shouting match, nor does the published transcript establish that Brennan lost her composure or that Kennedy fact-checked a series of false statements from her. What it does show is a pointed discussion about economic priorities, congressional spending authority, and whether public money should be used to enhance a politician’s image.
Kennedy’s argument was straightforward: families are worried about affordability, government spending deserves scrutiny, and the rules should apply regardless of party.
Whether viewers agree with his assessment of the proposed cuts is a separate question. The legal dispute over executive spending authority and the debate over taxpayer-funded political advertising deserve examination beyond a few memorable television lines.
The moment worth watching is when Brennan moves from criticizing government spending in general to asking Kennedy about an advertisement featuring Trump himself. That is where the discussion becomes more complicated—and where Kennedy’s stated principle is tested against his own party’s leadership.
Watch the full interview through the link below to hear the exchange in context and decide how convincing each side’s argument really was.
