Mitt Romney (00:00):
… I would get involved in politics. I did not expect that public service would be part of my life. My dad's counsel to our family was, "Don't get involved in politics, unless your kids are raised and you're independent financially because you don't want to have to win elections to pay the mortgage." So I presumed those things would never occur. It didn't cross my mind.
(00:20)
And then something happened, which is I got asked by a friend, Kim Gardner, and another friend, Mike Leavitt, to come to Utah to help organize the Olympic Winter Games. And that, as they say, changed everything. This is where my public service career began, and this is where it ends. It's been an extraordinary 25 years taking me, obviously first, here in Utah, but then the journey took me through Massachusetts, where we had lived for a long time with our kids and my career was there, ultimately running for president, and then being able to come back and run for the United States Senate and becoming senator from Utah. I'm asked from time to time what was the most enjoyable of my public sector jobs, and the question is without question helping organize the Olympic Winter Games. And I am absolutely delighted that they're coming back to Utah. I hope I'm alive to see them. But Fraser Bullock is fantastic and will do a superb job, in my view, to get us ready for 2034.
(01:29)
The Senate has been an extraordinarily rewarding experience, I think, for me and hopefully for the state as well, which I was part of a group that was able to pass legislation that makes a difference for Utah and for the country. And that doesn't happen a lot. I mean, I think you all recognize this, and it's not something that's easy to popularize with the public at large, but when you read about a candidate and their list of accomplishments, they'll talk about legislation they introduced. That means it never got voted on or passed. They'll talk about something they voted for. Again, it means it didn't become law. They may talk about something that they did see become law, but they weren't key in helping organize it. And of course, the weakest of all is to say, "I fought for this," which is there's a lot of fighting that goes on without a lot of accomplishing. I was lucky enough to come together with a group of 10 people that got things passed into law, where the Senate voted for them, the House voted for them, the President signed them.
(02:39)
And so the infrastructure law with its provisions for broadband, for water, for wildfire relief, they became law. Our wildfire legislation became law. Our legislation on the Great Salt Lake and getting the Army Corps of Engineers to be involved in that, and the task force studies that are funded by that became law. And those were things I promoted and negotiated with the help of others in that group. The Electoral Count Act Reform. I don't know how important you think that might be, but the Electoral Count Act Reform, among other things, said the vice president doesn't decide who's the next president. And given the fact that right now the vice president is Kamala Harris, I would think Republicans will say, "Hey, good job there, Mitt and others who worked on that legislation." I also worked very hard to make sure that religious liberty protections were included in the marriage law and that firearm legislation promoted safety. So these are things that I worked on, I helped negotiate, and that became law, and I'm proud of that.
(03:41)
At the same time, I'm disappointed that things I wanted to do didn't get done. We as a country don't have an immigration law. How can that be, 30 years talking about it and not doing it? We also have not begun to balance our budget or get close to it. The debt continues to rise dangerously. We will ultimately have calamity in our country, unless we deal with the fact that we spend more than we take in. And one party wants to keep spending more and more; the other party wants to keep lowering taxes more and more. And guess what? If you lower revenues and increase spending, you're not going to ever come to a point where you balance your budget.
(04:21)
So some of those things are frustrations. I care very deeply about them and hope that my colleagues are able to take them on in a way that I was unsuccessful in accomplishing. But with that, I'll turn to you for hopefully any easy, simple questions that you have. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
Yeah, [inaudible 00:04:42]. You said just before the election that you weren't voting for Trump, but that you also were not making an endorsement because you want to preserve your ability to have an influence in the Republican Party in the future. So how do you feel about the current direction of the Republican Party under Trump, and how do you see yourself making a future impact?
Mitt Romney (04:58):
Well, the Republican Party really is shaped by Donald Trump now, and you'll find the House and the Senate members of the Republican Party pretty much following what he puts out there. I have to tell you, I agree with President Trump on most policy issues. There are probably a few that I don't, but overwhelmingly, we're on the same page. As a matter of fact, if you look at my record, when he was president, I voted with him, I think, even more than Senator Lee. So I'm a conservative, and he put in place by and large conservative policies on public lands, on spending, and a number of things. So I agree with a lot of what President Trump will do.
(05:33)
The areas I had difficulty with President Trump were character areas. The sexual assault decision by the court. What shall I say? A relaxed relationship with the truth. There are a number of things that I find to be very troubling on a character front, and that prevented me from supporting him.
(05:56)
What the party does going forward, we'll see as time goes on. I think so far, we have a sense that he's doing what he said he would do, which is you look at his cabinet appointments, and they're all over the map, all right? You have someone like RFK Jr., who's kind of a liberal, I mean a real liberal on most issues. Some he's not, but on most he is. It's like, "Well, that's interesting." Tulsi Gabbard, she was a Democrat and has kind of liberal views as well. So he's gotten people at different points of view, and that's kind of what he said he'd do. He is going to bring people in to shake things up, and shake things up, he is doing.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
Senator, do you at all fear any type of personal retribution from President Trump? I know that was the topic of an Atlantic article recently by McKay Coppins. For you or your family, do you have any fears of that?
Mitt Romney (06:47):
I think President Trump in his Meet the President [inaudible 00:06:51] a couple of days ago, or a couple of weeks ago, said he's focused on forward. I think that's probably the course he will take, and there's not something in my past that I'm particularly worried about someone taking a look at. I've been pretty careful in my life to follow the law.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Somebody also said in that interview that the January 6th committee should be jailed. You weren't on the Committee.
Mitt Romney (07:11):
Yeah, no, I wasn't on that committee.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
But [inaudible 00:07:15].
Mitt Romney (07:16):
Yeah, again, I don't know which things he will actually focus on or what his team will focus on. I think it would be a missed opportunity for him to promote his agenda in his first 100 days, for instance, if he spends time going after the past. And I think he's savvy enough to say, "Hey, I want to get stuff done. I want to be known for having done things." He's a one-term president now, or obviously it's second term, but a final term. He wants to have a legacy of being admired and respected, and spending your time going after the past is not going to do that as well as getting things passed. I mean, I think what you're going to see is he is going to stop the immigration mess. I mean, how in the world did
Mitt Romney (08:00):
… Joe Biden let immigration become the problem it's become. What was he thinking? I simply can't figure out why they handed such a political issue to the Republicans and to his opponents, but he did. I think Donald Trump will fix that, and I think he's going to take on other measures. I think he wants to bring manufacturing back to the country. We'll see if he's successful in doing that or not, but I think he will promote things that he said he was going to do when he was campaigning. And some things we'll mark down as hyperbole. I hope some of those things are, but you never know. So, time will tell.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
Senator, looking forward, several questions, first, do you consider yourself a Republican outsider now? Second, will you remain in the Republican Party? And third, will your primary residence be in Utah?
Mitt Romney (08:51):
Well, my primary residence is in Utah and continues to be. I am a Republican, consider myself a Republican. I'm a narrow slice, if you will, what we used to call the mainstream Republicans. The stream has gotten a little smaller. It's more like the main creek Republicans now, but there are a number of us. There are quite a few that view, as I do, that we need to get serious about reforming our mandatory spending. That means our entitlements and our taxing. I mean, I know there's some Republicans, for instance, that feel all tax cuts are good. I feel some tax cuts are good and promote growth, but I think some actually cost the government revenue, and we need to have enough revenue to get to a balanced budget and to reduce the debt.
(09:40)
I mean, I go on in this, I don't know that people care about it much, but we'll spend a trillion dollars this year on interest, more than on national defense. If we didn't have that interest, we would be able to buy three times as much military equipment as we're buying. We would be able to double, alternatively, social security payments. And we're going to pass a trillion a year on to our kids and grandkids. That's not going away. Only question is how much higher are we going to make it? That, for me, is something the Republican Party ought to be focused on. But I have high hope that the DOGE group, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, will find ways to economize, but I don't think they're looking at finding a trillion a year, and that's what we have to do, either in revenue or in spending.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
So, you will remain a Republican?
Mitt Romney (10:32):
Yeah. Oh, yeah.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
Okay. And in terms of the view as outsider, you talked about main creek versus main spring, and the creek has gotten very small.
Mitt Romney (10:44):
The creek is very small, have to look at it very carefully. At some point it's going to be under the sand. We'll have to dig down a little bit.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
And not to be pejorative here, but do you think the creek includes you and Liz Cheney and Dick Cheney?
Mitt Romney (10:58):
Oh, yeah. I can't speak for others, but I believe that I fall in the tradition of Ronald Reagan, and George Herbert Walker Bush, and George W. Bush, and John McCain. And I believe all of them would say they are proud Republicans and would agree on a whole host of issues. I mean, I'm a conservative, I'm a classic conservative, and that doesn't mean… I mean, my dad used to say that he's as progressive as Lincoln and as conservative as the Constitution, and I've always felt that's a good characterization. There's some areas where I'm progressive where people think, "Wow, you're pretty moderate on that." There are others where I'm pretty darn conservative. I'm one of those that believes we shouldn't be spending massively more than we take in, and that adding the amount of debt we're adding is a danger to our future, but that doesn't seem to catch. Interestingly, our state is the only state in the nation that ranked that as a number one issue when I ran in 2018. No other state did. And I think people here in Utah recognize this is important, and around the country less so.
Speaker 4 (12:07):
But in a relatively short period of time, you've kind of gone with [inaudible 00:12:10]. You've gone from being the party's standard-bearer, the nominee for the presidency, to being sort of an outsider, a main creek kind of Republican.
Mitt Romney (12:18):
Yeah, right.
Speaker 4 (12:20):
How did that happen, and do you think that's a healthy direction for the party to continue?
Mitt Romney (12:23):
Well, I disagree with it or I'd be in the other stream, all right? But I mean, I think what's happened is two things, which is that the Democrat Party had a coalition of, I'll call them pointy-headed liberal faculty at Harvard, right? And that type, if you will, the elite, the education elite, and then the working-class voters as well as minorities. That was their coalition. And a couple of things happened. One was some of these, if you will, elite progressives started saying some absolute nutty stuff. All right?
(13:01)
Defund the police. In the inner cities, the idea of defunding the police is about as crazy as you're going to possibly hear. And so they lost a lot of people living in the inner cities, including minorities. Open borders, allowing millions. The New York Times article two days ago said, what is it, eight million additional individuals came into the country, most illegally, under Biden? Hispanic individuals found that to be offensive. The whole transgender and biological males competing in girls sports, that drove a lot of working families and minorities out of the Democratic Party and moved them towards the Republican Party. And then Donald Trump and his rhetoric was only so good at drawing them in.
(13:51)
So, the Republican Party is now, I think if you look at the polling and demographics, the Republican Party is now the class of working America. It used to be Democrats. All the time I've been alive, it was Democrats. They had the working class voter. Now it's the Republican Party. A lot of people in the Republican Party have gone to the independent roles and line up with me on a whole host of issues, but don't line up with President Trump. I think the Democrat Party is in real trouble, by the way, because they've lost their base. I mean, yeah, they'll do well on campus, all right, and not necessarily with the students, but among the faculty. But they're not doing very well with the voters.
Speaker 5 (14:40):
Do you see any room for working across party lines anymore? Is there anyone in the new Congress that you think might [inaudible 00:14:43]?
Mitt Romney (14:43):
There's no need to. There's no need to for the next two years at least. And that's because Republicans will have the House, the Senate, and the White House. And so what's going to be done is done by the process notice reconciliation. It's kind of a detour around the 60- vote rule and the filibuster rule. And so Republicans will basically have free rein on all things that relate to spending and taxing. Major issues like reforming our immigration system, that will be harder to do. Maybe there will be some bipartisan effort. It's possible that President Trump could lead that kind of effort to say there are some things we all agree on.
(15:28)
We all agree that highly educated people that are going to school here in our country that want to stay ought be able to, if they've come from a foreign country, ought to be able to stay. And even President Trump, I think the other day, said that he thought DREAMers ought to be able to stay, if I read that correctly. So, there may be a way to actually get legislation on a bipartisan nature, but the next couple of years, I think, are going to be driven by Republicans. And then after that, who knows? Fundamentally, in my view, we're going to have
Mitt Romney (16:00):
… to deal with our entitlements. And there are arithmetically two ways of doing that. One, raising revenue, which is taxes on higher income people, or number two, cutting benefits, and no one wants to see that. And no one's going to cut benefits for anyone that's retired or near retirement. No one that I have ever spoken to that's elected wants to do that. But those are the two arithmetic things you'd have to do, and that's going to take presidential leadership and bipartisan effort, which I don't see coming in the next couple of years. But President Trump could surprise us.
Speaker 6 (16:32):
What do you think of your replacement, John Curtis? Do you think he'll be more along the lines of what you described, passing things, getting stuff done, or making noise?
Mitt Romney (16:40):
No, I think he's going to the Senate to do things, and I don't think he is someone who's focused on performance as much as he is focused on doing the job for our state. And he's not alone. There are a lot of senators, both sides of the aisle, that go there to get stuff done. The performers are more in the House, I think in part because they got to perform every two years, than in the Senate. But there are a lot of people in both houses that want to get things done, and he's one of them.
(17:15)
I think so far, he has made very positive impressions on the members of the Republican caucus. I've had a number of people, there are almost 50 of us in the Republican Senate group, I've had a number of senators come to me and say, sorry to see you go, but I'm really happy to see that your replacement is such a fine person and comes with such a great reputation, having served in the House as effectively as he has.
(17:42)
He's got a lot of people sort of giving him recommendations. And I think he will have an outsized impact in the Senate. One of the challenges of the Senate is of course, that it's run so much by seniority and that presents some challenges, but he'll be there a long time, I hope, and be able to have influence.
Speaker X (18:08):
Senator, as someone who wants to shape the future of the Republican Party, I'm curious, your thoughts on the influence of Trump once he can't be a candidate anymore, post 2028? Do you think this creek you're in now could eventually become a river? Is there room for that, or is the Republican party squarely the party of Trump [inaudible 00:18:26]
Mitt Romney (18:26):
Yeah, a lot depends on what the Democrats do. Some depends on what we as Republicans do. I would like to see the party return to more conservative principles and a principle-based, character-based priority in our party. And I think there's a prospect for that happening. But right now, there's kind of a, I mean for those of you that… I'm not a political scientist, I should note. I did take political science in college, one semester. It's the only college grade where I got a D, all right? So I'm not an expert in political science, but I do say that the Republican Party made up of working class Americans and Republican policy positions don't necessarily line up terribly well. So, we're as a party opposed to raising the minimum wage, not me, but as a party, we're anti-minimum wage. Well, but the working class voters want to raise the minimum wage, so our policy doesn't line up with our voters terribly well.
(19:29)
And unions, we as a party have been pushing back on unions and the NLRB. We don't want it run by progressives and so forth. Well, but our voting bloc actually kind of likes the NLRB making it easier for unions. So, there's kind of a fissure that exists between Republican voters and Republican policy, and that may present opportunities for some kind of realignment.
(19:55)
I think that the parties are going to have to realign at some point, and they will either follow Donald Trump and pursue that path or another. If Donald Trump has a successful presidency, which he very well may, as measured by the American people, then JD Vance is very likely to be the next Republican nominee. And he is a smart guy, well-spoken person, and will have a very powerful influence as well.
Speaker X (20:26):
Senator, speaking about the future, have you… I assume you've been thinking about what's next. Have you made any decisions?
Mitt Romney (20:33):
Yes, I'll be doing nothing. I say that jokingly. I will be working with young people probably in some college settings. I'll be speaking from time to time. I'm not going to be going back into business, but I'm not going to be a political person. I'm not… I was speaking earlier with some folks, which I said to them that as I look at people who've run and lost, like Mike Dukakis and others, and then people who… and Hillary Clinton… and then people who've run and won in the presidency like George Herbert Walker Bush, they by and large step away from politics and become involved in something of significance. Habitat for Humanity by Jimmy Carter. Clearly, Global Warming by Al Gore. George W. Bush, our veterans. So, I am more likely to pursue something of that nature, but I don't plan on being out there campaigning against this Republican or that Republican or this Democrat and trying to get the microphone again. My time on that political stage is over. Started here, ends here.
Speaker X (21:52):
What big issues, what causes would you like to endorse?
Mitt Romney (21:52):
Yeah, I don't know the answer to that at this stage. Frankly, it was Benjamin Franklin who was reported to have said to someone who asked, do we have a monarchy or a republic? He said, a republic if you can keep it. And for me, a big part of my life has been trying to find out how we can keep it.
(22:14)
And I think it was Lincoln in the Gettysburg address that said, raised the question about whether a nation of, by, and for the people would long endure. And history suggests that nations of, by, and for the people don't long endure. So, I will do things I think are going to promote the preservation of the Union and the cause of freedom, and that may well be in education with our young people. It may be in speaking to leaders in various communities.
(22:50)
One of the things that struck me through my career is the impact of an individual. That one person standing out can have enormous impact that people tend to follow, whether it's Gandhi or Martin Luther King or… I mean, it's amazing that one person that stands up, one person of character and courage that stands up and speaks can have enormous influence. So, I hope to encourage people to stand up and speak. And sometimes the consequence for them is not cheerful, initially. Think about Nelson Mandela in South Africa. But extraordinary. So, my confidence in the future of our country flows from those experiences.
(23:38)
I also think that our state has a lot to offer the country. Our state believes in balancing our budget, that's sort of a political thing, but also we believe in people getting married and having families. We believe that your most important occupation is as a parent. These are things I think the nation needs and is questioning
Mitt Romney (24:00):
… in ways that would be, I think, unfortunate for the country.
Speaker 7 (24:04):
Do you have any interest in being involved in the organization of the 2034 Olympics? Or are those days behind you?
Mitt Romney (24:11):
Yeah, I have full confidence in Frazier to do that. He is better prepared to do that than I am in that I helped organize the games, obviously, in 2002 with him and others as part of our team. But he has continued to be involved in games since then as a consultant to a number of other games. So he's surpassed my knowledge there. I'm happy to help in some way, but I'm kind of long of tooth to be telling him how to run the games. But what a fabulous recognition for Utah to have had the games in 2002 and then to have the world say, "We'd like you to do it again. Yours were so successful." As Dick Ebersol of NBC said, "the most successful winter games ever." And to get the games back and to be able to welcome the world again and to showcase, not just the beauty of the state, but the character of the state is something that I am absolutely delighted about.
Speaker 9 (25:10):
You have time for one more question.
Speaker 8 (25:10):
Senator, towards-
Mitt Romney (25:11):
We'll get two, I'll come back. Pardon?
Speaker 8 (25:13):
… towards the end of the service, John McCain was also considered an outsider, but as time has passed, his legacy has become one of someone who was able to work with both sides of the aisle. Now that your time has come to an end, what do you hope your legacy will be as that time has passed?
Mitt Romney (25:26):
Yeah, I hope, my legacy is that I live by and subscribe to my values, and I happen to believe that you devote yourself to a purpose in life if you want to have a fulfilling life. And my purpose is to help preserve the union and the country. That is my political purpose. And I believe I've done that in every way I knew how to do, helping the American people preserve the institutions that keep America the hope of the Earth. And I contributed to that. Did I single-handedly saved the union? Absolutely not. I'm not Abraham Lincoln, but I devoted myself as fully as I knew how to doing what was right for our country and for the people that I represented.
Speaker 7 (26:13):
You've been credited recently for your recognition of Putin and Russia as being a global threat, kind of mocked it, but now everybody's like, "Oh, wait, he was right." Are you concerned at all about the current administration or the incoming administration's position vis-a- vis Russia and what that means going forward [inaudible 00:26:35]?
Mitt Romney (26:35):
Yeah, I mean, I have not looked closely at Tulsi Gabbard's position. I know my colleagues in the Senate will spend time talking to her. Some of the things she said in the past gave me pause, but I haven't spoken with her, and so I don't really have a basis on which to make that assessment of her or other members of the Cabinet. I have to believe that the Trump administration will have clear eyes on what represent threats and who represents friends and allies. And at the time I made the comment about Russia, I mean, it was obviously the case, Russia was our geopolitical adversary. I actually didn't call it a threat. President Obama said that I called it a threat. I didn't say it was a threat, I said it was our geopolitical adversary, and it was. Every time we did something, they were on the opposite side.
(27:33)
On the UN, for instance, when we would be for something, they were on the other side. They were supporting the bad guys throughout the world. They were a geopolitical adversary. We weren't at war with them, and the adversarial nature of Russia has continued to be revealed. Right now, the greatest a threat would probably be from China just because it's so much stronger than Russia is. But Russia's also, today, given their military prowess and their military ambition and actions, you'd have to look at it as a threat as well. But there's an axis now, China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran that's of real danger to freedom. And I just note, I know you recognize this, but we are involved in the world because we Americans are better off when the world is at peace and when we're able to trade with one another and when we don't have to spend lives and treasure protecting ourselves. We're involved in the world.
(28:44)
The reason we care about what happens in Ukraine is we recognize that if what Russia does in Ukraine spreads to other places, it will be bad for us. It'll be bad for them too, of course, but it'll also be bad for us. We recognize that if China invades Taiwan, that'll be bad for us. It'll be bad for the Taiwanese, but we care about Taiwan in part because that's where most of our semiconductors come from. And a lot of stuff that we get come from there and we sell them things and we have this trade that goes on. But if the world gets closed down by invasions of authoritarians, the life in America will not be as good. We won't be as free. And one of the lessons of history is that authoritarians are never satisfied. They always want to conquer more. And usually, that's their downfall.
(29:39)
I mean, you know history as well as I do, probably better, but the idea of saying, "Oh, he just wants Ukraine, and then he'll stop." Well, we said that about Crimea, "He just wanted Crimea." No, he wants Ukraine. And by the way, if he gets Ukraine and if he takes Kiev at some point, he'll want more. He'll keep going. And that's not good for us because, ultimately, they come for us. So we're involved in the world clear-eyed about the ambition of Putin and Xi Jinping and these others in order to protect our interest. And I know people say, "Oh, why are we giving money to help Ukraine?" It's because it's in our interest to do so. It's a lot cheaper, particularly when there's none of our blood being spilled to help the Ukrainians fight against this authoritarian thug than it is to say, "Oh, let them just run all over Europe and have a huge impact on America and ultimately threaten us and have us have to spend extra trillions and trillions of dollars to try and defend ourselves and our military and blood, potentially."
(30:47)
So I mean, this whole isolationist idea, in my opinion, is a very short-term perspective. I mentioned this morning a quote that I just saw from Warren Buffett, which is, "The lesson you learn from history is we don't learn the lessons of history." And the lesson of history that I'm referring to is that authoritarians always want more. They're never satisfied. With that, you're shooing me off. That's that, guys. You never have to see me again. Take care.
Speaker 9 (31:27):
Thank you, guys.
Speaker 8 (31:27):
Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
Mitt Romney (31:27):
Thank you.