In many ways, Senator Lisa Murkowski is the last of a dying breed of politician. She eschews bombast, preferring to speak softly and with deliberation. In our hyperpartisan times, she is a proud Republican but has sided with Democrats on several crucial votes, notably to save the Affordable Care Act in 2017 and, more recently, to oppose the confirmation of Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense. She acknowledges she has never voted for President Trump but has also worked with him to expand oil and gas drilling in her native Alaska. In the closely divided Senate, she is courted by both sides of the aisle, which has made her powerful and also an object of hope and suspicion.
Murkowski did something in April very rare for her: She went (inadvertently) viral. At a meeting of nonprofit and tribal leaders in Alaska, in response to queries over cuts to the federal government, she responded that “we are all afraid” and said “retribution is real.” The remarks, captured on video, ricocheted across the internet and into the halls of power, where few politicians in her party have been bold enough to publicly acknowledge that it is often fear that keeps them loyal to Trump.
It was with all of that in mind that I sat down for two wide-ranging interviews with Murkowski. When we first spoke, the major political news of the week was the G.O.P.’s infighting over President Trump’s so-called Big, Beautiful Bill and the fallout between President Trump and Elon Musk. When we spoke again earlier this week, the president had just deployed Marines to Los Angeles in response to anti-ICE protests. We talked about all the tumult, but we began by discussing her new memoir, “Far From Home,” which publishes later this month and details Murkowski’s early days in Alaska, her historic 2010 Senate write-in victory after losing to a MAGA-like figure in the Republican primary and her 23 years as a senator in a brutal Washington.
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Amazon | iHeart | NYT Audio App
Normally, I understand why a politician has written a book. It’s in advance of a run for higher office, or it’s with an eye to their legacy. Your term, though, is not up for several years. So why did you write this book now? I don’t want to be president. But there was a story after 2010 with the write-in. The last time that had happened was in 1954 with Strom Thurmond. So there was a lot of interest in what happened in Alaska that could actually allow for this — the phoenix rising, because I was political roadkill after I’d lost that primary. But I didn’t have time, and I didn’t know how to write a book. After that write-in, I was returned to the Senate in a very unconventional way, without the ties or the burdens that may come with support from your party. So it was kind of a newfound, unleashed Lisa, if you will. So why now? I’m trying to offer a little bit of hope to people about a political process that seems to get more mired in partisan infighting with every passing day. And at the same time trying to explain that my groundedness, my centeredness in Alaska is kind of what keeps me in my place today.
I’d like to ask you about some big events that are happening in the Senate right now. Please feel free to be the unleashed Lisa that you mentioned! President Trump has given the Senate until July 4 to get the reconciliation bill, the Big, Beautiful Bill, to his desk. You’ve opposed the cuts to Medicaid, and you had unexpected company like Senator Josh Hawley, who is more of a populist. And then there are the people who are very much in the deficit hawk camp who want to see the tax cuts extended, but deeper cuts to Medicaid. I think there’s an overarching question: Do you think that as the Republican Party has become more working class, cuts like the ones to Medicaid will present more of an ideological crisis? Because Republicans have traditionally wanted tax cuts. That’s always been part of the Republican mantra. But the base that you have now is more working class, and they benefit from entitlements. Absolutely. And I think the president recognizes this. He said we shouldn’t be making cuts to Medicaid. We should be looking for waste, fraud and abuse. Well, OK. How are we defining waste, fraud and abuse? That’s part of what is going on with the debate right now. But you’re absolutely right. You look at those states that would be heavily impacted by Medicaid cuts. And so many of them are red states. They are states that have supported President Trump. There has been a shift, and I think you’re seeing that reflected in many of the comments coming from colleagues. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and the fact that Senator Hawley is in alignment with Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins on this issue has raised a few eyebrows.
I’m sure you’ve seen the social media war between the president and Elon Musk over the bill. By the time this interview is published, maybe they will have patched things up, or maybe it will be worse. But it actually speaks to something that has been a real concern, which is the power that Donald Trump gave to the richest man in the world. He invited him into the White House, he gave him the keys to the federal government, and now Musk and Trump are threatening each other with retaliation. What do you make of all this? I can’t spend my days trying to think through why President Trump has chosen to go in one direction or another. We have watched with great interest as a country how he, to use your words, invited the world’s wealthiest man into our government, and basically said, “You be the auditor here and figure out where the waste is.” As somebody who believes very strongly in the institutions of government and my role in the legislative branch, I didn’t particularly care for that. Congress has the role of oversight. And if we need to root out the waste, fraud and abuse, we need to be doing that. And in fairness, we need to be doing a much better job. Making sure that we are doing our job is part of my whole frame of reference every day. So I could get caught up in all of the comings and goings in the White House, but as I tell my kids, I’ve got a day job. I’m worried right now that our role when it comes to the legislative branch’s constitutional mandate, which is the taxing and spending, that we’re ceding everything to the executive. I’m not good with that at all.
I understand when you say you’ve got bigger issues to focus on, but what impact do you think Elon Musk’s threats will have on the work that you’re doing now on the bill? Because he is saying that he will use his vast resources to act against members who defy his wishes. So, that’s not just about Elon Musk having a Twitter fight with Donald Trump. That’s about trying to influence the work that you’re doing for the American people. People with money try to have that influence, and this is where Congress has got to stand up. And so whether it’s Donald Trump that says, you must vote for this bill, or Elon Musk that says you must not vote for this bill, we’ve got to do our job. We’ve got to make sure that we’re focusing not on “What is this going to mean for me? Am I going to be primaried?” If you’re that concerned about your security here in the Senate, maybe it’s not the place for you.
You recently went viral for a comment you made at a conference in Alaska. In response to a question from the audience, you said, “We are all afraid” of retaliation, and that it made you anxious to use your voice. Can you explain what you meant by that? I didn’t say that we’re all afraid of retaliation. I did say we’re all afraid because I was in a room of about 500 nonprofits, many of whom had received notices that their grants had been canceled or frozen. There was just so much uncertainty. Not only the grants — they couldn’t find anybody at an agency to even answer their question as to what was happening. Were they going to lose their employees? Were they going to be able to continue to provide services for vulnerable women and kids? Were they going to be able to continue to build out that small hydro project so that they could finally get that village off diesel? Everyone was on edge and afraid.
And the question to me was, What do you say to those who are afraid? And it was one of those moments where you’re looking out to this sea of people, and they needed to hear the honest answer that not only do I hear how afraid you are, but we are all afraid of this uncertainty. We are all afraid of what may be coming next because we do not know. And then I said: Retaliation is real. I wasn’t saying anything that was new to anybody, because people were seeing that, whether it was retaliation to universities or to individuals or at the time, the targeting of specific law firms. And so I acknowledged what people were feeling. And it made the news.
It sure did. Because it seemed like nobody was willing to verbalize what everyone was feeling. And I think sometimes, as elected officials, we feel we have to be that strong voice. We have to pretend that everything is OK. I raised two boys. We fly a lot. And I can recall one trip we were flying, and there was a lot of turbulence. I needed to be strong for the boys, and I came up with some crazy story about, oh, you know how when we go down the road and it’s just really bumpy and we hit that one pothole? It’s just like that. We’re just going through this bumpy, bumpy air. It’s fine. And inside I’m screaming, “We’re gonna go down!” So sometimes you need to be that strong figure and tell everybody it’s going to be fine. Other times, it’s OK to tell your kids: You know what? This is kind of scary right now.
I’d like to talk about your path to politics, because in your book you say it shapes so much of who you are. You were born into a political family. Ah, no. When I was born, my dad was in banking. He didn’t enter politics until, I think he was 45.
You also didn’t become a politician until you were in midlife. How do you think that affected you and your ability to legislate that you had a whole life before you got political power? It made all the difference in the world. I knew that what I was doing, in terms of my government service, was important. But it didn’t define me. I always knew that if I were to quit, if I were to leave, if I were to lose, I would have a pretty great life to go back to. And so that has always been very freeing.
The other thing that really comes through in the book is how much you don’t respect Sarah Palin. You write that you cringed when she was campaigning as John McCain’s vice-presidential candidate and that you regret not putting your own name forward, because you thought at the time that they’d never choose someone from Alaska. Actually that was my son’s regret. He was like, Mom, you need to tell John McCain that he needs to select you to be vice president. And I said, no way. We come from a state where there’s only three electoral votes. It’s never going to happen. And then, of course, John picks Sarah Palin. Nic still holds that over me. But it’s interesting. Sarah Palin is really an extraordinary figure in Alaskan history in terms of how she came on the scene, small-town mayor.
And then in 2006, she ended up defeating your father and became governor. That in and of itself was not anything that I should have held against her. And I didn’t. But she was always kind of testing the waters to see if the Senate was going to be her next step. And so when you’re the senator and you get the sense that she’s checking out the job, that caused some level of, I don’t know if it was friction, but —
You’re also very different politicians. Very different.
You write that she was sort of a precursor to the Tea Party movement, and in some ways to the populist MAGA movement that we’re seeing now. That she was kind of the O.G., if you will, of those movements. She was. She had an incredible following. There was a magnetism to her that is not unlike what we see now with President Trump in terms of that populist appeal to an individual. We didn’t have a personal relationship. But there were some human moments that I still think back on. Despite all that I may have said about how I didn’t think that she had curiosity about deep issues, as a mom and as a woman, we shared some openness about what it means to be in hard jobs when you have families and you don’t have the time to have coffee with your friends or just be a real person. And so, I think there are some who think there’s just this intense dislike. We’re just very, very different personalities. But she’s a good mom.
You link Sarah Palin to Joe Miller, who in 2010 was the Tea Party candidate who challenged you in the primary and won. And then you launched that historic write-in campaign, and you kept your seat. You say in the book, if Joe Miller were running now, he’d win. Can you explain what you mean? Well, times change, right? And Miller was very, very conservative in his views and very combative. Some of the things that Alaskans really found distasteful were his aggressive approach to handling questions, handcuffing a journalist because he was offended by the questions. And at the time, it was shocking. You’re a candidate. You’re putting yourself out for the voters to review and determine whether you’re worthy to serve. Just a very arrogant approach. He was a Tea Party conservative, I think more in line with the MAGA camp right now. And so it’s a different environment. And I think that it could have had a different outcome.
Why do you think that’s happened? What has changed so much that a man was reviled back then for actions that now are celebrated? The MAGA movement is very real. It has gone beyond just President Trump himself. And so there is a greater loyalty, perhaps an unquestioning loyalty. You can do just about anything, and your supporters still stick with you.
When you look at your colleague Senator Joni Ernst, who just said in regard to people expressing concern over cuts to Medicaid that “we’re all going to die” and then doubled down in a video basically making fun of those who were concerned about her comments — there’s a different attitude politically that people are adopting in order to break through and communicate with the public, even from someone who’s normally quite sober, like Joni Ernst. It is different. Think about some of the things in the recent news — the whole issue with Secretary of Defense Hegseth and that Signal chat. Instead of saying, Maybe that wasn’t the smartest move, he doubles down on the defensive. I take it back to some of the things in my book when I speak about the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. What was reported was that President Trump was not impressed with Kavanaugh’s performance until he was loud, angry and in self-defense. That was the thing that actually turned me off most directly. You’re right that something is changing. I think what has happened is we are not only more accepting of confrontational behavior, we are expecting it. When did civil society become so uncivil? When did we cross that threshold where it is now OK to be wholly partisan, I mean, wholly, wholly partisan? We used to celebrate bipartisanship. Now you’re fraternizing with the enemy.
You’ve talked in this conversation about how you feel the Senate is not acting as a sort of check on the executive. Congress. The whole Congress needs to to be more of a check.
I want to ask you about President Trump’s conflicts of interest, specifically his memecoins — his use of his office to reward investors. Do you see that as corruption, and should Congress be doing something about that? Does it look bad to invite substantial investors to a dinner in the White House to promote your Bitcoin? [It was a memecoin.] Yeah, it looks bad. Is it corruption? No. I am one who believes that it is right to hold your elected officials, particularly those at the highest levels, to the highest standards. And so appearances of impropriety matter. But we’ve kind of come to this point where it’s almost like, whatever.
I can hear people listening to this and going: But you’re a senator. You shouldn’t be saying “whatever.” I’m saying that the outcry that you would receive from a constituency is muted. Like we’ve become numb. If you have violated a law, we’re seeing these matters then go before the court. But when it’s something that you just would not have seen before and now it’s like, well, you know, that’s just what we’re seeing. It’s not just that it has been done, but that it is viewed as not surprising.
I can hear in your voice, and maybe I’m reading into this, but a sort of — Sadness?
Yes, sadness. Yeah. Maybe it’s because I’ve been here in Washington for over two decades now. And I’ve been through multiple presidents, some I really liked and some that I didn’t really like that much. There were policy things that we would disagree on or we would really celebrate, but with a few failures, character, the integrity of the individual was not something that we would call into question. There was a time when we just had higher expectations of integrity and tolerance and manners. I don’t know. I try not to sound like everybody’s mom, but it bothers me.
Do you think this will be your last term in the Senate? It was an interesting conversation with my family to decide if we were going to run this last time. It was kind of a natural transition, just about 20 years. And it was surprising because I fully anticipated all of them to say, All right, you’ve had a good run. But every one of them said, If you have the energy and the desire to do it, you’ve got our blessing. I’ve got another four years left. So I’m going to evaluate it in another two years and see where we go.
Five days later, Senator Murkowski and I spoke again.
So much has happened. Last week we were talking about Elon Musk. This week we have protests in California, President Trump talking about possibly jailing the governor and the Marines mobilizing on American soil. So I think I’m just going to start with asking you how you’re seeing what’s happening. You said it, it’s been a week. What we’re seeing in Los Angeles right now is deeply disturbing. We recognize the role of peaceful protests in healthy democracies. But what we’re seeing with a level of violence against law enforcement, destruction of property — wrong. But what I think so many of us are concerned with is what we are seeing in response to that. President Trump, without working through the governor of California, calling up the National Guard to come into Los Angeles and then the deployment of Marines. I think it’s fair to say unprecedented in terms of a response and one that I find deeply concerning. We do have provisions, we have laws, we have an understanding that our military is not to be used on our own people. So is this a test from President Trump in terms of his authorities? One has to wonder.
Last week, we discussed your concerns about the direction of our politics, the partisanship, the lack of decorum. And there is, as I’m sure you’re aware, this larger concern among many Democrats and independents about the state of our democracy. In Alaska, these are your voters too, because of the makeup of the state and the way that ranked-choice voting works. Are you worried about our democracy and how power is being wielded by this government? I think we as Americans should always be worried about our democracy. Every day, we need to fight for democracy. I just didn’t really think it was going to be this fight against ourselves that we’re seeing right now. This whole beautiful notion of the separate but equal branches of government, the fine balance that we have that outlines the individual powers of the executive, of the legislative, of the judiciary — it’s tenuous. We always kind of find our level of equilibrium. But I’m talking to a lot of people that are asking me if it’s just their imagination or if the equilibrium is so out of balance, we will not regain it. I refuse to believe that we are not able to regain it. But I think it’s dangerous for us in the legislative branch right now, when we are not standing up for our roles under the Constitution, and we effectively cede to the executive.
You’re speaking in sort of vague terms. The executive is Donald Trump. Do you think President Trump wants to be an authoritarian leader? I don’t know if he is looking to be an authoritarian leader or if it is Donald Trump being Donald Trump and that we as a country have said that’s the type of leader that we want right now. This is the type of leader that we got behind and the country voted for.
We know through reporting that a lot of what we’re seeing by this administration has been planned for a while. Many of the people in this administration looked at Hungary and other countries with strongmen leaders for ideas on how to amass more central power, going after places they see as liberal bastions like universities and law firms and the media. Do you see that when you look at what is happening? [Long pause.] I don’t know how I want to respond to that, because I’ve said in my book that I didn’t think that Donald Trump was able to divine the direction that he did in his first administration. Now having had the benefit of four years to be thinking about what he wanted to do, how he wanted to do it, working with those who wanted to see that done, do I think that this is more clearly planned and orchestrated? Absolutely.
There was a long pause there, and you were very careful about the words you used. Can you tell me when you’re answering a question like that, what goes through your mind? Well, first of all, I’m careful because I know that my words matter because I have been critical of President Trump when I feel like the criticism is merited. Some of my colleagues may disagree when we’re in quiet conversation but are not willing to say it out loud. And I have ventured out, but I don’t want to say things just to be meanspirited. I don’t want to say things that I really haven’t given consideration to. And so, I do pause and I do think about, what are the right words to say? And again, I am very cognizant of the fact that President Trump was returned to office. There was nobody arguing about whether or not he won or didn’t win. In my state, he is quick to remind folks that he won by a significant margin, and there are many people who feel very strongly about him. And I am supportive of many of his initiatives, particularly when they come to resources. So, it’s not that you’re trying to walk this line where I don’t offend anybody because I think I manage to offend people equally on both sides. Sometimes because I have spoken out and sometimes because I haven’t spoken out enough.
You’re getting at something here, because fairly or unfairly, people look at you and they see someone who is either standing up for the things that she believes in or someone who is equivocating at moments when perhaps more is called for. I actually talk about that a fair amount in the book, saying that oftentimes I’m not well understood. People can’t figure it out. They’ll listen to me talk about the impacts of climate change on my state. And then they’ll see that I’ve just introduced a bill to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And they look at that and they say, well, that’s absolutely, positively inconsistent or hypocritical. But if you know me and you understand where I’m coming from, you would say, Oh, no, that actually makes sense.
I did not support Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense. And I got many people who contacted me and said: “Good for you, thank you. I think that that was absolutely the right vote. You’re doing great.” And then the next nominee that comes up, I vote for him or her and the response is just pure vitriol. Like: “We thought that you were with us. We thought that you understood how bad all of these nominees are.” And I’m looking at it from the perspective of, has the individual disqualified themselves one way or another in my view? I’ve got to balance that, but I’ve also got to balance the fact that I have said that presidents are by and large entitled to have their cabinet.
Do you regret the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. vote? Well, I’m mad at Robert Kennedy Jr. because of this announcement with the vaccine board.
He’s dismissed the entire board. And in the hearings he basically made it understood that he was going to leave it alone. He said that he’s trying to restore the credibility or the trust in the board. I don’t think this is how you do it, because it makes it look like now he’s going to put in everybody of his liking, which is not how you restore trust. So, yeah, I don’t like that.
I guess the people who might be critical of you would say: Understanding that you feel that the cabinet is under the purview of the president, Kennedy is someone who has always made it clear what his views on vaccines are. Well, but keep in mind that there are other things that he is charged with as secretary of health and human services where I actually agree with him. I’ll tell you one of the things we have had a good connection on: As the secretary of health and human services, he is also head of the Indian Health Service. Very important for my state where we have half the tribes in the country. And I’ll tell you, when they announced those first layoffs with the probationary staff, Kennedy called me up on a Saturday morning. I was in Alaska. And it was early my time, but he called me up to say, They told me that I was supposed to find 10 percent cuts across the board for I.H.S., and I told them I wouldn’t do it, that I.H.S. has chronically been underfunded, we cannot go backward, and I’m not going to do that.
So I’m not going to be able to find folks within a Trump administration, a Biden administration, Obama administration, a Bush administration, where I’m agreeing with all of the nominees that are out there. But what I’ve got to figure out is how I can work with these people, how I get them to return my calls, how I could get them to figure out how we’re going to get the permits for the halibut and the sablefish that Secretary Lutnick has no interest in. I’ve got to figure out how to interest him and make a connection.
What I’m hearing you say is that you’re not interested in being anyone’s savior or villain. Believe me, I do not enjoy taking pot shots just so I can get in the news. And being the hero is not a position that I want to be in. I want to be helpful. I want to be there for the people that I serve. And I’ve gotten myself in an unlikely spot where, in an effort to just say things as they are, people are looking to me for answers in different areas that I certainly hadn’t anticipated. It’s not necessarily something that I’m welcoming, but if I can do right by Alaska, speaking as I feel is right and appropriate and timely, that’s what I’m going to do.
Do you worry sometimes that in focusing on sablefish and all these things that are important for your constituents, you might miss the broader question of what is happening to this country? I think I get my strength to do the hard things on the big things by knowing that I can help the fishermen back home. It’s not one at the expense of the other, but I have to get my reservoirs built up. When I get that thank you, we were able to get permits to get out there on the water on the day that I paid my crew to do it, I know that I’m doing something right. And when you know you’re doing something right, it makes it easier to face the storm. So it’s a fair question, and you’ve framed it in a way that I perhaps had not thought of. I need more hours in my day, days in my week, to do everything. But I can’t lose sight that the fisherman that’s counting on me is also counting on being free in this country, on living in a place where he knows that we remain a country of laws and that nobody is above the law, and that his safety and the freedoms of his family are going to be appreciated.
This interview has been edited and condensed from two conversations. Listen to and follow “The Interview” on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, iHeartRadio, Amazon Music or the New York Times Audio app.
Director of photography (video): Tre Cassetta
Lulu Garcia-Navarro is a writer and co-host of The Interview, a series focused on interviewing the world’s most fascinating people.
The post Lisa Murkowski Says ‘It’s Dangerous for Us in the Legislative Branch’ appeared first on New York Times.
