Chuck Grassley is old school — and that’s not just because he’s 91 years old.
The Iowa Republican is the longest-serving current member of the U.S. Senate, and as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has become famous for his fierce defense of congressional oversight powers. It’s something of a lost art, but Grassley often butted heads with previous FBI directors like Robert Mueller and Christopher Wray in his demand for answers from the law enforcement agency.
Grassley hasn’t yet formally endorsed Kash Patel, President Donald Trump’s controversial pick to lead the FBI, but he’s clearly a fan. In an interview with the Playbook Deep Dive podcast, Grassley lamented the lack of common sense in Washington, and said Patel would bring some.
Still, asked whether he had concerns with the “enemies list” Patel included in a previous book and the widespread concern that Patel would weaponize the FBI to seek retribution for Trump, Grassley demurred.
“I think it’s pretty clear that if I don’t like the use of the FBI for political weaponization, I don’t want Kash Patel to do that,” Grassley said.
Grassley also had previously said Trump should not pursue a wide-ranging purge of inspectors general — which the president did late Friday night.
Grassley’s response was relatively muted, saying, “There may be good reason the IGs were fired. We need to know that if so. I’d like further explanation from President Trump.” He also noted Trump had ignored the law requiring Congress get 30 days of notice before firing any of the government watchdogs.
In a wide-ranging discussion, Grassley also discussed immigration policy, aging in politics, stealth bipartisanship in the Senate and why Democrats are likely to rebound more quickly than it seems.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity by Deep Dive Producer Kara Tabor and Senior Producer Alex Keeney. You can listen to the full Playbook Deep Dive podcast interview here:
Listen to this episode of Playbook Deep Dive on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
I want to start with what has really been the news this week, which is President Donald Trump coming back into the White House. I spent the last couple of days in the White House. I was in the Capitol Rotunda. Does it feel different this time around for you?
From the standpoint of the first Trump administration and the second Trump administration, the difference is between day and night because you had a person that didn’t know anything about Washington. I don’t think he was planning on being elected in 2016. He was elected, had to come to town and get things rolling.
I think they actually thought sometime during the summer that there’s a darn good chance that there’d be another President Trump. And I think they started planning the transition and knew that there’s a real chance and they weren’t going to make any of the mistakes that they made in 2017. That’s bearing fruit. It was the 22nd of February before I was able to get [Jeff] Sessions confirmed for attorney general. Looks like we’ll have Pam Bondi confirmed by the first week of February.
I think you’ve got a President Trump that’s more confident about what kind of a president he wants to be, what he wants to do, but not only what he wants — I think he’s got a pathway to get it done. On Jan. 20, 2017, I don’t think any of those things were much settled in his mind. I think you have a more confident President Trump now than you did in 2017.
But it also seems the Republican Party is more unified behind him than it was in 2017. And Democrats seem to lack a clear, coherent message against Donald Trump this time around.
I think that we Republicans ought to be cautious about what appears to be disarray in the Democratic Party, because I think they have the ability to reunify and get back. They’re going to be a strong minority. They don’t look like it today on Jan. 22, but I’ll bet Jan. 22 of 2026, it’ll be a whole different show. It’ll take them a while to get there, but we can’t take anything for granted that we’re going to have a weak Democratic Party.
What gives you that feeling that they are going to get things together? Because every Democrat that I’ve spoken with feels the opposite.
They have the ability to sing off the same song sheet. That’s something Republicans are very bad about. I mean, it may not appear to you today that it’s that bad of a situation for Republicans. But I’m telling you, Democrats are more unified and on the same message. It may not appear today, but they’ll get back there and get back fast.
We are sitting in the hearing room where you are chair. As I was preparing for this interview, one thing that I heard from even Democrats is that you’re known to give Democrats a lot of space to make their own points in confirmation hearings. Is that going to be the case this time around if they try to gum up the works on the president’s nominees?
Sure, of course. Because it’s this simple: It takes a lot longer to shut people up than it does to let them talk. That’s why the Democrats are going to get a fair shake from me, and I’m going to let them spill out all the good and the bad that they want to spill out.
You were at the White House with President Trump on Tuesday. Talk to me a little bit about that meeting. You tweeted about it being the first time in a little bit you’d been invited there.
There was as much decision-making as probably should be made, but it was very productive from this standpoint that Republican Senate and House leadership gets together with a new president to start a conversation. But there’s several key decisions that need to be made.
What are those?
We should have two reconciliation bills or one reconciliation bill. A president helping us maneuver through that disagreement is very important. And Trump’s a good person to do that, I think.
He has in the past kind of said he doesn’t really care. He wants these things to happen. So one bill, two bills, you guys figure it out. But did he give any signal on what he really wants to happen on the one bill versus two bill approach?
I don’t think I should answer that question.
It’s just me and you!
I think within a private conversation between a few members of Congress and the president, we aren’t sworn to secrecy, but we generally have a rule in our own caucuses here on Capitol Hill: You can speak what you say. You can’t say what other people say.
So what did you say?
I’m glad to tell you that. I kind of spoke at the 50,000-foot level that we have a mandate from the last election. We have to have at least 51 votes in the Senate, 218 in the House. And these meetings are very important. We need more of these meetings.
You said there weren’t enough decisions made. Do you feel like more decisions should be made early on as you guys start getting really underway?
I think we should do like the Democrats did in 2021. By March, they had their first major piece of legislation passed. And I may have disagreed with that piece of legislation, but they knew how to maneuver and show that they were delivering on what they considered the mandate of the 2020 election.
I want to get to some of these committee hearings. You obviously have Pam Bondi that just went through the committee. You said that she might be confirmed by the first week of February. Kash Patel is next for FBI director. You’re a yes on both of them, right?
Well, I don’t actually say that until after the hearing. So now I’ve said it for Pam Bondi.
Let me tell you why I’m cautious not to say yes before the hearing. It goes way back to the Clinton administration. Two secretaries of Treasury — one of them, I said, “This is an outstanding person I will vote for.” She didn’t pay her taxes, so she had to withdraw. The second one comes up and I said, “That’s a good one. Yes, I’m going to vote for her.” She had some immigration issue that was a problem for a housekeeper or something. So I’ve learned a lesson.
You’ve learned your lesson! You’ve learned to keep it quiet until the hearing’s over.
But I did meet with Kash in my office.
My oversight of the FBI — and it isn’t just the political weaponization of the FBI. That’s reason enough. But also, I told him I’ve sent 58 oversight letters to the FBI that I either have not had an answer or [only have] a partial answer. And these are the things I’m disgusted by with Cabinet people. I want somebody that’s going to help me do my constitutional responsibility of oversight.
And let me explain oversight. We not only pass laws, but you learn in eighth grade civics that we’ve got a responsibility of checks and balances to make sure that the executive branch of government actually enforces the laws according to the oath that they take. So that’s my job and I do a lot of oversight. And I want Kash Patel to get me the answers to these questions and provide me the documents.
Now, that doesn’t deal with a lot of policy. That doesn’t deal with all the controversy of what he maybe said 10 years ago, or something he wrote in his book. It doesn’t deal with what he’s going to do to transform the FBI. But whether it’s RFK or whether it’s the CIA, I think there’s a lot of things in this town that need to be shaken up. And I may not approve of all these people, but they’re coming in to deliver on a mandate of this election, which people are fed up with the way Washington is going. You’ve been in this town long enough to know that it’s an island surrounded by reality. The common sense that we have in the Midwest, we need more of it in Washington, D.C. And I think these people are going to bring it in. Kash is one of those.
Listen to this episode of Playbook Deep Dive on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You talked about oversight and that constitutional responsibility that you take very seriously. There are people that do have really strong concerns about one, the fact that Christopher Wray is clearly being fired and not finishing out his 10-year term. And that Kash Patel has written this book that you alluded to that had this enemies list and has talked about retribution and going after the investigators over the last four years. Do you have concerns about any of that at all?
Well, listen, one of the things about Christopher Wray retiring, he announced he’s going to retire a few days after I sent him a nine-page letter that built out all the letters and all the concerns I had about why he hadn’t been doing his job to answer my investigation letters. And so that sort of snubbing your nose at the Congress in the oversight response, it reminds me of when Mueller was head of the FBI. One time we had a meeting with a few senators and he kept talking about “our institution, our institution.” I said to Mueller, “It’s not your institution. We’re all working for the people of this country.”
But you don’t have any issues with what Kash Patel has written in that book, the enemies list, even though he has seemingly promised to make sure you get what you need for your investigation?
I think it’s pretty clear that if I don’t like the use of the FBI for political weaponization, I don’t want Kash Patel to do that.
We were in the Rotunda when Trump got sworn in. Minutes before the power was changed over, now-former President Joe Biden used more presidential pardon power to pardon members of his family. He says he was doing that to protect his family from Donald Trump, Kash Patel, Pam Bondi.
I’m curious if you think that after that, maybe presidential pardon power should be revised. Do they have too much ability to do whatever they want?
I think it’s wrong the way it’s been used recently.
By President Biden?
Or go back to President Clinton pardoning somebody that lived their life in Switzerland because they didn’t want to be arrested and imprisoned in the United States. I forget the wealthy guy, what his name is. But I think the Constitution would have to be amended to change it. And I think it’s very clear that what Biden did, even if I disagree, or Clinton what he did, or maybe some future president, I think they’ve got the power to do it.
President Trump pardoned hundreds and hundreds of people that were here on Jan. 6, some of them that did commit violent acts. Do you have any concerns about those that committed violent acts against police officers while they were here, who were arrested for that and tried?
I can’t question the president’s authority to do that because I just explained that to you. And I don’t think it’s as unprecedented as the Biden pardons of people like [Anthony] Fauci that’s never been accused of anything. Some president could say, “We’ve got 340 million people in this country. I’m going to pardon them all.”
That’d be nice.
That doesn’t make sense. You might say it doesn’t make sense to pardon Fauci if he hasn’t been accused of anything. But it’s a way of protecting people. It’s an abuse of the authority, but I think it’s constitutional.
We’re here again in the Judiciary Committee hearing room. You’re also on the hook for immigration policy. Immigration is going to be a part of the reconciliation plans that you are going to be working on. What type of immigration reforms do you want to see in the reconciliation bill?
Let’s just deal with reconciliation because that’s pretty narrow, and then the other things. General immigration reform, if you want to talk about that, that’s more difficult to talk about.
But this is doing things that would finish the wall, maybe make some changes in asylum. Things of that nature. Pretty minimal compared to the big problem of whether it’s 10 or 20 million people that have entered our country against our law.
If you’re talking about comprehensive immigration, what makes it so difficult to do that? You’ve got people on the right, maybe 10, 15 Republicans that say, “I’m not going to vote for anything unless you get all 20 million people out of this country.” And then you’ve got people on the left — maybe 15 or 20 — who say, “I’m not going vote for any immigration bill that doesn’t make everybody citizens yesterday.” It’s tough to put together.
The last time this happened that you could get 65 or 70 votes for a comprehensive immigration bill was 2013. The last time we had an immigration debate on the floor of the Senate was when I got a bill put together as chair of the committee to legalize the DACA kids and we couldn’t get 60 votes to get it up [past a filibuster]. So it’s very difficult to get immigration legislation up.
A number of Democrats voted for the Laken Riley bill; is that a signal that they may be more interested in being tougher on illegal immigration?
I think partly, yes, partly. But I think it’s difficult to be any Republican or Democrat and say that we shouldn’t change laws that allow people with a criminal record to come into this country, not only with a criminal record, but committing a crime by coming here against our will, against our law, and then committing a murder or another crime. I think the two things have to go together, what you said and what I just said.
Do you worry at all, if there are mass deportation raids and we’re seeing people taken out of their homes, about the blowback against President Trump or Republicans? Will people say there is not compassion for some of these folks who have been here their whole lives?
First of all, people that are on the terrorist watch list, people that have a criminal record, and then 1.5 million people who have been adjudicated that they are not entitled to asylum — it’s going to take a long time to deport them. Then ask the question at that point, because I think we’ll have a really good feel about how this is working when you can deport the people that you don’t have to give any public explanation for deporting them. It’s just common sense. They should be deported.
So you’re saying the folks who haven’t committed crimes are at the very least, safe for now?
Well, think of the big job of just getting rid of the terrorists, getting rid of the people with criminal elements and 1.5 million people — I think we’ve got to see how successful that is before you move on to the people who maybe the only crime they committed was entering our country illegally.
We have this country that feels more partisan than ever before. And because of that, Congress also feels more partisan than ever before. Do you worry about that partisanship bleeding further into Congress?
It’s a major problem now, more so than it’s ever been in the 45 years I’ve been in the Senate. But it’s not as bad as what my constituents see because — I’m not saying you as a journalist, I’m saying generically journalists — they always like to talk about disputes and disagreements in Congress because that gives you more attention.
So I always use [Sen. Dick] Durbin and Grassley working together on the First Step Act. We worked for years to get that bill passed. First major change of criminal justice reform in 25 years. Anyway, nobody knows anything about Grassley and Durbin working on the First Step Act. But if we have disagreement on immigration, everybody knows about it.
I think that people get the impression that Republicans don’t talk to Democrats. And that’s not true. There’s not a single Republican or Democrat that I dislike in the U.S. Senate. I don’t think any of them dislike me. And if they do, I don’t want to know who they are.
You are the longest-serving GOP senator in history. You’re 91. Congratulations. But what do you say to people who do have concerns about members of Congress serving at your age?
I think the voters take care of that. I think that my age has been an issue in at least three reelections, and I win by big margins. And how do you question the people of Iowa for my being reelected at 91? I told them during the election, “I’m number one in the Senate on seniority. If I’m president pro tempore, that’s an important leadership position.” I said Iowa’s number one on my agenda and that’s my campaign. Let the people decide.
What do you think the difference is for you in Iowa versus the concerns that Democrats had about Joe Biden? And that some of them have about Donald Trump’s age too?
I think the only explanation is that age is just a number. I think people can have those concerns, but it’s how people function. I think that last summer demonstrated that enough people were concerned about Biden that he wasn’t renominated. And I think the same thing about Chuck Grassley being reelected. People looked at me and said that I should be reelected. People looked at Biden, said he shouldn’t be president.
What would signal to you, other than the voters themselves, that it’s time to go enjoy the spoils of all the work that you’ve done?
I think family.
I discussed it with my five kids and wife of 70 years a long time before I decided to run for reelection. I think maybe a year before I decided to run, a couple of my kids said, “I think you ought to retire.”
Did they?
And a year later, those same kids said, “I think with the condition of the country, you ought to run again.”
Last question: What keeps you up at night?
Peace around the world. I thought after we broke up the Soviet Union, that’d bring in a whole new world. And it did for a while. But there’s a lot of leaders that want more. And you wonder why? Why does China want Taiwan? Why does Putin want Ukraine? Why does he want to reestablish the Soviet Union? That’s my concern because the number one responsibility of the federal government is the national security for the American people.
Another thing that keeps me up is — it seems like the weakening of the American family. It’s the cornerstone of our society. Whatever we can do about that is very, very important to me.
And I think the growth of secularism within our society as opposed to people worshiping God in their own way, because I think there’s got to be something bigger than just yourself, or bigger than just 340 million Americans. There’s got to be some certainty to life. It can’t be as simple as “question authority.” It can’t be as simple as, “Just do it.” There’s got to be a measure that you measure yourself against, and I think that’s a being beyond humanity. I call it “God.” For me, it’s following Jesus Christ.
Listen to this episode of Playbook Deep Dive on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
