This is the sixth in a series of in-person, in-depth New Jersey Globe interviews with New Jersey’s 14 members of Congress. The interviews will be published as-is, with editing for length and clarity.
This week, the Globe spoke with Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-Montclair), a three-term Democrat from Essex County who serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. The Globe sat down with Sherrill to talk about Ukraine funding, abortion referendums, a potential 2025 gubernatorial campaign, and more.
Previous interviews: Rep. Andy Kim, Rep. Chris Smith, Rep. Bill Pascrell, Rep. Rob Menendez, Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman
New Jersey Globe: You came into Congress a little over five years ago as a frontliner, as someone who had just flipped a district, as someone who had brought Democrats into the majority. You’re now a pretty established member of the Democratic caucus – you’ve got a safer seat, you’ve got the knowledge that comes with being in Congress for a while. How do you track that shift? How do you approach things differently now than you did when you first got here?
Mikie Sherrill: I really do think it’s remarkable , as you start out on an endeavor, how much that beginning informs your view of it. I don’t think, until I was in Congress, I realized how much my time in the military had shaped some of my vision of how you can get stuff done, and how you can build broad coalitions – how you can have a mission that doesn’t rely on Democrats or Republicans, but just a vision of what you’re doing for the country. It’s been interesting for me to work with other people who share those sentiments, many of them coming from the national security space.
All that’s to say that it doesn’t feel that much different. When you come to office from a frontline district, you have to address the needs of your district really closely, because you are making your case to every single person that you are the person who best represents them. You can’t leave anybody on the table. That’s why, in my last election, I got more votes than any other Democrat who ran – because it was important to me to get out the base, to get out the swing votes, to get out almost a quarter of registered Republicans. Because that’s how we’ve always held the district: by carefully listening to the concerns of people, by finding those spaces that bring everyone in the district together.
Many, many, many people care about getting rid of the State and Local Tax Deduction cap. They care about flooding. They care about infrastructure and their commute, and congestion pricing. These are issues that don’t feel, in my district, like they have these partisan lines. They feel like good governance to people. And that’s why, when I’m going on my tours of delivering the big checks for all the projects that I’ve fought for, you are just as likely to see a cohort of local Republican electeds lined up with me as local Democratic electeds. Because I’m just delivering on promises I’ve made and things I’m concerned about. It’s why I’ve been named the most effective legislator from New Jersey. That focus on what is important to the people in my district, and how can I deliver – that’s why I’m constantly focused on bringing federal money into the district. What that does is address affordability, because every federal dollar I deliver is a dollar that a mayor doesn’t have to tax his citizens or her citizens to invest in these projects. So it’s really important to me, and that doesn’t feel very different now from Day One. That has been the goal from Day One, and I think what’s different is, you just get better at your job as you understand or try to understand how Congress works.
But I will say that Congress has gotten more and more difficult to navigate since I started. These thin majorities are very difficult, and there is a large cohort – that we never had in the Democratic caucus – of people on the extreme right in the Republican conference that doesn’t want government to work, that wants chaos, that wants to show that this experiment we call democracy is a failed experiment. They want to see the country move towards somebody who is going to undermine the institutions of our government, like Trump.
A lot of Congress is learning the nuts and bolts, and not particularly partisan or ideological. But do you feel you’ve shifted on anything ideologically in these past five years? I know that you left the Blue Dogs, but I also know that wasn’t necessarily a super ideological disagreement. Do you look back at your 2019 self and say, ‘I disagree with her on X or Y’?
I’m sure there are spaces where, you know, you move over time. Some of that’s possibly because of new information; some of that’s because the situation on the ground shifts, and so you move your position as things change, and what the most effective remedy is.
The one area that I guess I’ve sort of succumbed to is this definition as a ‘moderate.’ I hate labels. I fought it when I first got in. I feel like – try to find somebody to the left of me on gun safety or choice. And yet, I think I’m probably considered center-left on issues of national security, which are very important to me. What I’ve come to understand is that some of that definition is not necessarily policy-based, as I would have thought when I came in, but more based on how you see the most effective way of passing legislation. That’s where sometimes the divide comes in.
On the topic of national security issues – that’s a big focus for Congress right now. We’ve got this Ukraine/Israel aid bill that’s sitting in limbo, and we’ve got all of these other proposals that are also sitting in limbo. What, realistically, is the path forward for that?
I mean, I’ll tell you: the path forward that could happen tomorrow is for the Speaker to put the Senate bill on the floor and pass it. That’s the path forward. That’s been the path forward for months as it’s languished in his office. We have the discharge petition on the floor, and despite numerous members of the Republican conference telling me they support Ukraine, I think there’s only one Republican on it, Ken Buck, who’s actually leaving. [Buck resigned from his House seat last month.] Their ardent support for Ukraine rings a little hollow at this point.
The Speaker has said he’s going to do that; he said he’d do it after the break. It’s now sounding like he doesn’t have a plan for this week. No time like the present. There’s obviously the Motion to Vacate threat out there. We’re at a point where he’s got to show some leadership. Without that, there’s not going to be an easy path. He’s not presiding over a conference that can be brought to understand the significant issues that they have to weigh in on. There are large portions of that conference who don’t care about governing, who don’t care about global security or our role in the world and what that means here at home. That is not something that moves that part of the conference, and so he’s got to show some leadership. There are paths forward, but they all involve support from some number of Democrats. This is a real test. Is he going to be a Speaker that leads the country in a time of real need for that kind of leadership, or is he going to abdicate? And we’re about to find out, I think within the next couple of weeks.
If he does step up and put this bill on the floor, or put up another proposal, do you think that would warrant Democrats saving him from a Motion to Vacate? Obviously, that didn’t happen with Kevin McCarthy last year.
If that is what he commits to, and that is something that he works with leadership on and says, ‘Look, I will do this for these votes,’ I think that’s worth considering. I could list chapter and verse all of the disagreements I have with Mike Johnson both professionally and personally, but that said, my number one responsibility here is to govern the nation as best as we can. We’re not always given the choices that we want to have.
Often, in a legislative body, you have to play the hand you’re dealt. On issues like this, I think there certainly is an interest in governing and figuring out the pathway forward at a very dangerous time in our country. I think people are open to exploring unique ways of governing that we haven’t before in a time of crisis. That’s something that I would certainly be willing to explore if it helped the country.
And then there are areas where, as much as I want to be bipartisan, I think the Republican Party is leading us down to an incredibly dangerous place. Just in the last couple of days, I think we’ve seen it in choice. For Trump to come out and be okay with some of the most egregious laws that we’ve seen, laws put on the books in the 1800s. [In Arizona], the courts are enforcing a law that was put on the books before Arizona was a state. The last governor was like, ‘Oh, that’ll never be enforced.’ This is moving really quickly into a really dire place for women across the country.
There are full abortion bans, and Trump supports that. You look at Trump’s Project 2025, and you see the roadmap. It’s so bad that I think people turn away from it thinking, ‘He’s not really going to do that,’ or ‘This is just propaganda.’ We see the far-right extremists laying out their plan again and again, and then executing it. I think it’s really dangerous.
What’s the counter to that? Democrats had a trifecta for two years – reliant on people like Joe Manchin, I understand – and there wasn’t any federal abortion legislation that was able to pass. If that is always going to hamstring Democrats, what is the path forward on a federal level?
I think the path forward is not just federal. What’s really critical is if the courts – I’ve never seen a Supreme Court that’s this political in my lifetime. It feels very dangerous to me to rely on the courts to stand by their rulings. That’s an odd place to be, thinking that the Supreme Court will be swayed by politics – they’ve been the one institution that I felt you could rely on. In fact, I went into law because during the very politicized time after 9/11, when it was very hard for elected officials to say anything against what was going on in Iraq and Afghanistan and Guantanamo, it was the Supreme Court that was weighing in in ways that were protecting rights, especially for Guantanamo detainees. So I’ve always thought of the court as being this one final bastion of apolitical thought. I don’t know that we can think that now, but they have said this is a state decision. To that end, I think these constitutional amendments in states across the nation protecting access is probably, right now, our strongest path forward to protect women’s rights.
With the filibuster in place [in the Senate], it’s both protecting and harming. You couldn’t get some of the abortion protections in place federally, but now the hope is they won’t undermine the filibuster should Republicans have a trifecta at anytime in the near future, so they won’t be able to pass more draconian nationwide abortion bans. It’s a pretty weak thing to hang your hat on, but I think the state constitutional protections right now are the strongest path forward, and we’ve seen how they have gone even in some of our most conservative states. I have been surprised at how powerful those are, and I think that’s, for example, the only hope for women in Arizona right now.
One other question about foreign aid: this package that the Senate passed includes aid for both Ukraine and Israel. The latter part has come under increasing skepticism from some Democrats, who are saying there should be more provisions limiting what it can be used for. Do you buy that, or do you think that the way the Senate did it is the right approach?
I think we were in a slightly different time when the Senate passed it. Some of the failures of [Benjamin] Netanyahu to address the human rights crisis going on in Gaza have become even more dire. I do think the path forward, with the understanding that we’ve got to get the supplemental passed, is that what you’re seeing now is the pushback on Netanyahu, saying that this is dependent on ensuring humanitarian aid into Gaza. Which has always been U.S. policy. This is nothing new. It was reinforced in the National Security Memorandum 20, and I think that is something you’re hearing about from the administration more and more. It’s important because, from what I’ve seen, Netanyahu has not responded as you might have expected with a key ally to private quiet discussions, or how we can move forward. I was asking him when I met with him in February to open Erez. It really took the approbation by the administration after the World Food Truck bombing to get that open, to get food trucks in. I think that the administration needs to continue to use this kind of political force and threats to have Netanyahu ensure that he is letting that humanitarian aid in.
I’m also very opposed to a full-scale incursion into Rafah. I know they’ve moved some battalions out; I’m hopeful about the ongoing negotiations, although skeptical. I wish we could have more pressure put on Hamas, I think that’s important. But at this point, Netanyahu continues to maintain that he’s going to invade Rafah. I think that would trigger a reaction here in the United States that would be not helpful to our concerns there in Israel. That would be against what the U.S. has been supporting. And I still remain very frustrated with Netanyahu for not enunciating the strategy going forward. I’ve still not heard him discuss what the two-state solution is going to look like or how they’re going to start moving towards that. In fact, he has suggested to the Israeli people that they need him if they don’t want a two-state solution. I think if we’re going to see a future in the region that includes a strong, secure Israel, a secure future for the Palestinian people in their own state, and a coalition of Arab nations with Israel that can both stand against Iran and have a prosperous economic region not solely based on fossil fuels, this is key.
In your first two terms in the House, you voted against Nancy Pelosi for Speaker, arguing that it was time for new leadership. The House now has new Democratic leaders; do you still see the need for shifts in strategy, shifts in leadership in the House Democratic caucus and in the broader Democratic Party?
I mean, there are always going to be ways forward that each individual member of Congress thinks is better. But largely, I have been incredibly impressed with the leadership, and I’ve been incredibly impressed with Nancy Pelosi’s graceful turnover. I think corporations and leadership students could write books on how well this transition has gone. Nobody in the caucus has the feeling that there’s some shadow leadership going on from Pelosi and [Steny] Hoyer and [Jim] Clyburn. It is very much Hakeem Jeffries and Katherine Clark and Pete Aguilar who are at the helm, and I think doing a really beautiful job.
Normally, I would say to you, ‘Oh, yeah, they’re doing fine, but it’s the minority; the real test is the majority.’ And that still remains true, but with this minority, the shadow leadership is not occurring from our old Democratic leadership. The shadow leadership is occurring in the Democratic leadership as they continue to find ways to support legislation passing with a Republican majority, which is not something I’ve ever seen. Normally, if Republicans are falling on their own swords, you sort of stand back and say, ‘Okay, we’ll do better when we’re in leadership.’ That’s not the case now. I think we see a House and an institution in crisis, and I think all of us are very willing to understand if there’s something that Democrats can do – we got the budget passed, to support the supplemental.
I’m trying everything I can to help the Speaker figure out a way to get this done, is what my agenda is. It’s really, at this point, such a dire case that I find myself willing to do what I can to support a white Christian nationalist person who I disagree with on almost every level.
There are also lots of changes going on in New Jersey politics, too. I’ll leave this question open-ended: what do you think of the general state of New Jersey politics right now? Do you think it’s changing for the better? Are you alarmed by any of what you’re seeing?
It feels like a new day in New Jersey. When you’re outside of New Jersey, and in Republican quarters, you can feel this real doom scenario – a sense that nothing’s working. I was talking about the Gateway Tunnel project, and the infrastructure projects, and all the grant money that we’re going to be fighting for to address issues, and what we’ve done on our credit rating – I think we’ve been upgraded seven times in [Phil Murphy’s] administration, which then lowers the cost of borrowing so we can invest in Rutgers and some of our great educational facilities. It feels like the Innovation State is coming. It feels like we, on the Democratic side, are getting our ducks in a row in a way that’s important.
Having fresh blood in the Senate after the real corruption of Bob Menendez; having ballot reform that was demanded by our citizens and addresses the needs of our citizens to feel like they’re engaged in a part of our democracy; still having strong county parties that are going to work really hard to get out the vote, to get VBMs, to make sure everybody has access to the ballot. It feels like we’re moving forward in a direction that’s very powerful in New Jersey, and feels different from some other states.
What was striking to me was talking to somebody from a more Republican point of view about what Trump voters are saying – how dismal it sounds, how everything is wrong and everything is horrible. Everything that they were complaining about is something that Democrats are working to address, and Republicans are just complaining about it.
There has become, on the Republican side of the aisle, this real sense of victimhood. When you look at the history of this nation, the fight against colonialism, the innovation that’s led the world for decades – there is nobody in this country that should succumb to this victimhood. If you don’t like what’s going on, fix it. We’re a democracy. I’m not saying it’s easy. Not everybody has the same opportunities, there’s been systemic racism, there’s a lot of tough things – but we are the country that started off with a bunch of white male property owners having the only access to power, and now it’s become diffuse and I sit in Congress, after my Irish potato famine-fleeing ancestors came to this country with nothing.
There has been speculation about the 2025 governor’s race, and you potentially becoming a candidate in it. Is there anything to that speculation? Is that something you’re looking at?
I hear that, but honestly, we have a really heavy lift in 2024. We’ve got to flip the House of Representatives, I’ve got to hold this seat, and I’m all-in on getting President Biden re-elected. That’s what I’m focused on now. It is flattering to hear these rumors, but right now I’m just focused on getting across the finish line in 2024 and getting everyone else across the finish line, including the president.