SCHIFTY: Sen. Schiff Deflects When Asked About Men in Women’s Sports

Jorge Bonilla
March 9th, 2025 4:59 PM

Text to Speech

00:00 00:00
Font Size

California Senator Adam Schiff was a darling of the Sunday show circuit when he had a Russia Hoax to peddle. When asked about an actual issue that is really happening, though, Schiff demurred and instead pivoted to talking points.

Watch the exchange, which ended Schiff’s interview with ABC’s Jon Karl: 

JON KARL: I mean, I guess, first, what would you think about Newsom sitting down with Charlie Kirk? But more importantly, do you think -- do you agree with those in your party who say it is time for Democrats to have a different approach to transgender issues?

ADAM SCHIFF: Well, first of all, I agree that we should be broadening our reach and talking to people we haven't been talking to. I’m not sure that I would start with Charlie Kirk. But I also think, as I was mentioning earlier, that we need to keep the focus on what matters most to the American people, and that is the economy. We need to be talking to people about how we're going to improve their quality of life, and we can make sure that if they're working hard, they're earning a good living, to the degree that we get after -- we get away from focusing on those things I think it's a mistake.

In terms of the particular issue that the governor was talking about -- look, I played in sports. Our kids played in sports. I want all young people to have the experience of playing in sports, every young person. And I want those sports to be fair. I want those sports to be safe, and I have confidence that local schools and local communities can make those decisions without the federal government making them for them.

(CROSSTALK)

KARL: But is he right on that? Is -- is he right on that?

SCHIFF: I think to the degree -- to -- well, to the degree though, I think as a as a political matter, that we remove the focus from where most Americans are concerned and that is they're concerned about their ability to provide for their family. I think to degree that we get away from that, that's a mistake.

KARL: OK. All right. Senator Schiff, thank you very much for joining us on "This Week."

The exchange, in itself, shows how much the discourse has evolved on the trans issue- to the point that Jon Karl addresses it in a non-ironic manner…with a DEMOCRAT. It wasn’t that long ago that Karl was annihilated by then-Senator JD Vance over his glib dismissal of legitimate concerns over Minnesota’s “trans refuge” law (click “expand” to view transcript):

ABC THIS WEEK

8/11/24

9:16 AM

JON KARL: And finally before you go, we commit to this race to kind of sticking to the facts? I mean, I heard Donald Trump give this speech in Montana he just gave, and he said that Tim Walz has signed a letter letting the state kidnap children to change their gender, that- allowing pedophiles to claim, you know, I mean, to be exempt from crimes. This is not true. It's not remotely true.

VANCE: What President Trump said, and I haven't watched the whole rally, but…

KARL: What he said was not true.

VANCE: What President Trump said, Jon, is that Tim Walz has supported taking children from their parents if the parents don't consent to gender reassignment. That is crazy. And, by the way, Tim Walz gets on his high horse about “mind your own damn business.” One way of minding your own damn business, Jon, is to not try to take my children away from me if I have different moral views than you.

KARL: He has not signed a law into the state to kidnap children…

VANCE: They have…

KARL: …to change their identity

VANCE: What I just described to you, I would describe as kidnapping, Jon.

KARL: That's crazy.

VANCE: He has absolutely done this stuff… It’s not crazy, Jon. C’mon.

KARL: It's not what he signed.

VANCE: You should not- you should not be able to take people’s children away from them...

KARL: And that’s not what he’s proposed.

VANCE: If you disagree with decisions about gender reassignment- yes he has, proposed that, Jon. He absolutely has. Now, here's the more important thing, Jon. Why aren’t we talking about inflation? Why aren't we talking about the fact that groceries are unaffordable thanks to Kamala Harris' policies and so is housing? We've talked a little bit about the border. Why aren't we talking about the fact that the entire world is on fire because of Kamala Harris' foreign policy? She's just asleep at the wheel. We have a set of plans. You talk about sticking to the facts. Donald Trump and I have a set of plans…

KARL: (unint)

VANCE: ...to lower the costs of housing and food. To bring peace back to the world with American leadership. That is all that we want to do, and I think it's telling that the Harris Administration is focused so much on these side issues instead of on the real substance…

KARL: I mean, we're…

VANCE: …why Americans are unhappy with Kamala Harris' leadership.

KARL: To be clear, I just asked you about Donald Trump brought up, not something the Harris campaign brought up. I was asking you about Donald Trump’s words, but thank you…thank you…

VANCE: No, I’m saying, that… we're talking about the Harris campaign. What are their policy views? They don't have a policy position on their website. Should she sit down and answer tough questions with you?

KARL: Yes. Absolutely. 

VANCE: I think she should. Where is she? But we respect the American People enough…

KARL: We- we hope she’ll be on the show soon.

VANCE:  I hope so too, Jon, because the person who wants to be our president ought to sit down for some tough interviews. I'm willing to do it and I wish she would too.

KARL: All right. JD Vance. Thanks for your time. We really appreciate it.

VANCE: Thanks, Jon, Appreciate it, man.

One election later, Karl poses the question to a Democrat, within the context of eliciting reaction to Charlie Kirk’s appearance on the Gavin Newsom podcast, and proceeds to make him squirm. Schiff can’t bring himself to answer the question, deflecting to a “local communities” answer and ultimately lamenting the issue’s interference with Democrat talking points on the economy.

The interview was not tough by any means- Karl didn’t aggressively follow up with Schiff the way he did with Vance, despite Vance answering the controversial question. Nor was he condescending in his questioning of Schiff. Nonetheless, it was interesting to watch the left eat their own on an issue where the American people are way ahead of them.

Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on ABC This Week on Sunday, March 9th, 2025:

JIMMY KIMMEL: The big question going into this, at least on cable news, was whether the Democrats were going to do anything to disrupt the proceedings. They did. Some of them wore pink clothes which was pretty wild.

STEPHEN COLBERT: The Democrats came ready to fight back with their little paddles, OK? That is how you save democracy, by quietly dissenting, or bidding on an antique tea set. It was hard to tell what was going on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JON KARL: Late night's take on the Democratic opposition at Trump's State of the Union address this week.

I'm joined now by Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California.

Senator, thank you for joining us this morning. There's obviously been a lot of hand-wringing over how Democrats treated the State of the Union address. Let me read you what your colleague in the Senate, John Fetterman, had to say. He called the Democrat response a sad cavalcade of self-owns and unhinged petulance. It only makes Trump look more presidential and restrained. We're becoming the metaphorical car alarms that nobody pays attention to, and it may not be the winning message.

Does Senator Fetterman have a point?

ADAM SCHIFF: Well, I think the lack of a coordinated response in the State of the Union was a mistake, and frankly it took the focus off of where it should have been which is on the fact that the president spoke for an hour and 40 minutes and had nothing to say about what he would do to bring down costs for American families that were watching that lengthy address, sitting at the kitchen table, hoping that he would offer something to help them afford a new home or pay their rent, afford health care or child care.

There was nothing for the American people, and that's where we need to keep our focus. I was just listening to your guest precede me trying to explain that these tariffs, these on-again, off-again tariffs, are not about trade. It's a drug war, and then -- but next month it's a trade war, but now it's a drug war. It was incomprehensible, and he was also trying to say that numbers, the job numbers that came in less than expected are somehow good news.

They're destroying the economy, and they're making it harder and harder for Americans to afford things. That's where we need to keep the focus. That's why we lost the last election because we weren't razor-focused on -- laser-focused on the high cost of living, and what they're doing now is just making it so much worse in the administration, and that's really what we needed to emphasize.

KARL: You've made it clear you're opposed to these tariffs. Is there anything that Democrats can do to stand in the way?

SCHIFF: Well, look. I think we need to bring home to the American people what these tariffs are going to mean. They voted for Donald Trump supposedly because they wanted lower prices, and these tariffs are just going to drive prices up. I think they already are.

In California, the top issue for people is they need more housing. They need more affordable housing. Well, if you begin by deporting construction workers and then you continue by raising costs on construction materials like lumber, you're just driving those housing prices even further beyond the means of most Americans. So this is deeply destructive what they're doing. We need to make that case to the American people because they're going to feel it, but, you know, taking our eye off the ball I think is very dangerous, and so let's be focused on what matters most to Americans.

Let's point out all the destructive harms they're doing with, you know, the cutting of services, the slashing of the Medicaid and what that's going to mean for increased health costs and less access for people. That, to me, is the winning case to make.

KARL: I'm going to be talking shortly to UAW president Sean Fain. He was obviously, you know, a big supporter of Kamala Harris, a prominent speaker at your Democraticconvention over the summer.

He likes Trump's tariffs.

Is there a risk that in your opposition to this -- and I mean you, the party's opposition to this -- that Democrats could lose even more ground among working-class Americans?

SCHIFF: Oh, look, I read Shawn's statement. I think he doesn't favor tariffs if they're about drug or unrelated policy, and I think it may make sense to look at targeted actions that can -- we can take to bring back American jobs like auto jobs.

But these are cross the board tariffs that are indiscriminate, that that are imposed one day and taken down the next.

I can tell you the effect that they're having in California because I talk to people -- I talked to citrus farmers for example who still haven't recovered the market share they lost during the first Trump administration with these tariff wars.

So I think these broad, indiscriminate and on again, off again tariffs don't help anyone.

KARL: I mean, we’ll --

SCHIFF: They don't help farmers. They don't help auto workers. They're a mistake.

KARL: I mean, we'll -- we'll talk to him in a few minutes, but I mean, he seemed to be saying that he favored these, you know, broad tariffs on Canada and Mexico, and also didn't seem troubled by the one-month pause.

But -- but let me -- let me ask you more broadly on -- on the Democratic response. Here's what James Carville had by way of suggestion to how Democrats should handle this moment. It was somewhat counterintuitive.

He said: With no clear leader to voice our opposition and no control in any branch of government, it's time for Democrats to embark on the most daring political mover -- maneuver in the history of our party. Roll over and play dead. Allow Republicans to crumble beneath their own weight and make the American people miss us.

Is that a possible course of action?

SCHIFF: You know, I have great respect for James Carville, but I don't agree with him on this. I do think that that the abundant corruption of the Trump administration, the self-dealing, the inconsistency, the economic decline that they're advancing with their inconsistent and half-hazard policies, yes, will cause the administration to collapse of its own weight.

But that's I think, first of all, not an answer to what Democrats need to do, which is we need to have our own broad, bold agenda to improve the economic well-being of Americans, to answer really the central question I think at the heart of our political challenges which is, if you're working hard in America, can you still earn a good living?

We need to be advancing policies and making the arguments about what we have to offer, not simply standing back and letting them collapse over their own corrupt weight.

To me, that's not enough. We need to effectively use litigation as we are. We need to effectively use communication to talk to new people in new ways, as we are. So I -- I don't agree with that philosophy.

KARL: One approach we're seeing from -- from your governor, from Gavin Newsom, he's got this new podcast. He made some waves by bringing conservative commentator Charlie Kirk on the debut of his podcast.

Let me play you a little section on this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLIE KIRK, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: Would you do something like that? Would you say no men in female sports?

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, it's -- I think it's an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness.

KIRK: So --

NEWSOM: It's deeply unfair.

There's also a humility and grace, you know, that -- that these poor people are more likely to commit suicide, have anxiety and depression. And the way that people talk down to vulnerable communities is an issue that I have a hard time with as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: I mean, I guess, first, what would you think about Newsom sitting down with Charlie Kirk? But more importantly, do you think -- do you agree with those in your party who say it is time for Democrats to have a different approach to transgender issues?

SCHIFF: Well, first of all, I agree that we should be broadening our reach and talking to people we haven't been talking to. I’m not sure that I would start with Charlie Kirk.

But I also think, as I was mentioning earlier, that we need to keep the focus on what matters most to the American people, and that is the economy. We need to be talking to people about how we're going to improve their quality of life, and we can make sure that if they're working hard, they're earning a good living, to the degree that we get after -- we get away from focusing on those things I think it's a mistake.

In terms of the particular issue that the governor was talking about -- look, I played in sports. Our kids played in sports. I want all young people to have the experience of playing in sports, every young person.

And I want those sports to be fair. I want those sports to be safe, and I have confidence that local schools and local communities can make those decisions without the federal government making them for them.

(CROSSTALK)

KARL: But is he right on that? Is -- is he right on that?

SCHIFF: I think to the degree -- to -- well, to the degree though, I think as a -- as a political matter, that we remove the focus from where most Americans are concerned and that is they're concerned about their ability to provide for their family. I think to degree that we get away from that, that's a mistake.

KARL: OK. All right. Senator Schiff, thank you very much for joining us on "This Week."

 

Donor Privacy Policy