The FRONTLINE Interviews
Michael Long
Former Pelosi Adviser
Michael Long served as an aide and then an adviser to Nancy Pelosi from 2007 to 2021. He is currently a principal at the S-3 Group.
The following interview was conducted by FRONTLINE's Michael Kirk on Nov. 2, 2021. It has been edited for clarity and length.
This interview appears in:
TOP
Michael Long
Chapters
Text Interview:
Highlight text to share it
January 6 and the Aftermath
So of course we're going to start on Jan. 6.As the day begins, how is she, Michael?What was her aspect?How did she act?
It was opening day.It was how every opening day is.It's hectic; it's filled with, as much as we could, meeting the members coming back, making sure they were present.It was different because of the pandemic, so it was a little less stressful because you didn't have family members and children on the floor that day in and around the Capitol.But, you know, those days are typical ceremonial days, and I think the day began in a very similar fashion.It's ceremonial; there's responsibility; here's the order of business; let's go and move forward.And that was—I would say the mood was, it was getting it done.
There were expectations of objections; that's expected all the time.We all prepared for those objections, how to deal with them, make sure the process was there.And then it was proceeding.That was nothing different.The protests were happening, but they always do.
And so inside the building, people, we were carrying out our jobs that day.
Was she expecting any trouble that you knew of?Did anybody talk to you, Capitol Police, her, anybody?Did you have a staff get-together and say, "Hey, listen, this is a special day"?Did it feel special in that sense?
I don't think it felt special in that sense.I think it felt, we had a responsibility to complete a task, and we were, mostly from the staff perspective, trying to see how long it would take.So you have a tick-tock of the day that usually lasts a few hours when you certify a president, and this one was going to be longer than usual, and we had prepared for that.The Capitol Police, etc., every—everything seemed per normal, per usual, but you could feel in the air that the protests were a bit—there were more people in town for this than usual.
But she wasn't acting any different.You didn't pick up any vibe from her that she had any information you didn't have or she had any worries you didn't have.She didn't give off any of that.
Not from my perspective, no.
Where were you?Were you on the floor?Were you in the office?
I was in the office.
When did you know there was trouble?And when did she know there was trouble, do you know?
Well, I was separated from her and the core team at that point.My responsibilities that day were to field some concerns of members that could call into the office and needed to possibly reach her, reach the boss.Not being on the floor was a limitation of the pandemic for a lot of staffers who usually are.So I was sitting at my desk on the phone with the chief of staff doing exactly what my responsibility was to do before heading to the floor for a few minutes and swapping someone else out for their responsibilities.And till I looked on the television and I saw that the front had been breached and it was—and folks were taking the stairs of the Capitol, that's when I knew that we really had a problem.I mean, folks were always on the plaza and always on the front, but never ascended the stairs before.
And could you hear them?
I could, yes.I could hear the doors of the Rotunda breaking at that point.
A lot of people we've talked to who were there, including [Special Assistant to the Speaker of the House] Alisa La, said that you felt when you worked in that building that it was a tremendously secure environment, that this is one of the safest places in America—double glass, all kinds of blast glass and everything else.It must have been astonishing to feel that this was coming.
It was.It's always said you're in the safest place in Washington, especially on days of that nature.You've got elements of security that you don't even see that are around you.So that sense of security is always there, even if the threat is close.So over the years of even having different breaches of security, I would say, I had no reason to feel otherwise differently.
How do you describe what happened to you?
I think it was—the entire point of how I would describe what happened to me is, I went to work that day; my workplace was attacked, and I just wanted to get home.
Were you able to monitor what was happening with her?Did you know?Were people in touch with her?Did you know when they pulled her off the dais and what was happening with the speaker?
I was able to see the moment when she was pulled from the dais via television because we had multiple televisions.My own history working beside her and with the security, I automatically knew what was happening.And so that was a trigger for the staff in the office that we needed to take our own safety into consideration at that point.So we did what we needed to do.We did have some guidance from previous trainings.I would say there were members of her individual detail who reached us by phone and text to give us some guidance, to keep track of what our movements were and made suggestions as to what to do.
And after that, the only communication I had was with a family member and a friend.And I kept other communication limited.I didn't know if people knew where we were, good or bad, but I just wanted those close to me to know that I was OK.But I knew that—I was receiving images from people who saw my workspace, but I didn't have time to really acknowledge it at that point.The objective was to get—to just try to stay as calm as I possibly could, to get out of there, make sure my colleagues were fine.That was the concern at that point.
You mean people were sending you emails of footage they were seeing that was in your actual workspace?
Absolutely.
What's that like?
It's a violation.I felt violated at the same time being in the middle of danger.You do anticipate sometimes an angry constituent or an angry member of the public, you know, entering the space, voicing their concerns, maybe causing an issue.You don't expect your desk to be ransacked and it be shown on television.You don't expect people being disrespectful to the Capitol building.And to hear it, to hear it happening, and then later seeing it, it was shocking.It was absolutely shocking.
You mentioned earlier that you saw her when she was pulled off the dais.You know her incredibly well; you're very close to each other.Could you tell by anything on her face or any way she acted that this was really important, that she was affected by it?
Absolutely.I mean, the speaker of the House isn't removed from a situation unless there's imminent danger.And the speaker has a choice to remain in that space unless security protocols say otherwise.She went on that dais that day to do a job, and she would have stayed there until that job was done if she was not physically removed.
Did you see it in her eyes?Did you see it on her face?She stiffens a little bit when I watch it, and she doesn't want to go, but they somehow convince her that she's got to go. …
I think when she was pulled off the dais, what I saw was, "What's going on?"That's the look that I saw: "What's going on?I need an explanation now."But in that situation, there's no explanation; you move to safety.
So I don't know when that was communicated after that, but what I saw was, "There's an issue.""What's going on?""We need to gavel down."All of those who would move in an emergency situation, they were doing exactly what we were all trained to expect.So there were lots of context clues from the floor, the members on the floor, the staff who were working in particular positions.And there are barriers where the security members don't breach while on the floor, and it quickly moved, and the lights—you know, C-SPAN lights were down.That's, you know, that's an indication that yes, this is something; we have a really big problem; we need to evacuate; something's happening.
When they're coming down the hall and they're chanting "Nancy," that must have been horrifying.
It was.There were definitely situations in the past where we've been to protests and we've heard some taunts and we've heard some—this one was different.This was a—there was an intent to harm in the voices.And if it wasn't her, it was going to be whoever was in the way of her.
… So time goes on; it must have seemed like forever.Then you all get moved to another room, and then she comes back.How did she react from what you know, or if you know, about the violation of her own private space?
She didn't care about her private space.She didn't.First thing she did when she walked into the room was she found where we were.And she looked every single of us directly in the eye, and I think it was more of a "Let me make sure they're OK," but in the position that she was in with so much going on, there was also a sense of, we all still had a responsibility.I think in the moment, there were so many different reactions from staff members: anger, trauma, shock, hunger—we hadn't eaten in a long time.But from her perspective, there was still a task to be done.There were still larger things at stake.However, the human beings that needed to carry out that responsibility, she needed to see and look into their face to see how they were first before making decisions or announcing what would happen with the certification that day.
She sees you.Talk about the eye-to-eye connection.What was her face?What was she like?How did you feel?What was she conveying to you?
She and I had a long history of working beside each other with a lot of nonverbal communication, and it was—the look she gave me was simply, "Are you OK?"And I knew she knew that we weren't OK, but were we functional and were we physically safe?Yes.I think that's all [that] could have been required of us or asked of us at that time.We could not leave the building.We did not know what the next step would be of the day.We did not know what the status of the folks who stormed the Capitol was.So we—but seeing her in that space, you know, there are often times where she goes to spaces where they discourage her not to go.I'm pretty sure she insisted to come.She saw us; she saw members.People were asking what the next—you know, what to do.
From the staff perspective, we were quiet.We were fairly quiet and waiting for instruction.I mean, we're a service-minded folk, and so we have—we have a responsibility.And the folks that were there—which was not a full staff; it was only a few of us—if we didn't go back to work, the job couldn't get done.So in many situations, it's "Are you physically OK?," and then the sense was, "Let's get this done."
How did it feel to you to see her?
It felt good because she did not have to come to the room.She didn't have to come to that space.She showed strength where a lot of people, I believe, were breaking down a little bit.We were—it was already a heavy day politically, a heavy day for the work we were doing.And then now we have this episode that should not have happened.So our leader needed to lead us, but lead by a physical example that she was determined to do her job.And we, I believe, mustered up a bit of that determination as well in order to march back to our ransacked spaces and finish the day.And as leadership staffers, other staff were looking to us for that guidance as well.
When you all went back into your office space, especially her office space … what was it like to go back into that space?You said she didn't care, but I can't imagine that she didn't care.Maybe she didn't act like she cared, but what do you think it was to her, and what was it to you?
I think everyone wanted to, first, see if their personal effects were there.Some individuals did not have—some individuals had things stolen from their desks and their coats and anything they left behind, bags, etc.It was the messages left on desktops.And a cigarette was put out on my phone.It was a—it was a smell of—it smelled like mud and cigarette smoke.
And it had no rhyme or reason for what was destroyed.There were very, very valuable things that were not touched, and then there were things that were taken that were not significant in any way to anyone, other [than] maybe the person that sat at that desk or the person that may have just left a pen on the floor and it was just crushed on the floor.It was—it had no rhyme or reason to it.It was—it didn't make any sense.
There were really important files and things that were on top of individuals' desks that we were working on, work products that were not touched.But yet, you know, a notebook that I kept daily notes in was just turned over and then written, you know, horrible notes, messages to us.And then we had to manage the rest of the evening without touching anything that could be considered evidence.
You never saw her cry.
No.
Surprise you?
No.
That's the way she is.
Absolutely.Absolutely.And I think in many ways that is the way a lot of us—a lot of us did.As I mentioned, we needed to see that strength, and we still saw that strength.That's what—that's one of the best characteristics she has is always that model, in times where it doesn't make any sense, that, you know, that she has a reaction that's stoic or focused.But she remained true to her—true to nature that day.
It's a crazy thing to say, but it's almost like a mother comes in, you know?You know what I mean?
Absolutely.She often—she leads from being a mother and a grandmother.She's said it many times.I have felt the same energy from my mom I felt from her as a boss as well.So yes, absolutely, very much a mother figure.But, you know, Mom doesn't always cry in front of the kids, so, you know, there's a task—there's a path and a task and a decision, and that's what needed to happen that day.There wasn't a lot of room for processing the moment.We had—there was a time clock that we were on.There was something that was supposed to be wrapped up very early afternoon that was looking down the barrel at midnight, and it needed to be done.
The next day, any noticeable change in her?The next couple of days, actually.She's going to call on the 25th Amendment; she's going to call [Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] Gen. [Mark] Milley.Any change in her?She's still Mom, still coming in stoic and ready to go.
Yes.I did not return for two days, so.
Oh, you didn't.
When I did return, the same energy for answers, next steps, "We have an institution to protect; we have individuals here."That was not surprising to me that that was the energy and the focus.
… Do you feel like she held the country together during those days right afterwards?Did it feel that way to you?
She held our members, the members of our caucus together for sure.Holding the country together, it's—there were so many things at play, I think that that was really difficult to see who was—who was really, truly leading when you have the respect of the offices at play.I felt that between the 6th and the inauguration, absolutely.As in wrapping your arms around securing the Capitol complex, in managing the relationships internationally, ensuring [sic] folks that what happened to the Capitol won't happen again, and we have a new administration coming in, that all of the things that we discussed are still in play, that our democracy took a hit but it wasn't dead, yes, she was the only one in a place of power, I believe, and the highest rank at that time, that could give anyone those assurances.A lame-duck president cannot give those assurances.So yes, I think as a constitutional officer, that's what she had to do.
Were you around her at all during that time?What was it like to be around her?
Again, I would say focused.When the Congress begins in January, there is a time period that must—there are things that must be done to put in place that the Congress needs in order to run.If you're not in place, it risks being in violation of the Constitution.That was the focus, getting from that moment on the 6th to 12:01 on January the 20th to get a new president in place and to keep things moving so that we can function as a country and the Congress can function as a body.That was the focus.
And in the best of circumstances, it's hectic, and it's stressful, and many things could get it off the rails, but we've never failed at reaching that time.And there was not—nothing was going to stop her from achieving what we've done in the history of this country.
Pelosi’s Demeanor
When she's in that mode, what's she like?What's that like?She's an armored truck or whatever.What is she like?
How do you describe her?
Ah, it's—I would describe it as, you know, it's—you have to watch it.You just—you don't know which direction things are necessarily headed.You know what the goal is.You know what the goal is.You understand that everyone in the room and everyone around have been given their marching orders, given their instructions, but then she's considering the next step, and she's also checking the details of the current step.And there's a sense that there is no room for error from anyone, and there's a level of enthusiasm, of, we're in it, and we're going to win this fight, and we're going to keep going until we won.You can sleep after we won: you can rest after we won.
But she can be very, very focused and relentless in pursuit of what the goal is, and I think that applies to everything.And if you're on the team, you know that the train is moving, and if you miss the train, then you're out of the loop; you've got to run with the train.You've got tasks; you've got things to get her to this place.That's the entire point of staff, is that if we're trusted advisers and supporters.We—whatever she puts in front of us we have to rise to the occasion.And if the bar moves from the last time you had to rise to the occasion, then you buckle up because you're on a different ride this time.
But that was the same energy.
Michael, let me ask you a question.You've been through hell with her now.Is she ever warm?
Absolutely.Absolutely.The warmest you'll ever see is with her and a baby.That is the absolute warmest.There's been moments where I've seen her in the middle of a speech, and a baby cries, and she pauses and says, "I think I hear the sound of the future, and I'm fine with it interrupting what I'm saying," and immediately following the speech, she will go into the crowd and find that baby and meet its parents or its guardians.That is—and will hold onto that child like it's her own until we have to move on to the next thing or she has to move on to the next thing.
But that is—that's one of the best things.She's the first speaker who's ever, you know, sat down for a full press conference with children, doing it on Bring Your Kids to Work Day, and it's one of her favorite days.I mean, that's warmth.I mean, I think a lot of people are surprised when they meet her in person how personable she can be, especially adversaries, where she's just as equally as kind to their family and spouses and asks the same questions of concern that she would for her friends, even though it's a person who is a perceived political enemy or someone who may make it a challenge for her to get the things done that she wants.They're still met with a dignity and a humanity that she talks about all the time.
I've seen that on many, many occasions, especially for new members of the Republican Party when they come to Washington, and they're welcomed into the office as part of their orientation, and they're surprised.She greets every single person at the door.She asks how they are.She wishes them luck in their service.She challenges them to be responsible for their constituents.And then, you know, if the fight happens, the fight happens.
But there's no lack of respect for the human being.Their intentions may be questionable, but not their humanity.
Republicans Campaign Against Pelosi
… Let's go back to 2010 when the 50-foot Pelosi shows up; the Republicans decide to blame her for everything it's possible to blame her for.Seventy million dollars for something like 100,000 ads run about Nancy Pelosi.How does she feel about that, Michael?
I think the first—I mean, she felt that it was a bit below the belt in many ways, the caricatures, especially.I think that was a concern, and she repeatedly, publicly repeated that she was more concerned that her grandchildren would see the things people were saying about her or the visions about her that spurred from some of those efforts.The efforts themselves were typical to what you would see in American politics as going for the lowest common or the easiest common denominator and creating a character out of an individual for political gain.That's Politics 101.That's Campaign Jargon 101.It happens everywhere.You pick out—you pick out a characteristic or you pick out something that would be an easy target for an enemy, and you expand upon it.That's not anything that she did not expect.
It was everything that she had done prior to that, becoming speaker, was essentially on that level.It was because she was speaker that it was—it increased in, I believe, the ferocity and the intensity.But her feelings toward it, I think, were a bit agnostic, because it was expected.She's not a shrinking violet, so she was not surprised by arrows being shot in her direction.And many of the—all of the ads and—I mean, the resources, if the resources of the other side are depleted in an effort to win, then that's an indication that your opponent is doing something right.
… She's been the subject of lots of people saying lots of things about her—California liberal, dilettante, not somebody to be taken seriously from the very beginning when she got there and as she gets into leadership and she's powerful.But boy, she is a guarded political figure, isn't she?
I don't think she is a guarded political figure.I think she—I think what you're seeing is who she is as someone who is active in politics.I think she is fully aware of herself and what she wants to get done, who she is as a person, who she is as an individual.But there—like with any professional environment, while you're on the stage, you understand that the things about yourself will be picked apart in many ways, but there's—I believe there's a lot of honesty and transparency in the way she behaves, and I think that's what people need to see.I think there are lots of folks who are very concerned about image and perception, and I think she is concerned about results.
One question about the Baltimore world she grew up in.Did she ever talk about it to you?Did you ever hear about it?Were there life lessons she carried out of her experiences from [her parents] "Tommy the Elder" and "Big Nancy" and everybody?
There were definitely times that she shared stories of growing up, and it would be—it would be her first visit with her family to the pope, or when she arrived in Trinity, wanting people to know that she was a student like everyone else and not the daughter of a mayor, and wanted to pursue her education without having that over her head, but she couldn't get away from it because she was already photographed in so many photos with the mayor and the family.Or Tommy the brother, Tommy Jr. being a very feisty, a bit more liberal than her father and it causing not consternation, but a bit of back-and-forth among the siblings.
But for me, it was actually going to Baltimore with her and seeing how Baltimore reacts to her.I've been several times with her.And that—she is the daughter of Baltimore, and still is.Sitting, watching her join hands with union leaders and singing union songs in some of the old places that they, you know, that people say, "I remember your dad," or, "I remember your brother," and, "We're so proud of you."
She talks about her time as a student, but also the time as a student in Baltimore but working the front desk of their home, receiving messages from constituents wanting to know, you know, when's the pothole getting fixed, or why are the library hours the way they are?She's often said that that's where she cut her teeth.And understanding politics was understanding people and understanding how to react to people, and you have to react to a person when they're directly in front of you.And that was the lesson—that was not just the lesson that she talked about, but it was the lesson that you heard from these folks in Baltimore where she would visit whether it—not for any political purpose, necessarily.It could be for a class reunion, or it could be for, you know, an unfortunate memorial service or something of that nature.
But the way people reacted to her was very much how anyone goes home, and the folks from home are still your biggest fans.And so just seeing that, you could tell that the lessons that she shared with us often were lessons [that were] a part of the D'Alesandro name and family of Baltimore that are at her foundation.
It's so interesting.Here's this woman who gets pilloried in 2010, but yet she's beloved in the town.I guess it doesn't bother her that it might somehow disrupt her reputation back home, that she's getting so hammered for what she's doing in Washington.
Well, I think that her constituents, I believe, have given her the permission to be a member of leadership.I think there was a history of her trusted local ties and what she did when she was a rank-and-file member for San Francisco that her pursuing leadership and pushing the needle on what it meant to be a leader, what it meant to be a member from that district, which is always a very progressive space, I think her voters gave her their permission by a, their turnout, and how she defended her city, even when the city itself was being used as a target.She never left that behind to pursue leadership.She was always very rooted in her constituency.They are—her first bosses are her constituents, and she believes it, and she shows up.
So I think the people of San Francisco gave her that permission to do so with their support and their votes over the years, and Baltimore, of course, being the second city supporting as well.
When she's in the wilderness, she's no longer speaker.They always say there's nothing worse than having been a speaker and then not being a speaker.…In the end of the Obama administration, even the last years of the Obama administration, what was it like for her?Was she very different as the minority leader in the downtime, 2010?… What was that like for her?
It was interesting in the fact that because she had been a speaker, she knew what the job of the speaker was.Therefore, it made her an even better adversary for the sitting speakers.And I think people saw her in the Democratic Caucus as that.When you see the influence and power that you have had and you know what you can do with it, being a loyal member of the minority is just as equally as serious as being the speaker.
And so even though you may not be in a place to make the decisions of the majority that can influence the policy and push the needle in many ways, you're still in a space where the minority's voice is not quiet.And it's a, by design, but it's also, I think b, by her personality.
… She watches the GOP, the modern-day GOP rising up—the Freedom Caucus, the [Mark] Meadows, [Jim] Jordan, all of it happening.She watches the rise of Trump.What's she thinking about?What is she talking about?What's happening to Nancy Pelosi during those years?
Number one is, how do we get the majority back?How do we not lose the institution and the integrity of the institution, of the House specifically?While we House members have enormous respect for the Senate, we prefer the House side ourselves.And she said many times directly to the GOP, "Take back your party."There's a belief in that both parties are what is supposed to make this experiment of democracy happen, and let's remain—keep it intact.
So, many times where there are places that were areas that we could agree and cooperate, especially for the institution where the other speakers after, between her first speaker term and the second, those speakers she worked with and often helped when they had troubles on their own side to help push an agenda that would be something that the Republican side would want, but that we could also help influence to make sure that some of our priorities were included.
So while there were different moments that were extreme on the conservative side, there were moments where the Democrats were able to help temper the enthusiasms of a few to help the leadership of the other side.That was for the integrity of the institution.
Division in the Democratic Party
… She, in the 2018 midterms, the way the books tell it and the newspapers tell it, she said to everybody, "Don't mention Trump.We're not running against Trump; he'll run himself.Let's talk about a positive agenda," whatever she said.And they won, big time.Her reaction?Her hopes?
To the way it was—?
To the victory.
Oh.
What was going to happen as a result of the surprising, I guess, victory in 2018?
I mean, that was—I think it was absolute enthusiasm.We had one of the largest freshman classes of members we'd had.I mean, that was a large amount of women, a large amount of minorities.It was watching the plan become a success, you know?The strategy to go to places that Democrats had not won in a while, to remind them of why we're Democrats and to get the House back was also a little bit of an encouragement in the push forward during that time period that this democracy still works, that voters matter, that what you do and say as a leader matters to people.And if we're going to talk about what Democrats are going to do, to win, that's what we should do.And spending time on the opposition does not give confidence to the public about what you—what your abilities are.
So I think, I mean, I think we not just was—not just thrilled and over the moon at the victory, but ready to get back into the space of doing the work and continuing the work that was done from the previous speakership.
But even with the success, the moderates in the caucus, moderate Democrats, especially five white guys, people call them, five white guys decide to put together a challenge of her.How did she feel about that?Were feelings hurt?
Oh, no, I don't think feelings were hurt.I think there was some disappointment because that shows that there could be a bit of a disunity or that, you know, I don't think—when you have had this type of victory and you've led to this place, and then someone questions your ability and authority to lead, that can get a bit annoying.
So it's "OK, well," but there's also an acknowledgement that, as an individual member, they had every right to do that….It's still a deliberative body, and the internal decisions, whether for speakership, etc., every member was still needing the respect of asking for the vote, for their support.
And so it was like every other race.Once the race begins and you're in the arena, you operate and you leave nothing up for regret. …You prepare yourself to not be surprised by just working really hard and pursuing every vote as if you don't have it at all.
So that was indicative of how she always ran elections.And it was no different.
… In that same period, suddenly she's got issues with the Squad.They don't seem to be speaking the same language.They don't seem to be appreciative of her.This is the other end, this is the progressive end of the caucus that she finds herself in a back-and-forth with….What do you think was going on there?What did she think was going on?
I think first, it was—the Squad, if you will—which I personally don't like the term because I've always viewed them as four individual women who do have common threads, but they also have very different ways of pursuing to get the results.But because they were—and are—very progressive and on the far part of the progressive end, and they were fascinating women of color that had not been as vocal and elected at their age and experience and from their communities before, it gave a huge sense of excitement.There was also the pursuit of social media.We had not had that level of enthusiasm and excitement from their voters and boosting.So the Squad, I believe, was always something that was created as their persona.
So I looked at how she interacted with each individual lady of that group.And yes, collectively there were ideas that she disagreed with, and collectively they disagreed with her.Sometimes it was the execution; sometimes it's the timing; sometimes it's who was involved in the decision-making process or how far a policy should go, or how more inclusive when it comes to individuals at the table that may fly in the tradition of how the House works, yes, that was absolute disagreement.The manner in which each of them had disagreed was very different.I think all of them had an opportunity to talk, to have meetings, etc., as with any member.
I think it's the fascination that people had with them—and they are absolutely dynamic women—that sort of fueled this I would say, quote/unquote, "feud" or, you know, I saw many times it was characterized as, you know, us against them, etc.And honestly, as someone who worked alongside the members and alongside her, you know, the tension that existed, there were tensions that just exist as part of being legislators who have a difference of view and a difference of opinion.
So yes, there was some back-and-forth, and some of it could have been big sister/little sister dynamics.Some of it could have been generational, seeing different ideas, just being seen eye to eye.But that's the natural politics.
And fanning the flames of it was something that we observed and just didn't lean into it.I was in a position—I always wanted to make sure that their offices felt that they could always say their issues, concerns, have an avenue to address their concerns with the speaker because that's their job.That's our job as the institution.
But again, oftentimes there were things that some of the members, the members of the Squad, may have done that didn't—it did not sit well with leadership.It didn't look well for leadership.And any member it wouldn't have.And I would say there are other members of—who are just as progressive that would have done the same things but would not have received the same attention because they're not—they're not filling the same spaces that these women are filling, which again, those communities that have not had their representation before.
Somebody writing about it said that Speaker Pelosi knows how to exercise hard power—votes, issues."Let's get it done; let's count 'em up; let's get there."And certainly AOC [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], for one, exercises soft power—"I've got 5 million followers on Instagram.It really matters."And I've read quotes from Pelosi where she basically says, "That's influence; that's not power.I have power; you have influence."Soft versus hard.Can you help me understand that?Does that sound about right?
It does to a point, because—I acknowledge the soft powers of the influence versus the hard powers of the tools at one's disposal.I think both—both views—the tools at their disposal and the tools at the speaker's disposal, are internal, especially.It's history; it's relationships; it's authority, which rank-and-file members in many ways don't have.
And so in the sense of a speaker, communicating with a new member of Congress, I mean, it's like, it's a senior-year member of college communicating with the freshman year.There's just certain things that don't exist by nature of the timing and space.
So yes, the hard power of the speakership is relevant regardless of what a new member has.And we see that in both sides.It's up to the speaker themselves how much of that power they want to exercise or how much deference they want to give to the new soft-power influencer in the room.
So what did she do?I know that in the end, Trump jumps in and writes and says basically a tremendously racist statement about members of the Squad: They should go back where they came from, other things.Suddenly all the dimensions of the caucus jump in together to protect and go against the common enemy, Donald Trump.So in a way, Speaker Pelosi doesn't really have to do anything.But she didn't lose them.She has them in some way.She did something.What did she do to keep them in the fold?
I think she a, acknowledged them as individuals.Each of them have different needs for their districts.Each of them serve differently.And once we get past the internal squabble that could be a speaker vote or organizing, etc., we all are still here to lead and represent.And as a caucus, our caucus members are still respected and honored among ourselves.And if someone, especially someone with a bully pulpit, picks a fight, it's—we have to defend.That is not how—we won't tolerate it, period, I mean.
So you had the members of the caucus, before I would even say the members who were directly affected, specifically say, make the call that we must have a strong support for them because of the fact that they are, a, vulnerable in just simply walking around each day to do their jobs, and vulnerable as they move throughout the country.So if there's a signal, that that is not to be tolerated.And these federal elected officials deserve respect.And it needs to come from the highest voices of the caucus.
I also think the speaker had no issue in coming to them.And I know she personally spoke to them.But publicly supporting them, I think, was a very strong indication that they're part of this.You're not going to separate them out for whatever purpose.But they're part of the Democratic family.
The 2020 State of the Union Address
What do you think it was like, talking about the State of the Union address in 2020, for her to sit behind Donald Trump and see Rush Limbaugh, who had just been destroying her for 20, 30 years, get the Medal of Freedom?
I think it was—it was difficult, because the question of how that is deserved always comes from the top.So the act of also doing it at the State of the Union, it was—it was posturing, and it was—it was a bit of the show for the chamber and the camera and I think was more not reflective of what—the intent of the award but also a bit of a signal for what was to come.And it, I think, just, you know, when you're seated on a camera in front of the world, you just—and you sit silently, you know, you have to preside over the chamber.And I think that's what it was.
But how she felt?I don't know how she felt about the, you know, actually receiving the award.But I think the timing, how it was done, a break from decorum and tradition in that respect was not well received.
It's her chamber.She's in charge of it.She has a responsibility for it.He comes into it.He does a demonstration project with somebody that's really in her face.He's standing right in front of her.He makes everybody pay attention.This is not part of the State of the Union; this is not an address to Congress.This is a show, some could say, for her, of disrespect of her.He could have done this at the White House.So I can't imagine that she wasn't angry, hurt.
I would definitely say angry, but I also think not surprised.The expectations of something at that evening was not lost on anyone.I mean, when you have someone who is a showman and the cameras turn on, there will be a show.
She tears the speech in half at the end.When you saw that—you know this woman; you know her as well as you probably know anybody—what were your thoughts?
I said, number one, this is going to be a very difficult evening.Number two, she's done; she's over.That was a straw.And so it was, "Close the chamber down.Let's go.We've done our official duty as a House.We extended the invitation.We kept the tradition alive.This is over.I'm out of here."It was—I think it was a personal reaction more than anything else.It was, "This entire speech was a waste."It was an opportunity—if there was an opportunity for there to be a moment of, yes, differential, showing the policies, but it's to show the policies and the agenda, and that was not what it was—that's not what the words were from where she saw it.So I think that tearing it up was a waste of her time.I think she's even said that.She's like, she didn't want to sit and—she didn't want the paper it was written on.
Is that the most extraordinary public thing you've seen her do?
Yes.
You said it was going to be a difficult evening.What did you mean?
Well, at the end of a State of the Union, you always have—you always have press; you have a reaction; you have a long evening; you have many guests, etc., in the building.And the intrigue around that was—I could feel it coming.
The immediate response that came my way was, "Was that planned?What's going on?"I even had people ask, "Can we get a piece of that paper?"And I just felt that the onslaught was just coming.She had just captured the moment.And so—not just captured the moment, but captured the moment and you gavel it down, and it's done.
And so the next day, the talk was not about the speech; it was about the speech in the trash can at that point.
… It's hard to know the real Nancy Pelosi if you're outside like this….But can you help me?Can you humanize Nancy Pelosi for me?
I think the best thing that I think maybe what people don't understand is, she is a woman of a generation that were reflective of who Kennedy was at the time, but came from a family with very high expectations, some of which she even challenged by being a woman.So I would definitely say she has a traditional side of her that everyone sees, and sometimes they limit it to how, you know, how she dresses and how she wears heels and she's feminine in her appearance but then often feminist in her speech, and they don't see how the two work.
But I think she is very reflective of women of her generation that raised families, that went to a workplace, whether earlier or later, but has a certain standard, personal standard that you see on display, but also not allowing people to characterize her as an individual who is weak, who is limiting to the things she cannot change by being a woman, by being a child of immigrants.And those women of that generation are strong women, and that part of her, I think, is who she is.
You know, they're all, in my opinion, hold so many roles—you know, the caretaker, the mother.We've talked about those things, but those roles don't stop when you become the speaker of the House.Those roles are still relevant.I still see how she reacts when her husband shows up.You know, she shows up as the wife, not necessarily the speaker.When her grandchildren show up, she's Mimi; she's not the speaker at that time. …I think you have a hostess, no one leaves without having a good time and hungry.She's going to make sure you're fed, and she's going to make sure you're taken care of.She's going to make sure you get your needs, your wants.
So there's a level of balance between responsibilities and her core values that are on display, but also a personal, family, hospitable nature.She has a memory like none other.She can remember—she can meet someone the first time and remember their names years later and know their children's names and ask how they are, where they went to school.And it's miraculous to see that.
And oftentimes how she is portrayed is just one part of who she is.And even though I only saw a few parts of it just by being an employee and watching her serve, what I can say is, is how—that's who she is, you know.
And I kind of sort of push back at the humanizing part of it.Her human nature is caring about other human beings, and how she pursues her life is reflective of all of the experiences that she has, like I think you would have anyone else.But she's just holding a gavel and wielding a level of power that's unique, and not everyone—only a few people in history have had that privilege.So it is challenging to see farther.
She is in lots of ways that toughness, that exterior, impenetrable exterior?It's a little bit like an awful lot of women of a certain age, as you suggest, Michael, who climbed the ladder even though the crowd of old white men didn't want them up there … and poked at her and knocked her down and to take her on, she developed a hide, whatever it is, a thickness, a toughness.And maybe that's what it is.It's the lifetime fight against all the old white men who put her in her place and kept her down, she and all her sisters in that way.
I think so, but also not being intimidated by that is another part.She's not being intimidated by it.She's going to pursue what she wants to pursue, and the limitations, you know, push through the limitations if they're there.
But there's one other—I would say I have to share this.I think another thing that she does is, especially with members of Congress, if there's a personal tragedy affecting their families or their lives or etc., there's always a personal touch, whether it be a phone call or a note or even a visit during those times that are personal and caring about the individual.We've had members who, say, have an illness or "My spouse has something, but I'll be there for the vote."And her reaction is, "No, you take care of yourself or your spouse or your family member first, because that's what matters first, is your health.You're a human being first.You have needs first.We will figure this out.And you just focus on what you need to focus on right now."
Those are private things, of course, that people don't see.But those are, you know, those are the private things that I think you don't see of many of these members.But yes, she cares about these members as people, not just as colleagues.
Latest Interviews
Latest Interviews
Policies
Teacher Center
Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation
Koo and Patricia Yuen
FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Additional funding is provided by the Abrams Foundation; Park Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; and the FRONTLINE Journalism Fund with major support from Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation, and additional support from Koo and Patricia Yuen. FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
