From rising tensions overseas to sharp political divisions at home, voters are navigating a moment defined by uncertainty about security, the economy and the direction of the country. At the same time, Massachusetts residents are facing their own pressures, from affordability concerns to major policy questions in this year’s elections that could shape daily life in the years ahead.
Republican John Deaton, an attorney and former Marine, is looking to win the seat now held by Democratic Senator Ed Markey in this November’s elections. He previously ran for senate in 2024, losing to incumbent Elizabeth Warren.
Deaton joined GBH’s All Things Considered host Arun Rath to talk about both domestic and foreign policy. What follows is a lightly edited transcript of their conversation.
Arun Rath: There’s so much to talk about; we really hit the ground running in the news cycle in 2026. We’ll start off talking about foreign policy and then hit domestic and local issues since all of these are in your purview. But let’s dive in first with foreign policy and the issue of the moment: Iran.
The regime is killing its own citizens in substantial numbers, according to the accounts that we’re hearing. President Trump has indicated the United States could intervene to stop the bloodshed. I’m especially curious about your thoughts as a former Marine, what you think about the situation in general, but in particular, what kind of options the United States would have.
John Deaton: Yeah, it’s a great question, and certainly relevant.
Listen, I’m in my 50s and so I can say that Iran has shifted from this nuclear standoff to a real potential regime collapse scenario. We’re seeing protesters who are fighting for freedom being slaughtered, mass arrests, reports of executions, and so the situation here is, you know, the Trump administration has to decide — they’re sort of oscillating between maximum economic pressures versus direct military intervention. We’ve seen their currency completely collapse.
I think it’s a combination. Certainly, President Trump has said that he’s not interested in any type of invasion or a boots-on-the-ground-type of intervention, but it’s fair to say that the regime in Iran is at its weakest moment in 40 years. Certainly, the first option was putting tariffs. I know President Trump placed secondary 25% tariffs on any nation doing any business with Iran, trying to coerce China and other international countries from helping and trying to choke off, sort of, the war fund of the [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps].
President Trump did make a comment on Air Force One: “If you shoot,” — meaning shooting protesters — “We’ll shoot,” which clearly puts military options on the table. So, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some select strikes against command centers. There was a blackout; they’re trying to jam Starlink and the people from having internet access and telephone access, so cyber warfare, if you will, to stop the jamming so that the people can command and coordinate, you know, the revolutionaries, if you will — the people who are fighting for their freedom.
I think those are the kind of actions we’re going to see. Obviously, we could see B-2 bombers or drones taking out command centers, or even possible oil refineries.
Rath: Let’s turn to Venezuela. From a national security perspective, what do you think should be the next steps following the capture of Nicolás Maduro?
Deaton: Yeah, listen, I think American people… One of the reasons President Trump was elected is that the American people are exhausted from foreign entanglements. As a Marine, I can say that the capture of Maduro — going into that compound, which was one of the most fortified compounds in South America, and not losing any American casualties and capturing him — from a military perspective, was flawless and legendary.
The question is, what does this transition look like? If it looks like [America is] temporarily in charge and coordinating with the people in place for free, democratic elections, and then we hand it off back to them, that’s something I think the American people would support. Prolonged intervention in Venezuela, you know, is a different situation.
So, I supported the move. I mean, President Obama, in his executive order, declared Maduro and Venezuela as a national security risk to the United States. President Biden kept that executive order in place and called Maduro an illegitimate president who stole an election. So that part, I think, we can cheer. The question is, what does it look like moving forward? Like most Americans, I’m sort of reserving judgment to see how it plays out.
Rath: In terms of President Trump’s policy toward Venezuela — the military strikes, in particular, on the alleged drug boats — I’m curious about your position on that, if you think that’s the right approach.
Deaton: Well, there’s a difference between the first strike and then, when you get to the 19th, 20th, and 21st strike ... potentially running afoul of international law. We don’t necessarily want to kill first and ask questions second.
Clearly, drug boats and drugs coming into America are a national security risk. There’s certainly narco, and Maduro is a narco state; there’s no doubt about that. We’re going to see that all played out. I believe you’ll see declassified documents in the trial of Maduro in a federal court.
At the same time, there is potential for mistakes. If you just start striking boats in international waters, you have to make sure your intelligence is 100% on point. We have relied on intelligence in the past — the Iraq war, for example — where our intelligence was not concrete, and so I pause. I guess, you know, I hesitate to say I support every one of those strikes, but at the same time, I’m not privy to the intelligence that has been shared with people who are actually in Congress and the Senate.
I think what we need is transparency, and we need those strikes to be justified. I certainly wouldn’t support that as a standard operating procedure moving forward. There are legitimate questions: Why not have the Coast Guard stop them, seize [the boat], show the evidence to the American people and to the world? So, it’s a slippery slope. But, at the same time, these drugs have cost a million American lives. We lose a hundred thousand each year, and certainly, I support aggressive action against the drug cartels — not necessarily saying I support everything that’s happened so far.
Rath: Finally, on foreign policy — keeping it light — I want to ask you about Israel. The fighting is over in Gaza, but in general, support of Israel would seem to be an area where there is some distance between you and Sen. Markey. Some in his own party have been critical of his positions regarding Israel.
Deaton: Well, I think there’s a difference between criticizing [Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government and conflating that with antisemitism. I certainly believe that there has been a rise in antisemitism; we saw it play out even on the Harvard campus, and I think that’s something that we need to be aware of. But, at the same time, we can’t get to the point where we can’t hold international leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu accountable for [their] actions, and so that’s really how I look at it right now.
Rath: Now, moving to domestic matters. ICE enforcement has intensified nationwide, as have the subsequent protests, especially after last week’s killing of Renee Good by an ICE officer. I want to start by getting your reaction to those events and how you think immigration enforcement should be handled.
Deaton: Yeah. The Renee Good killing is a tragic event that I believe could have been avoided on multiple levels. You know, I hold all these career politicians responsible on both sides. I mean, let me first say, [Homeland Security secretary] Kristi Noem and others calling this young lady a domestic terrorist — that’s ridiculous. [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh is a domestic terrorist who killed 168 people, including 19 children. The army psychologist at Fort Hood who killed 13 — that’s a domestic terrorist.
At the same time, you have to ask this: Why do we have to go from one extreme to the other? Why do we always have to go from completely open borders, 12 million people coming in, to now, we’re at this point where we have the ICE agents going into the communities, the protesters and the chaos?
You know, here in Massachusetts, you would think — and I do hold our leadership responsible as well — you would think that they would come to the table and say, “We’ll help you, ICE with the really bad guys.” You know, if someone’s here who’s illegal and they have a lawful deportation order for child rape, we’ll help find that person. We’ll coordinate. We’ll use our law enforcement services with yours.
That doesn’t mean you have to help ICE snatch a grad student off the street because they wrote an op-ed you don’t like, but you should be able to coordinate. When our leaders say, “ICE go away,” they’re not going to go away, so why not have a seat at the table, try to be part of the solution and not part of the problem?
It’s very unfortunate. It’s very frustrating. It’s one of the reasons why I’m running against these career politicians [as] someone who will bring a common-sense sort of approach to these things and doesn’t politicize every single issue, including the tragic death of a young woman.
Rath: One more big, heavy national question: I’ve got to ask you about what’s happening with the [U.S. Federal Reserve] and with Chair Jerome Powell. This week, the DOJ is investigating him under pressure from President Trump to lower interest rates. How do you feel about how President Trump has been handling this, and how the Fed should be treated, insulated or not, from political pressure?
Deaton: Well, I have to separate two things. You know, I do believe… I have to separate my own feelings for the Fed. You know, I would recommend everyone read “The Creature from Jekyll Island,” which gets into the creation of the Fed, which really is a secret banking cartel in a pseudo federal government title, the “Federal Reserve.” I say that just because I do believe the Federal Reserve is a problem, and I think it needs to be greatly reformed.
But, at the same time, that doesn’t mean that I support the DOJ investigations. We’ve got a “he said, she said” situation, where, according to Jerome Powell, it’s being used as intimidation. According to the Department of Justice, they said they only issued the subpoena because the Federal Reserve wouldn’t comply with requests, and so whenever an agency does that, the next result is a subpoena for documents.
I certainly believe that there should be an investigation into it. I wouldn’t support President Trump if he’s using it as an intimidation tactic. That’s the allegation. I’ll reserve judgment until I find out more, just because there is a need for oversight. It is an independent agency, but at the same time, it has such an impact on our government. Its entire creation, how it protects the private banking sector in this country, is a concern of mine. It’s one of those other unfortunate things that gets politicized in our country. I say, let’s wait till we get all of the facts and find out who’s telling the truth.
Rath: One area that interests you, one thing that we’ve covered, is the concern about Massachusetts holding on to both businesses as well as holding on to workers — you know, not just come here to go to school and then leave. I’m curious about your thoughts on growing the Massachusetts economy and encouraging business.
Deaton: Yeah, we have to. I mean, listen, we have a housing crisis, but it takes two years to pull the permits to build houses. Builders — I’ve talked to them in New Bedford and Fall River — they’re not building because of these alternative energy mandates that are being slapped on that they can’t tap into natural gas, and they can only use electricity, and so it becomes unaffordable. They can’t build at a profit, or even a meager profit, and so we need a common-sense approach.
These alternative energy mandates are crushing people, both on the business side and the individual side.
Listen, Massachusetts can’t solve climate change. I believe in climate change — I’m not a climate denier at all — but our annual carbon emissions are equal to less than two days of China’s. So, we can’t put an onus and a tax burden and punish our businesses in that area, as well as our taxpayers, by pretending that we can solve the climate issue.
I do have some big ideas. I’m going to release a plan of five million homes in five years and use both federal and state lands as a way to build affordable housing. I have an idea called the “innovation dividend.” Taxpayers are the greatest venture capitalists in the world because we fund everything. We funded the internet. We funded all these breakthroughs in biotech. We funded GPS. Yet we never see an economic return.
Harvard gets $600 million a year in federal funds, even though they have a $59 billion endowment. They have a breakthrough, and then they collect $150 to $200 million in royalties. I believe that if any public funding led to a breakthrough, the American people should share, get one or two-percent in perpetuity. It goes into a national fund, and then we get a return on the economic upside. Give American citizens a piece in this capitalism.
And we have to look at our health care. We have three insurance companies that control 95% of our entire health care. All these tax subsidies are going to these three vertically integrated insurance companies. We need to break those three companies up, increase competition, expand telehealth — I have a lot of ideas. You know, I’m not just running on problems; I’m running on solutions.
Rath: A bunch of ballot questions coming up this year. Maybe the biggest one might be rent control. Tell us, where do you stand on rent control?
Deaton: I don’t believe that rent control is the solution. What’s going to happen is you’re going to reward people who have been in a building for 10, 20 years. They’re never going to leave. That doesn’t increase housing. The solution isn’t rent control, and I believe that this is one of the areas that Governor Healey and I may agree on. It’s not rent control; it’s more housing.
It’s simply more supply; the more supply you have to meet the demand, prices will come down, so we have to have increased housing. We do that by eliminating these crazy alternative energy mandates, eliminating the red tape and having some deregulation in our business communities. I think we’d see an explosion in increased housing. Plus, I have a plan of using federal and state land to help undercut the cost basis, to also help affordable housing.
