Khanna has been active in debates within the Democratic Party on the 2024 election and Trump’s win. As the representative of Silicon Valley, he also has a unique insight into the tech industry’s power in the next administration. And as a voice on the House select committee on the strategic competition with China, he has a window in the key geopolitical question of the times. In a conversation with HT at his office in Cannon Building on Capitol Hill in Washington DC on Thursday, Khanna spoke about his views on domestic American politics and foreign policy under Trump. Edited excerpts:

It’s been over two months since the election. When you look back, what was that mandate and what was the meaning of that mandate?

People were upset about the economy. It’s rough out there for many folks. Their jobs aren’t paying enough. The cost of gas, groceries, rent is high. The cost of childcare, healthcare is high. And they wanted change.

Where did your party go wrong?

We didn’t have a strong enough economic message. We didn’t talk about communities that had been hard hit by de-industrialisation and share stories. Someone who I met in Warren, Ohio told me he has about 13 people in his union who had committed suicide because of depression and grief. We had to personalise the hardship people were going through, personalise stories of the people who were going through high costs, and then talk about what we were going to do to build new jobs, to bring new economic growth, to lower prices.

How do you think Trump is interpreting the mandate? Is he interpreting it through the economic prim, which you suggest was the reason for his win, or is it a far more expansive interpretation of that mandate?

I think he is overreading his election as people who win often do. People were upset and wanted change. But they don’t want to end to vaccines. They don’t want us to be going and annexing Greenland. They don’t want us to have a mass deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants. They don’t want tax breaks for the very wealthy. So he risks overreading the mandate.

As he takes charge next week, is he politically extremely strong because he has the Senate and the House and the White House or vulnerable because the majority is so slim?

I think Democrats have to spend as much time understanding why Americans voted for him as we do criticising Donald Trump. And so he obviously captured the anger and frustration in the country, but he has got a very narrow majority of the House and his extreme agenda of tax breaks for the wealthy is not going to help people who have been left out. And so I think there is a great opportunity for Democrats to come back in 2026 and 2028. I don’t think this is some fundamental realignment as Reagan’s election was in 1980.

You represent Silicon Valley. Never has Silicon Valley had as much influence in Washington. In his farewell address, Joe Biden warned about a tech-industrial complex and an oligarchy, but there are also important voices from the Valley who may bring interesting ideas in policy discourse. So what are you excited about when you think about many of these people who are your friends who are going to be in government and what are you worried about?

I am worried that the wealth of Silicon Valley will get accumulated in a few areas, and in that a lot of the country is going to be stagnant. My hope is that we can channel this technology revolution into bringing new wealth and economic stability and prosperity into places across America. And that is the vision I have been trying to put forward. Not that we have tax breaks and wealth continues to accumulate in a few areas.

The two broad areas that the tech community seems to be invested in is AI and crypto. What is your broad take on both those areas?

AI can do an incredible amount to help drug discoveries, to help improve education, to help improve customer service, to help make government more citizen friendly. But it also needs guardrails and it needs thoughtful guardrails so that it’s not abused as any technology can be abused, to discriminate or to threaten safety or to encourage people to take harmful actions. But what we need to be doing is regulating the outcomes. We don’t regulate electricity, we regulate the use of electricity. And so we have to figure out how do we regulate the use of AI.

And crypto?

Look, I think on that one hand you have in India digital payment systems, and you have new technology of how we transfer money and payments. And to the extent that you can now have someone in Africa having a Bitcoin and then getting a US dollar through stablecoin, that’s a good thing. But again, it has to be regulated so that you don’t have speculation and gambling.

Do you feel that Democrats were too conservative on crypto?

Well, I think we need to embrace financial innovations and Bitcoin and crypto are part of that, but then have thoughtful regulation.

What do you think Trump’s approach to China will be and what do you think Trump’s approach to China should be?

I am on the China Select committee. I think the biggest factor should be why do they have a $1 trillion trade surplus, but we have almost a $1 trillion trade deficit? This is unconscionable and we need to rebalance that trade deficit. We need to build more things in America, steel, shipbuilding, pills, aluminum, and we need to push China to buy more from us and rebalance this trade deficit. That to me should be the biggest thing. The second thing is we need to have superiority in the Pacific to deter any potential invasion of Taiwan.

Do you see Trump maintaining the national security posture that he initiated, and that the Biden administration continued? Or do you see the presence of people like Elon Musk, of people who are influential on Wall Street and may have business interests in China, shaping his approach to Beijing?

I think he has to think about the people in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio who lost their jobs to the China shock. And my hope and belief and expectation is he will continue to have strong tariffs on industries that we need to build here and that he will continue to build our alliances with the Philippines, with Japan, with South Korea, with the ASEAN countries as we contain China from hegemony.

And of course that we are going to have a strong relationship with India. I was the co-chair with Michael Waltz at the India Caucus. We grew it to the biggest caucus it’s ever been, almost 147 members. I am going to co-chair it again with Richard McCormick this in this cycle. And Mike Waltz remains a good friend. We went to India together and he has assured me that the US-India relationship is going to be a continued priority.

What are the areas in that relationship with India where you would like to see ties deepen?

In defence, I would like to see India continue to move away from Russia and towards the United States. In technology, in the development of the alternative energy. There can be a launch of collaboration in terms of development of new technology that is going to be needed for 21st century international security. And then of course in terms of the commitment to democracy and pluralism, there can be a joint voice that the world should go the way of democracy and pluralism, not the way of China and Russia and Iran.

Does this US election mark the end of liberal internationalism? With what standing is the US going to say exactly what you just said about democracy and pluralism given the nature of the electoral winner you just had in this country?

Well, an African-American and Indian-American woman almost got 48% (of the vote). So the goal to becoming a pluralistic, cohesive, multiracial democracy is a hard one. And the United States, of course, has had its challenges. It’s been a work in progress for almost 250 years. And India has had its challenges and has been work in progress for 75 years. But both of our countries have an aspiration to be pluralistic democracies.

Trump, in some sense, represents a pushback against a pace of change that people saw as too fast. People felt left out of the global economy. They feel that they are losing a culture in a way that makes them uncomfortable. And we have to provide people with an assurance that the future is going to have a place for them economically, culturally, emotionally. And that’s a task for multiracial democracies.

But isn’t a part of the mandate also to focus on largely US interests and a demand for US engagement in the world driven by US interest rather than a more expansive values-based definition?

Well, certainly, Trump has defined America First fairly narrowly in terms of interests and our power. And this is because people feel left out and people feel hurt. And so we have got to focus on the de-industrialised communities. We have got to focus on people who aren’t having an American dream. But I think that if we do that, if we focus domestically, and if we aren’t engaged in these overseas wars that Americans largely don’t want, then we have the opportunity post-Trump to articulate a more aspirational vision, a Kennedyesque vision, an Obamaesque vision that America stands for freedom, that America stands for pluralism.

On illegal immigrants, there are now more Indian illegal immigrants than in the past. There is Trump’s promise of mass deportation. How do you think that will pan out? What will be the implication of that on the bilateral relationship?

We need secure borders. And my view is that just like my parents came to this country through a process of a student visa and then a green card and then citizenship, that should be the way that people want to come to America. They come through the process that is there for individuals. We can’t have folks just coming across the border without paperwork and we need a secure border.

There are plenty of examples in the Indian-American community of people who have come through the process and we need to make that process fair. And that’s why I have championed end to the country caps on the green cards so that people who are here for years can actually get a green card, can have a path to citizenship. But I will oppose the inhumane deportation of 11 million people.

We saw the H1B controversy last month. Trump said that he favoured the visa. But one part of American politics has targeted Indians. Do you think of this as the beginning of a chapter of racist attacks on Indians in the US?

No. This is such an open country and kind hearted country. You have Vivek Ramaswamy run for president as an Indian American and he did very well. You have Nikki Haley who did very well. You have six Indian-Americans in Congress. This is a country where when I travel to Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, the South, I feel people judge me on my ideas and I felt that growing up.

Is race an issue? Yes, of course it would be foolish to say it’s not an issue, but we are making incredible progress. And the Indian-American story is an incredible story of triumph in America. It’s a great American story. I believe that the Indian-American community is going to continue to contribute to civic and political life. I believe that we do need to reform the abuses of the H-1B programme, but that there are so many people who came on H-1Bs who are also creating jobs in the United States and that ultimately Indian-Americans will be seen as job creators, as entrepreneurs, as contributing to our national security and as helping the revitalisation of America.