U.S. House Rep. Bennie Thompson, the longest-serving member of Mississippi’s Congressional delegation and the state’s only Black or Democratic representative, is running for reelection on Nov. 5. His constituency in the state’s 2nd Congressional District includes the capital City, Jackson, and nearly everything west of I-55, stretching from the Delta down to Wilkinson County. It is Mississippi’s only majority-Black congressional district.
In his over 30 years as a representative, Thompson has consistently served as the top congressman on the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee. After the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol building, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., selected Thompson to head a committee to investigate the attack. The committee produced its final report at the end of 2022, issuing criminal referrals against Trump to the U.S. Department of Justice.
The Mississippi Free Press sat down with Thompson ahead of what could be his thirteenth term in office to discuss his record and his positions on foreign and domestic policy. You can read our interview with his Republican opponent, Ron Eller, here.
The following interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Nick Judin: Few people in America are as familiar with the January 6 conspiracy as you are. What, in your opinion, is the largest vulnerability from that attempt that still remains—the gap in the armor you most fear will be exploited in future attempts to undermine the peaceful transition of power?
Bennie Thompson: Well, clearly it’s the misinformation that’s put out by leaders in this country as to the conduct of our elections.
Some of that information is being put forward right now by the Trump administration, we saw happening four years ago.
The difference this time is he’s not president. But we have (U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson) who won’t support the notion that, in America, we settle our differences at the ballot box. The reason I say that is because he’s been asked that several times—and he’s only said that he will support the election if it’s free and fair.
Well, that qualifier right there says that if Donald Trump loses, in all probability, he’s gonna oppose any certification or something like that. But that’s the kind of conversation that leads fringe elements in this country to start promoting the notion that somehow Democrats are trying to deny Donald Trump the right to become president of the United States.
So more than any of the mechanisms of power themselves, it’s the general use of misinformation—the general denial of reality—that you think is the biggest threat.
Well, and some of the (new officials). If you take Georgia, for instance—a state that was intricately involved in the whole issue around the certification of the election—there’s now a majority-Republican Election Commission that has decided that they don’t trust machines counting our ballots.
They’re going to hand-count all the ballots. Well, that means a potential of several million ballots will have to be hand-counted in Georgia. And it would be weeks, if not months, before we actually know what the count is. And that’s something that creates an additional issue around the process. No other state, to my knowledge, is going to hand-count all the ballots in the presidential election, right?
And as you know, we’ve passed a law saying that the vice president’s role in the process is ceremonial, right? Former President Trump was trying to say that (former Vice President Mike Pence) had the authority to stop it. Well, obviously, the vice president took an opposing position on it.
He did not cave into the pressure of Trump trying to get him to do it. Now Congress cleared that up, so that process won’t be part of the misinformation.
The irony of everything is that the current Vice President may or may not be the victor in the November 5th election. That’s an irony unto itself.
Trump has plans for extremely harsh tariffs: 60% on everything from China, 20% from everywhere else, possibly even higher punitive tariffs against Mexico. What is your take on these proposed tariffs and how do you anticipate they’d affect Mississippians, particularly those in your district?
A tariff is a tax. If I’m taxing products coming to the United States, then as an American citizen or a business, that means it’s gonna cost me more to buy that product. That’s just mathematics 101.
For a district like mine that’s agricultural, that means that if John Deere is making some of its tractors in Mexico—which I understand they plan to do—that John Deere tractor, based on this tariff, just went up in price.
Many of these farmers couldn’t exist if it were not for the subsidy programs that we have in place to keep food and fiber independent from foreign manipulation. You know, I think it’s ironic that here’s a guy who’s selling Bibles with Lee Greenwood that are made in China. He doesn’t care about the average American taxpayer. It’s do as I say, not as I do.
Now, what do you say to someone who might be open to the idea of these tariffs—to the idea that for whatever the pain they might cause, they’re needed to force industry to stay in or return to America?
Well, look, I voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement.
I was the only person in the delegation who said that … if you think making our economy based on a world standard is going to level the playing field, you’re crazy.
And so ultimately, a lot of the people who came to me and encouraged me to vote for NAFTA, three or four years later were coming back saying NAFTA is bad. They were preaching to the choir because I tried to tell them. (Editor’s note: Former President Trump signed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement that replaced NAFTA in 2020).
If you think it will hurt China or some other country because we put a tariff on our product—there’s nothing in the record that says that’s what will happen. China’s economy is not based on what’s fair to the people who live and work in China. It’s what the government wants.
It’s difficult for me to embrace what he’s saying when I know the adverse impact it will have on the average American consumer. So here’s what I tried to do: I supported the CHIPS Act, which would encourage manufacturing to occur here in this country and incentivize other companies that have gone overseas to come back.
I’ve also supported infrastructure and transportation legislation that allows us to have broadband access to the last mile. Some of our industries are reluctant to invest in expansion because they don’t have the ability from a technology standpoint to support their expansion.
I was the only one in the House—and Roger Wicker was the only one in the Senate—who said this is a good thing. If we want businesses to buy, we’re gonna have to meet the challenge, and part of meeting the challenge is to get us to a level where we can compete with anybody around the world.
And that’s what we’re doing.
So you see the need to invest in American infrastructure and to keep companies in America, but you favor the carrot over the stick.
Absolutely. We can’t fiddle while our economy goes to hell in a handbasket. At the federal government level, we have to create incentives for that to happen.
Those incentives ultimately come back in terms of people being employed, paying taxes, buying cars, buying homes. So there’s a circular approach to creating an economy vested in the country that you live in.
You know, in the midst of COVID, I was the only person in the delegation who fought for PPP loans for businesses to get through COVID. Without that … we would have had a much bigger hole to dig out of.
But now our economy has come back bigger and better. And that’s because of who we are as Americans. (Editor’s note: All four members of Mississippi’s U.S. House delegation voted for the CARES Act, which created the PPP program, including Thompson and Republican Reps. Trent Kelly, Michael Guest and former Rep. Steven Palazzo).
Something that I’ve found to be a relatively bipartisan issue is strategic opposition to China—the realignment of U.S. posture into the Pacific. How do you see the United States’ relationship with China? What should our posture be?
China is a clear and present threat to who we are as a nation. But understand: we work with our enemies all the time. We don’t just have to fight our enemies. We can disagree with our enemies (without) fighting them. It’s not just China; it’s Russia, among others. Philosophically, we’re polar opposites.
But we work in aerospace with Russia all the time. We send people to outer space together. That doesn’t mean we have to change our philosophy on being a representative democracy. It’s the same thing with China. We wouldn’t treat our citizens like the Chinese government treats its citizens.
That’s a bad deal. We wouldn’t try to say how many children you can have. But we don’t stick our head in the sand, as if we’re not going to engage you. Whatever we do with China is based on what’s good for our country in the long run.
We shouldn’t have to go to war just because we disagree.
I want to press on this because I find it to be one of the areas where both parties tend to agree. If someone supports the right to abortion, they can vote for you. If not, they can vote for your opponent. They can choose on tariffs, protectionism, federalism, LGBTQ rights.
What do you say to a constituent who wants de-escalation and cooperation with China, who doesn’t want conflict in the Pacific but who does not see a real distinction between the parties on this issue?
Sometimes we agree on things. Sometimes we don’t. The beauty of our democracy is that, unlike January 6th, when we differ, we don’t tear the place up.
Our founding fathers put together a system of government that requires debate, discussion and deliberation. At some point, you’d have to hope that you’d come to some kind of agreement. At least you have that deliberation that occurs before a decision. That’s just the nature of our representative government.
You helped secure over half a billion dollars in funding for the Jackson water crisis. Jackson was fortunate to receive that funding—not all cities will be so lucky. How did that come together, and what’s your solution for preventing the next water crisis like Jackson, like Flint, before it happens?
Well, I was happy to work with the Biden-Harris administration and the EPA to try to craft a solution to what had been an ongoing crisis—the exacerbation of what was already a system in crisis.
We talked to the Office of Management and Budget. We talked to the President’s office. We talked to anybody who would listen. Jackson, Mississippi, first of all, could not financially afford the debt to fix this system. And secondly, a lot of that debt and a lot of that crisis was because both state and federal officials mismanaged how to work with a system that fragile.
So obviously, the timing was right. The disaster declaration for Jackson helped facilitate support for it. And at some point, it all came together. I was excited about it and I’m happy that it’s there.
But what I do not support is the takeover and Jackson not remaining the owner of the system.
That was the negotiation: we’ll put the money there, but the long-term plan is to return the system back to its owners. Now, that puts a burden on the City of Jackson to get its house in order.
Jackson needs to have staffing and professional support. At a minimum, they need a public works director. That’s still Ted Henifin’s job, but it’s the City of Jackson’s job, too. I’m sure the federal court will evaluate that when that time comes.
Both our recent reporting and a report by the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General found that the Mississippi State Department of Health categorically failed to inspect and demand action on the growing Jackson Water Crisis prior to the collapses of 2021 and 2022.
What does MSDH need to do to rectify this matter, and are you pursuing that in your capacity as a congressman?
Well, for my part, I wish I could be all things to all people, but I know my limitations. There are some hundred-thousand-plus customers for the Jackson water system. It’s in crisis. My job is to try to get that system up and going as fast as I can. And I’ve got the resources to do it, to let the professionals do it.
As for the regulatory responsibility that the State Board of Health has, we have senators and representatives who represent the City of Jackson. If they want to get involved with that state agency and make them do what’s right, good. The burden is solely not on my shoulders. FEMA is under my authority on the committee.
When that crisis came, we were able to marshal forces from all around the country to come and not just salvage but fix a lot of the problems that had been neglected for a number of years.
So I’m looking forward to the day when other people will say, “I’m here to help.”
As for the Mississippi State Department of Health, they gotta step up. I think if they had been more vigilant—based on that EPA review—we might not have gotten to the point that we did. That’s a state agency. They did not put one penny that I’m aware of into the reconstruction of the Jackson waterworks. They have a regulatory responsibility. And they need to be held accountable with that responsibility. State and local officials can have at it.
That’s hindsight. I think what we need to do is look forward and just make (the improvements) happen.
Obviously, you’re on record as supporting a restoration of abortion rights for women across America. How is that best accomplished—what will you do in your next term to see those rights restored? Specifically, how should a Democratic administration handle the filibuster and a hostile Supreme Court?
I believe in a woman’s right to choose. That decision is with that woman, her family and her medical providers. Plain and simple. And look, the Dobbs decision was a bad decision. But it’s the Supreme Court. I can disagree with it, but I’m not going out and disobeying the law.
I just think, in America, we ought to review our system. And I think that’s something we’re gonna have to do. I think you’ll see that’s one of the main issues in this upcoming session. Sometimes the government tries to do the thinking for adults.
In some instances, that’s not a good effort to put forward.
But how should a Democratic administration handle the procedural burdens in the face of restoring that right?
I don’t think we need to make it that complex. It’s a woman’s right to choose. That burden rests with that individual and their medical authority.
Israel’s war in Gaza is now expanding into a regional conflict in Lebanon. Even conservative estimates acknowledge tens of thousands of fatalities in the bombardment of Gaza—including over 10,000 children—were often killed with American munitions. Should a red line exist for continued American support: financial, political and material? If so, what is that line?
Let me just say, I’ve always been for a two-state solution. I believe Israel has the right to exist. I believe the Palestinian people have the right to exist. That existence is bad when people are being killed on both sides. My support is predicated on a two-state solution. I’ve always said that. And I’ll stay there with that position.
Are Israel’s actions in any way precluding a two-state solution–their treatment of Palestinians, their bombardment of Gaza, the continued settlements? At what point is a two-state solution, however much it may be discussed, effectively off the table?
I wish it were as simple as your question. It’s a complex issue. The killing going on is not helpful to a two-state solution. I encourage all parties in the conflict to step back, to commit to a ceasefire and start talking to each other.
But in your mind, there’s no red line that you see where America should condition munitions or condition any of the sort of material support that we continue to give Israel?
Well, I’m not that far off in it.
I just know that conflict’s been going on a long time. And people are gonna have to sit down without guns blazing and work out a solution. Otherwise, there’s no end in sight.
Going back to Mississippi, the state is seeing a lot of internal migration. Areas like the Delta are seeing residents head to other parts of the state and other parts of the country. What can be done to reverse those trends and to build up the struggling parts of the state, and how do you expect the state to work with you on this?
I’ve created and voted for every program that will create incentives for my district and the state to be better. I look at past leaders before Bennie Thompson got here who did very little to create incentives.
At one time, the head of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate was from Doddsville, Mississippi. The Speaker of the House of Representatives was from Valley Park. The Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee was from Cleveland, Mississippi.
But the investment went to other parts of the state, i.e. North Mississippi or the Gulf Coast. You have to have concerted financial investment or incentives to uplift an area.
I have consistently voted for those investments. To some degree, they are now coming, but we have to have state and local governments participating. We’ve struggled. My district was difficult when I started running. It continues to be difficult. I voted for the Affordable Care Act. Look at the healthcare challenges in this country.
In this state, we’ve lost $15 billion in healthcare monies because our governor won’t take the money because it came about under the Obama administration.
You feel that the issue of internal migration is driven by the conscious decisions of where to invest is made at the state government level.
Take Northeast Mississippi. You can go miles on four-lane highways and there’s nothing there but the highway itself. If you build it, they’ll come, but otherwise it won’t.
Is there anything that is important in your upcoming term that I haven’t asked you about?
Well, you know, we’ve done well with (recent) investments at the federal level, Mississippi has. We have to take advantage of that. If we don’t, we’ll continue to struggle.
I’ve told you about healthcare. All the counties I represent are medically underserved. We have to take advantage of our challenges. We have to create good-paying jobs so that our people will want to stay.
Many of those incentives are created by legislation at the federal level. Every incentive that Mississippi is using to attract industry, Bennie Thompson has supported and will continue to support.
But the challenge is, it has to be the state saying to counties and cities, here are some opportunities. You have to do what’s required to make that happen. It’s all hands on deck. When I look at my record, I’ve worked and I’ll continue to work.
My votes have always been in support of my district and the citizens of Mississippi.
Read more coverage of this year’s elections cycle at our Election Zone 2024 page.
Comments are closed.