LIVE: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis Holds Press Conference in Tallahassee

Materialize really anywhere else in the country. Last night we witnessed, to call it a wave I don't think would be fully accurate. It's the political equivalent of a meteor strike that went al- laround the United States. Blue states, red states, very thing in between, and the one state that was able to hold the line All statewide races, U.S. Senate, Governor, Attorney General, and withstand that is right here in the free state of Florida, Chief Financial Officer, and Agriculture Commissioner. were held and won by you. Over many months and even over the last year, had Amendment 3 not been on the ballot, I don't know that we'd turn out the voters that we ended up turning out. People wanted to vote yes on that, and then many of them ended up voting Republican later on down the ballot. But let's just be clear about what happened last night. This is close to an extinction-level event for Republicans in many parts of the country, as we have seen probably in the last hundred years. In January, when everyone in office leaves, who were either term-limited or got voted out, of the ten largest states in this union, only one state will have Republican control of their state. If you look at our chief rival in a healthy sense, the state of Texas, and I would say over my lifetime, Texas has been the crown jewel of Republican politics. I think we've been the leader for Republicans and conservatives since I've been governor, but if you go over the whole generation, no one holds a candle on the Republican side to the Lone Star State. And yet, not only did they lose a very highly publicized U.S. Senate race, they lost everything. The governor, attorney general, all the other statewide, they lost four Republican Supreme Court justices on the Texas Supreme Court. They may even lose the Texas legislature or one house or even both. Let's just be clear, that is going to hurt, not just for the next two years. That's something that can reverberate for the next decade or more. And if the Republican Party doesn't have Texas as an anchor, then we are not going to be viable nationally going forward. The federal results. You've got to put a good face on this, and I was very clear we were running to headwinds. I was very honest about that. I said a victory would be minimizing the losses given the climate, minimize House losses, even though I didn't think we could keep the House, maybe keep the Senate. That would have been a win. If you lost two or three Senate seats, that would have been a big win for a midterm election. We knew it could be worse, but I don't think most of us thought it would be quite this bad. The Democrats will likely go into January with 56. U.S. Senate seats and as much as 258 U.S. House seats. And so what that does, not only is that going to totally change the dynamic of the next two years, to the detriment, of course, of President Trump, this is going to last far beyond just two years. You look ahead to the '28 election, a presidential election. You are not, as Republicans, going to be able to retake the Senate under this current map just two years from now. And with all the House seats that have been done, probably not viable to take that back as well. So this is really going to have an impact. Two years, four years, six years, maybe even longer before Republicans could exercise unified control in Washington again like we've enjoyed over the last two years. Just think what this means, having 56 senators. That means no Supreme Court justice will be confirmed under President Trump's administration unless something happens in the next six weeks. No major cabinet officials. That have strong conservative credentials are going to be able to be confirmed. And that's not just true for these two years. That would likely be true for the four years after that. So this is going to have a huge, huge impact. And we just have to be very clear eyed. I mean, this is probably the political worst case scenario for a midterm election. So the question is, is why did Florida hold up? Why were we able to hold the line? And I think the answer is, is that we've built up a record of achievement. We've earned trust from a number of our voters that even in the worst situation that you can imagine politically, we were able to hold the line and prevent the worst from happening here. But just be clear, we're in a deep hole nationally as a result of this election. We saw the electorate shifting 20 points in some parts of the country. We saw races go down that we never thought. would be possible. But here's the thing. Democrats are unpopular. They were able to win based off the sentiment that exists in the country right now. They did not earn a mandate to indulge all their left-wing fantasies. And they're going to be in there governing, and we'll see what ends up happening. But this was not a positive view of the Democrats. This was a rejection of Republicans in Washington, and Democrats just happened to be the beneficiary. Now, it's going to take a lot of time and effort to rebuild. Bill, it will not happen. In just one election cycle, but Florida shows how you can build a coalition, not only to convert on all your promises in good times, but also to withstand the bad times. We were able to do that last night against very long odds, and I think the state will ultimately be better for it. Okay, I'll take some questions. Well, I helped the Florida Senate and they did a good job. I mean, they lost one seat in the Florida Senate. They have a very strong majority, much stronger than when I first got elected governor. Jim Boyd did a great job. You know, Jason Broder was an excellent senator. And I didn't always agree with him on everything, but he worked very hard. He put his constituents first. This wasn't a reflection on him. He got caught up in a wave. He got caught up in a wave where people were coming out and they were going to vote D down the ballot. They made that decision. I don't think there was anything he could have done given those circumstances. So I did a lot for the Florida Senate, not just recently, but over the years. You know, You know, look, I think you've heard me talk about the Florida House. I mean, there's a lot of great House members like, you know, Sam Garrison's a great guy. There's a lot. But how they behaved over the last two years was not acceptable. And they had a rotten speaker. And there was a lot of problems there. So it just is what it is. So I can't bail them out of their behavior. They had people suffer as a result of Republicans not being willing to vote for them because they didn't like what they saw. And I wish they would have done better. But, you know, ultimately, I think that was performance driven. They were going to lose seats in this climate. There was no way you were going to be able to hold that many seats. But I think some of the losses probably could have been mitigated with better governance. Should Republicans look to you as some kind of savior going forward? I don't know what... Uh-uh. There's no saviors in politics. I mean, I think people need to understand elected officials are supposed to be servants. You know, you're not going to get salvation through an elected official. I think people can look at Florida and show how you can deliver big results and how you can build a durable coalition. Because the reality is you're probably not going to face an election climate this bad, perhaps in our lifetime, in terms of what happened. I mean, losing the Senate race in Mississippi, which looks like it's going to happen. Who would have thought that was possible? We almost lost Louisiana. People weren't focusing on that. That was a 1% victory in Louisiana, which I'm sure the president probably carried by 30 points. Losing a U.S. Senate seat in South Carolina. No one would have thought that was possible. Heck, even six months ago, you probably could have gotten 99% odds in some of these prediction markets, taking the Republican to win at that point. So. So that's just the reality. But so we've shown we've shown how it can be done. I think it's going to take time to dig out of the hole that was there. That's just the reality of the situation. But, you know, our voters, they did they come out like they did four years ago? Not as not as much. Eight years ago, not as much, but I think once we saw what was happening, we did a good job turning out a sufficient number of voters. I absolutely think Amendment 3 had a lot to do with that, and of course, I was the chief person to do that. I mean, both Governor-elect Donald, RPOF, they were saying, come help the governor. Keep the governor's wins on the board. Make sure that we continue. Don't let them take that away. And that was really enough for people to do. And I would run into people over the last six weeks or so, and they would say, all right, you know, I'm going to vote for them because, you know, because you said, I don't know. They didn't even know a lot of the candidates, but they said that we're going to do that. So I think we earned some trust with the voters because we've delivered. But ultimately, you know, politics is only part of life. And do not look to that for salvation. Just look to it for people tell you they're going to do things and then they do it. I think voters appreciate that, and what I said I would do, we've done, now I think there'll be a next generation that'll come in on the heels of me being here, and if they follow that, and just do listen to people, and make sure you're using conservative principles to come up with good solutions, you'll be successful in Florida in the future, I have no doubt about that. Thank I am, I'm going to... Let the legislature, you know, kind of get their feet under them. I'm not just going to throw something on them. You know, we knew this would be something we needed to do. There's a lot of ideas that we've been tossing around for the last six months. And, and I know that they're going to want to do it, you. but we want to make sure that we land it in a good way. So I'll work with them. I'll probably let them pick the dates. You know, I'm basically, you know, you know, on lame duck duty at this point. So, you know, I'm very flexible in terms of being able to do it. But yeah, we got to do it and it will be. And I think what it'll do is it'll set the schedule for further homestead expansion, obviously, because we want people to be able to get that, but also limiting local governments from just doing an end run around the amendment and taxing them in other ways. Miami-Dade County voted for the 65-35, our biggest county. I mean, that's a huge, huge mandate for this thing. So we want to make sure people are saving money, and that is going to, I think, require a taxpayer bill of rights. Where we're not allowing to just go and put fees or do play games. That's why we did the business reduction. So they can only raise five instead of ten like they can do now. They said it would be a tax shift. It's not going to be a tax shift. It's going to be a reduction. And then I'll also work with the legislature to provide a pool of funding that we can issue grants to local governments for core needs. And these local, you know, it's like some of the rural, they voted for it overwhelmingly. People said, oh, rural won't vote it. Look at some of the things in rural, what they did. Overwhelmingly, they did. But people say the rural tax base isn't as strong. It's not. But. It's budget dust to help them with their sheriff's department. We're talking about tens of millions of dollars in grants would be able to handle the, quote, shortfall. So we'll be able to do that. There'll be a transition period, so we'll work with them on that. And I think people are going to be very excited to get some much-needed relief. You know, there's certain things that you can't control directly. Indirectly, we've done a lot on the insurance market. You know, they just announced another reduction or another rebate on the auto side. You're going to see another reduction in citizens insurance in South Florida probably by the end of the year, beginning next year. I'm very confident of that, and I'm very confident that carriers are going to continue to offer lower rates because now you have a lot to choose from, and what consumers are doing, they get a high premium. They're looking around, and they're finding they can save money. That's how you drive it down through consumer choice and competition. So that is underway. We've already seen that. We've had the lowest increases in the country the last two years, which no one would have thought was possible. So you're going to continue to see reductions there, which is relief, which is meaningful because that's tough. But the property tax, man, that's going to be such a breath of fresh air for people. I mean, this. Yes. It has to be. It has to be implemented by January 1st per the amendment. So, yes, my term goes till the 4th or 5th or 6th. Who's counting? But that's the plan, yeah. And, you know, look, I don't know how it got to that point, but I'm glad since I was involved with this, you know, I want to make sure that we land it right. I think it's important. What in the president's agenda do you look at as the most vulnerable now that Democrats have taken back so much of Congress? So I think with the Democrats, one, they can shut down any appointments, right? So if you have 56 Democrats. And I don't think Justice Thomas or Alito would retire under those circumstances. But, you know, Justice Scalia didn't either. And hopefully nothing happens. But, you know, you never know with life, right? So if there were to be a vacancy, I think the chance of confirming somebody is zero over the next two years. I think the chance of putting people into serious cabinet roles that have strong conservative credentials. is close to zero as well, because I don't think we get the votes to confirm them. So I think that for sure on the Senate side is going to be a huge hindrance compared to where they were. Because, you know, even when Republicans had the majority, you would have some of these Republican senators that wouldn't vote, right? The Democrats almost always would be against anyone that would be put up. I fail to see how... If you are nominating a replacement for Justice Alito, first of all, I've said I want Alito to stay for another 10 years because I think he's a great justice. But if you're doing that, show me how you get 50 votes with 56 members. I don't see it. So that is going to be a huge issue going forward. And then I think the other thing is they have the gavels. And so they're going to launch a lot of investigations, and it's going to be in both chambers. It's going to probably be across multiple committees, and that's a sea change in how Washington operated over these last two years. And I think they're going to be able to throw a lot of sand in the gears, attempt to throw a lot of sand in the gears. The inner workings of the administration, so appointments and confirmations and then the oversight and investigatory. Those are probably the two biggest. I don't know policy wise what they're going to do, but I will tell you this. They've got enough senators now and House members. They can have DSA people. They're still going to hold Democrat majorities on key votes if they need it. They could do a budget reconciliation bill and put it on the president's desk. It may not be what Republicans want. And so then he'd be in a situation where he'd have to veto legislation, budget bills. So I think you're going to see a lot more conflict between the Congress and the executive. I told these guys in the beginning, and this is something we saw in special elections for the last 18 months. Donald Trump won the state by 13 points. He said the line of scrimmage has moved 10 points in the Democrats' direction. And that is about what happened in Florida, maybe even a little bit more. So that's the new line of scrimmage. So if you think you're going to waltz in and win by 13 points, forget about what we did in 22. We told them that wasn't viable. You're not going to do that. But you're not going to win by 13. Under the circumstances, so you're in a low single-digit race. I told everybody over the last 90 days we are going to be in a low single-digit race. I do not think those races were in the bag. I think that there were definitely circumstances where we could have gone the way of Texas, no question about it. But the line of scrimmage moved 10, 12, 13 points in Florida. It moved some of these other places 20. In Texas, it moved 20 points. If you look at what the president won it by in 2004. To what their Senate candidate won there. Even the governor, I mean, he had been elected statewide overwhelmingly multiple times for multiple offices. You know, that wasn't a close race. I mean, he lost that pretty significantly. So Texas probably swung 20 points. Our line of scrimmage held better here, but I was under no illusion that that's just the way it is. When there's a wave, you just have to deal with it. We had a wave in 18, blue wave. They took the Congress. The circumstances this time were much more challenging, not even close. The four congressional seats that were supposed to shift Republicans through the midterm district went Democrat No, because I said the line of scrimmage shifted 10 to 15 points. And so those races, now look, I think CD9, I carried by 26 points four years ago. Most of them I carried by 15 or more. Maybe the coastal one, I maybe did less than that. But We knew the shifts were going to happen. It just is what it is. You know, we had 20 Republicans going into the election. We have 20 Republicans on our congressional delegation now. So it is what it is. Now, you saw retrenchment on our incumbents from where you, the president was two years ago to where they were. But when the primary was over, Matt. I had a lot of these people here at the House. And, you know, we sat them down. You know, we're just, you know, socializing. If the president won your district by 13, You're in a low single-digit race. Just understand that. The line of scrimmage has moved. Why? Democrats had their best turnout they've ever had in the modern history of Florida. Would they get 68% turnout of their registered voters? They've never gotten that high in the midterm. They've never beaten us in turnout as a percentage in the midterm. The only thing that saved us is we just have so many more Republicans than they do. So they did that, and then no party affiliate voters came out. much stronger. And that's kind of like a rule of thumb. When I ran four years ago, it was a lower NPA turnout. When NPA turnout goes up, it's usually because they're not happy. When it's low, it's usually because they think things are fine, right? And so you saw that. So all those factors, we definitely built in 10, 15 points. And look, we had to change the districts because I knew it was coming down. I knew that district was not viable. I opposed it four years ago, but there really wasn't case law to support my position at that time, but I knew which way it was going. So we had to do that. But, you know, these other ones, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. I mean, you know, you have opportunities, and you have to ask. I mean, it's not easy running for Congress. I helped all those guys. You know, we helped them raise money. We did stuff. But when you're down ballot like that. You know, especially as a first-time candidate, it's hard to buck the trend. It's just the reality. It's hard to buck the trend. So then the question for Florida is, are we going to continue to do what kind of built this firewall and take it to the next level? That will end up giving future candidates in those seats great opportunities to run and win. If you go a different direction and you start losing support, Well, then those are districts that they may continue to carry. Who knows, right? Depending on how things shake out. But I told them the line of scrimmage was shifting 10 points at a minimum. I think nationally, you're going to find that the line of scrimmage probably shifted from 15 to 20 points on average. I think we would feel that. You said nationally this was a rejection of Republicans not endorsing Democrats. Why is that the case? I think that's just how midterm elections typically go. People come out, and they're more apt to vote when they're upset or angry at something, and they vote to send a message, rather than, oh, you know, I have a positive reason to come out. Now, it can happen. Four years ago in Florida, we drove the turnout in a positive way, right? That's why we had a big turnout. But I just look at how are they campaigning, right? And they were running. I mean, these congressmen, you know, I'm like watching these. I'm watching the World Series. I see the ad. You know, so-and-so voted against releasing the Epstein files. And I'm like, you know, that's a bad vote. We ran as Republicans on saying we need to do that. And then you actually have people in the Congress voting against release when the Attorney General said she had all this horrific stuff on her desk and that people were going to be held accountable. It's untenable. When you have people going in, trading stock, how is it that, so, you know, look, I have credibility on this. I've never traded a stock since I've been in elected office. I was actually pretty good at it, you know, in my spare time before I got into this, but my view was, how do you have no investment acumen? And then all of a sudden get elected to Congress, and then you're outperforming Warren Buffett. How does that work? Oh, you just happen to buy something related to an industry where you're on a committee, and then it goes up 150%. And we see that. But those ads hitting those Congress people, I thought were devastating ads. Why? You know, Luna was right. Why don't they ban the congressional stock trading? It would be a breath of fresh air for everybody. You know, if they were able to do it. So I just saw how they were running, and it was really a rejection of what was going on in D.C., and our candidates didn't have their footing. And I made comments over the last week or two because I was seeing this. They didn't have a great positive case for themselves. They were flat-footed. They were trying to explain this or explain that in ways that weren't landing with voters. It's tough. Midterms are tough. I mean, I think if you look, the sixth year of a presidency. almost always suffers defeats. It's very rare that you gain seats, almost always lose and usually lose big. Obama lost big. Bush lost big. Nixon, the tail end, was cataclysmic. Truman lost. I mean, that was a unique situation after the war. But that's kind of the nature. But yes, I don't think the Democrats ran on a positive agenda. And in fact, if you look around the states, even in states where Republicans got wiped off the face of the earth, the voters. We're approving conservative ballot measures. They supported voter photo ID when that was on the ballot, even in blue states. They supported amendments against taxation, limiting property tax, not just in Florida, but income tax limitations. California even voted against some of the taxes. So the electorate that showed out was obviously voting D up and down the ballot, but on individual issues, they were not, this is not the Democratic Socialists of America. And the Democrats have a variety of people that ran. Some were more liberal, some became more moderate. The energy in their party is on the left. We've seen that. If these guys get in and do that, that will induce a reaction. I don't know if it will be 28, but eventually it will induce a reaction in, I think, a negative way. But I don't see what their positive agenda was. They were saying they were against what was going on in Washington. People that were upset at that, they got them out to vote, and that's why they won these races. On Amendment 3, you're right, I mean, I believe it's the really most popular thing on the ballot last night, but also at the same time, voters in Polk and Miami-Dade approved property tax referendums to fund schools. And so I just want a couple of questions. One, do you still think that Amendment 3 would have cleared 60%, had legislation not carved out schools from it? And then is that something you're particularly going to look at in the special session, limiting the ability of local governments, even in red areas, to put a referendum like that on the ballot? All right, let's see if this works. So 3 applies to every taxing authority except school districts, and that is what will be implemented. What I think, how you deal with school districts, I think the legislature believes, and I think with some reason, is we have this FEFP. It's got pluses and minuses. There'll be opportunities to do a rewrite of that with the committee that's going to start next year. You may be able to do a rewrite in a way that will provide strong funding for schools in a way that can still provide relief for homestead property owners. I think there's ways to do it. But I think that they felt it was better to do that vehicle if you were going to do it. Rather than rather than try to do it in here. So yes, I mean, it would have been susceptible to political tax, obviously, and it is what it is. But I just I've looked at the economic base of this state. And I know we have a lot of a tax base of people that are not homestead owners. So the more we can get the homestead to just be tax free, I think that's the better. That is not going to be a part of the implementing bill in terms of the school districts. There's not gonna be anything that's going to change on that. But I think the legislature is going to address the FBFP. I think if the next governor, if Byron wants to get to a point where a lot of Republican voters wanted to have tax-free homestead, then you're going to have to come up with solutions on that. But we've had a big commitment to education. I've increased funding for school districts, for teacher salaries, for all these things over the years. I'm a product of public schools. So we're going to do that. But how do you do that, and can you do it in a way that is giving people more breathing room on their primary residence? You may be able to do that. I don't think that was the major issue. I mean, people will say, you know, if you look in Texas, big shift among Latino voters. But, you know, why did they shift in favor of Republicans? They did because of Bidenflation. They did because the border was open. They did because of the crime policies, which were weak. And I think now they're looking mortgage rates are over 7%. Gas is $4 a gallon, grocery prices have gone up, and all these, and so I think it was more kitchen table issues and bread and butter issues than that. I know that there have been complaints about how that was handled, and like I said the other day, We have responsibility to enforce the law. No one's done more at the state level to support enforcement of immigration laws than we have since I've been governor across a wide variety of ways. But if you look at some of the things that happened like Minnesota, you know, there was an effort to generate a spectacle, I believe, you know, for press purposes, and that ended up not being effective. This is an important thing that you're doing. It's not about necessarily creating... A conflict on the streets, it's, you know, you have laws, people came in, they have a right to be here, great. If they don't, then we'll enforce the law. So I'm not saying it wasn't a factor, but I do not think it was the driving factor. I don't think it was the driving factor in South Florida, even though you did have some people that were concerned about it. And, you know, if someone's an American citizen, you know, they shouldn't be involved with DHS at all. And that would have been mistakes if that happens. I don't think that was the intent. the administration. You did have some people that had been here for a lot longer than just when Biden let everybody in. So it was an issue, but it was not the overriding issue. I think if gas was $2 a gallon, if inflation was lower, and if some of these other issues were shaking out a little bit better, I think that you would have seen at least different trends. The results still would have been tough because it was that. Yes. What do you envision your next chapter looking like, and do you have any plans to run for any higher office in 2020? We'll talk about anything I'm doing on the other side of this. I've still got more work to do. We'll work until the lights are out and cross that bridge when we get to it. Statewide races were a success for Republicans, but do you think national Democrats might really look at Florida as a place to spend money that they haven't been doing in years? Well, look, they've spent a lot of money in Florida over the years. They've spent a lot. I mean, 2018, they spent a lot. In 2020, they spent a lot. They did spend in 22 against me. And they abandoned in 24 because I think they realized, you know, they weren't getting a lot of bang for the buck. We do have a pretty strong voter base. Our voter registration has continued to improve and all that. And so I think the question is. If you couldn't win in this year, what circumstances are going to create the opportunity for you to win statewide in Florida? I mean, Ashley Moody won by, what, 150,000 votes. Byron won by 100,000. Upmeyer won by 130,000, whatever. Whatever. That's kind of the high-water mark for them, right? Now, maybe if they would have spent money, maybe that would have had an effect. I don't think it gets them over the finish line, even if they put money in. Republicans ultimately will decide that in the sense that if these guys get in and do a good job, Florida will be out of reach. If they get in and fumble the ball, then all of a sudden you're giving an opportunity for the Dems to come back in Florida. I am concerned just nationally. I mean, if you think about it. We got wiped out in Ohio. That's a huge part of our national coalition, to have Ohio in the Republican column. We got wiped out in Texas, the biggest anchor we have in Republican politics. So really, Florida is the last main anchor standing. I think that means that there's going to be a special emphasis on making sure we increase fortifications as Republicans and that we get this right. And, you know, I'm not going to be looking over anyone's shoulders and you got to do this, you got to do this come January. But I think that everyone that was on that ballot can look at Florida and then compare to the rest of the country and know that that there was a reason why we did. We were able to withstand the worst of circumstances here. So if they build off that. I think Florida will still be out of reach. But look, if we were all sitting here even a month ago and someone offered you odds that Texas, some would say the Senate was going to go because you saw it, but if you said, I will bet you that Texas governor, lieutenant governor, AG, land commissioner, railroad, whatever they have, Supreme Court, will all go down, not one of you would have taken that. Some of you may have wanted to see that, but you wouldn't have taken that bet because you would have known that just doesn't happen in Texas, right? So that's a wipeout. So I think Florida Republicans should know that there's nothing guaranteed in this. Politics is changing. It always does. There's always these cycles. And I'd say specifically now the ground, when I was running for reelection, you know, we had the issue advantage. They indulged in COVID hysteria. We were the free state of Florida. They were pursuing woke ideology. We said, we're going to protect you from that. They had bad policies on letting criminals out. We are law and order. On issue after issue, we had the strong advantage. And then we had a record that backed it up. So the wind was at our back and we did it. Well, the issues change as time goes on. So now what were some of the issues that you saw where Democrats were able to outflank Republicans? How you approach big tech, how you approach the issue of hyperscale data centers. I was one of the few Republicans, and we got the legislature to say you can't raise utility rates. The PSC you saw with this Duke proposal. So this is the law in Florida, and that protects consumers. But I think you had some Republicans that were like, oh, yeah, just eminent domain somebody's farm and give it to a hyperscale data center. You see why these rural voters were revolting over that. So, you know, there's a time and a place to be able. To do certain development, but why aren't they going into urban core areas that have been hollowed out and doing it? Why are they taking farmland or taking and taking ranches and things like that? And the Democrats. Showed an appreciation for some of these rural people who are likely not Democrats. And I think the Republican view was just saying, oh, you know, you're just going to have to grin and bear it. We had a more balanced approach in Florida for sure about that. But even just how you approach big tech companies, should you give them immunity for 10 years? Or should we have a coherent framework that's going to channel technological development in a positive way but mitigate on the negative? negative. That's something. You know, these Flock cameras. It's happened very quickly. Law enforcement uses cameras, normal cameras. That's not anything new. This is one where they're taking data. They're harvesting data about who's going through. They're giving it to private companies. They can create dossiers. They can sell the data. They can do all that. And is that something that we want to have? And so, obviously, I took action. The legislature here is going to have to address that. But nationally, you know, that becomes an issue. So there are all these things that happen, and you've got to be responsive to voters. You use your conservative principles to solve these problems, and you don't indulge in left-wing policymaking. But to just ignore them as issues, you know, I don't think that's a viable strategy. We, of course, tried to do the AI Bill of Rights that the Senate passed 38 to 1 last session in the House. You know, they refused to do it. You know, is that what the voters wanted you to do, to not even have a debate over maybe the most significant issue that's affecting society right now and likely will in the future? I think the voters expect you to debate these things and offer solutions. So that's an issue that needs to be addressed here in Florida and throughout. The country, but we are in a very volatile political era. Things shift quickly, and the leaders just got to recognize that and don't act like whatever worked even two years ago in a campaign is necessarily going to work today or would work going forward. I mean, I knew Republicans were in trouble when I was reading an overview about, you know, what were they running ads on, and they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars across the country on, you know, on transgender ads. And look, I. I fought Disney on gender ideology. We did the boys, protected the girls from the boys going in sports years ago. You know, we've made sure that the schools, all this stuff, the surgeries on minors, we outlawed. So we have taken that issue the way I think we should have and handled it with good public policy. But that was not the issue motivating voters. And it was kind of like an attempt to just scare Republicans to vote. But I think, and I think they ran some in Florida. Our voters, they know we took care of that, right? So that wasn't speaking to their concerns. It was effective four years ago. Voters were glad that we were standing up against some of the insanity that was happening. You know, I see this guy in Michigan that got elected. They asked him about, well, why should a boy be in a girl's locker room? He said, oh, well, you know, they're going to see this on the Internet anyway, so what's the difference? Oh, yeah, I think parents think there's a big difference for that. But that was the view, and people didn't want that, and we were able to go. But the ground shifts, and the emphasis then is on different things. Four years ago, we were in the peak woke era. It alienated a lot of people, rightfully so. It alienated me. So we were fighting back against that. Well, now the issues are different. And Republicans, it seemed like, in some of the ads I was seeing with how much money they were spending, they really were fighting yesterday's battle. So we are going to do the special session. I'm going to let the legislature propose when they want to do it. I think they should do it when it's convenient for them. We'll get that done and you know I don't know that there's there may be some housekeeping items I want to do. I'm going to talk to Jim and Sam and see but that's important. We knew this day was going to come and we're ready for it. Thank you.