Libertarian presidential candidate Chase Oliver may be a long shot, but he sees himself as having one key advantage over former President Donald Trump and incumbent President Joe Biden—his age.
The 38-year-old Georgia native is less than half the age of both of the dominant candidates, as Trump is 77 and Biden is 81. Even when broadening the field to include fellow third-party contenders Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (70), Jill Stein (74) and Cornel West (71), Oliver is still decades younger—a fact he's hoping can boost his campaign with millennial and Gen Z voters.
"It's time for our generation to really rise up," he told Newsweek in an exclusive interview.
Oliver believes that Americans should have the maximum freedom over their own lives without government interference. In his view, drugs should be decriminalized, people should have "bodily autonomy" to make their own health care decisions in consultation with their doctors, and the constitutional right to have guns should "not be infringed."
The Libertarian candidate also wants the U.S. to withdraw from NATO and bring home American troops stationed overseas, while doing away with military aid to foreign nations. That includes Israel, which Oliver says is currently committing a "genocide" in Gaza. He also hopes to phase out Medicare and Social Security, saying these programs are not sustainable given the national debt currently stands near $35 trillion.
When it comes to Biden and Trump, he says they are "terrible choices" for the country.
"Both of them are authoritarians. Both of them grow the government. It's just a matter of different styles. And both of their styles of governance lead to further partisanship in our country and further division amongst the population," Oliver said.
Speaking to Newsweek via Zoom video on Thursday, the Libertarian candidate explained his views on a range of issues, from Donald Trump's legal troubles, foreign wars and why he believes the country needs a new, younger generation to take power.
The interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.
Newsweek: A lot of Americans still aren't very aware of who you are. Can you briefly explain who you are and what your campaign is about?
Chase Oliver: I'm 38 years old. I'll be 39 on Election Day. That's half Donald Trump's age. And I live in Atlanta, Georgia. I've lived here for over 10 years now and grew up in Snellville, Georgia, which is a suburb of Atlanta.
I got my start being an anti-war activist. And then moved on to become a criminal justice reform advocate and somebody who has always spoken up for things like ballot access and making it easier to get more names on our ballot, to make it easier for us to vote with things like rank choice voting.
My professional career, I did 13 years in the restaurant industry. I started out as a dishwasher, and then worked my way through the industry. Then got into the logistics industry for years, where I helped move goods from one side of the world to the other. And then did a little dabble in HR work, helping to hire and unfortunately have to fire people.
My professional career is—I've been both doing the service industry jobs as well as being a white collar guy, and kind of corporate roles.
I understand that you previously supported President Barack Obama and considered yourself a Democrat. Could you talk a bit about your political journey? Why did you leave the Democratic Party?
That would start with why I joined the Democratic Party, being an anti-war activist opposing the war in Iraq. George W. Bush was the president, and not knowing about any other political parties, I assumed, well, he's the Republican, I must be a Democrat. Even though I was a Democrat who liked guns and a Democrat who hated taxes and liked the free market.
In 2008, we nominated and elected Barack Obama on a lot of anti-war promises that he quickly pulled back on, things like closing Guantánamo Bay, talking to any world leader without precondition, ending the wars. So, that pushed me out of the Democratic Party, and because I had positions like being pro-gun, pro-free market, and in general, pro-live-and-let-live, I found my way to the Libertarian Party.
They just happened to be at the Atlanta Pride Festival in 2010. And I've been a Libertarian since I think 2013 or 2014. But I've been voting Libertarian since 2010 with John Monds for governor [of Georgia].
You're running against Donald Trump and Joe Biden. What would be your number one criticism of Trump and what would be your number one criticism of Joe Biden?
Crazily enough, it's much the same for both of them. Neither of them have stopped the expansion of the state in terms of authority, in terms of the size and scope of the state. Both of them are allowing our government to grow ever faster to control more and more parts of our lives, and to spread violence via the badge, the bullet and the bomb. Both here at home and abroad.
I see them as two wings of the same bird. In terms of the differences between them, obviously, Joe Biden is a status quo politician for the last 50 years. He's been in power. He's been pulling the levers of power, both in the Senate and the White House. He's an example of just how horrible the status quo of our government is.
Then Donald Trump is an agent of chaos. He is somebody who doesn't respect constitutional norms. He's an autocrat. He's an authoritarian. They're both authoritarians. But he [Trump] is just very blatant with his willingness to use whatever mechanisms you can to flex his muscle.
Both of them are authoritarians. Both of them grow the government. It's just a matter of different styles. And both of their styles of governance lead to further partisanship in our country and further division amongst the population. So they are both terrible choices.
Do you see either as less bad or worse than the other?
I don't, because I understand that, no matter which one of them we get, we're going to have an expansion in the size and scope of the state. And we're going to further this hyper-partisanship and this polarization that we've been experiencing.
No matter which of them gets elected, we'll have a person at the top of the ticket who's running as president who just doesn't connect generationally with millennials and Gen Z. I think I do, considering I am a millennial. I'm probably the youngest candidate for president in a long time.
That's because it's time for our generation to really rise up. We're one of the largest voting blocs, millennials and Gen Z certainly together represent a plurality of the votes. We want to make sure our voices are heard, and we're tired of octogenarian politicians controlling our lives. The same people who have been pulling the lever of power today were pulling them when I was in high school, and I think that's kind of ridiculous.
I think even if you look at Jill Stein, Cornel West or RFK Jr., you're about half as young compared to everyone running for president. What's your message to young voters given this reality?
First off, I empathize with your position because I was there recently. I'm seeing young people all over the country outraged with the war in Gaza. That's what got me motivated when I was their age to get on the street. It was opposing the war in Iraq, and the United States being dragged into a war they shouldn't have been fighting.
Younger voters understand what it means to be struggling in this economy. I know what it means to be somebody like—you know, you're working your first job and you're working hard and you're going to the grocery store every two weeks and you're seeing less and less [in your cart].
Even though you have the same amount of money, and you're feeling that inflationary impact and you're feeling like you're not being listened to, like we're being lectured to by, basically our grandparents, in Washington, D.C. I really think it's time for us to recognize that we are adults. We can take control of our own lives. We don't need to be having powerful elites controlling everything.
And I also grew up in the regular economy. I know what it means to have to work a regular job and to have to work paycheck to paycheck, and have to think about, "OK, what can I buy this week?" Because I have to defer to next week's paycheck for something else.
I know what those struggles are like. And I don't think any of the other candidates who are running for president do because they've either been born into privilege, you know, Donald Trump born into being wealthy and has continued to be wealthy. Good for him. Or people who have been in government forever, like Joe Biden, or even folks like Cornel West and Jill Stein. They've made a lot of money on the lecturing circuit. I doubt they've lived paycheck to paycheck like I've had to in the last 20 years.
Libertarians are generally concerned about the U. S. justice system. Republicans in this cycle have been animated about that issue in the context of Donald Trump. There are calls to defund the FBI, or defund the DOJ. What are your thoughts on those calls? And you think Donald Trump is a victim of the justice system?
First I want to say it's funny to see people caring about the Justice System only when their preferred candidate for president is going to court, not when there's millions of people who are affected by the justice system all the time, whether it's interactions with police, mandatory minimums or other abuses in the court system. There's plenty of miscarriages of justice out there.
I think it's quite selfish for the former president to only care about true miscarriages of justice when it possibly affects him. Now, I have to say this, I do have to respect our constitutional system and that includes trial by jury. That includes the opportunity to defend yourself and appeal. Donald Trump's going through that process right now.
Where there are problems with the justice system, I will say the people that affects the least are people who have the means to defend themselves. It's not the Donald Trumps of the world who are facing the worst abuses of our justice system. It's those who can't afford fancy attorneys, who can't afford the army of staff and paralegals.
It's the people who are getting a public defender, people who are being pushed out by our unfair drug war. That's creating an entire cycle of poverty. It's people who are suffering the abuses in our prison system. I doubt Donald Trump is going to serve time in prison. He's probably going to get probation, which is one of the lower ends of what he could be getting punished with.
I think if he were a person without means, a person who was unknown, and statistically speaking, if they were a person of color, they would be getting more harshly treated by a judge in this country. And I think it's important to recognize that Donald Trump—his legal issues are not the most important justice issues in this country.
Do I feel that Donald Trump is a victim of justice? I feel like he's getting to go through the same appeal process that anybody else would be able to go through. We're going to have to see how that plays out and it could go all the way up to the Supreme Court, honestly. If it does, he's going to exercise every legal avenue he has.
And I'm glad we have a constitutional system of justice. That allows for that. In many parts of the world, that trial would have been five minutes long. In certain parts of the world, there'd be much stiffer penalties than probation.
You mentioned drug issues related to the criminal justice system. What is your view on how the country should address drug crimes?
Well, I think the first thing we need to do is look to fully decriminalize all drugs. The reason why I say this is because addiction is a medical issue. It's not an issue that gets solved by throwing people into a jail cell. The drug war itself is what creates the black market for cartels to be created, gives them the profit motive to put violence on our streets, and in a decriminalized situation, that would certainly be decreased. Very quickly, we would start seeing legal avenues for people to get the substances they want to put in their body as adults.
Obviously, I also believe this is a better way to treat addiction. If you look at the nation of Portugal, they had a huge IV drug use problem. They solved this by decriminalizing. They now have a lower addiction rate than most of Western Europe. They curbed new HIV and hepatitis cases. And I think this is the path we need to take. Not necessarily with government intervention, but allowing for people to exercise mutual and direct aid in their communities, these charities out there that give out free Narcan, fentanyl testing strips, and offer an avenue for these people to get into addiction therapy if they need it.
This is a much better use dollar for dollar than cracking down on populations with a federalized drug war. It also opens up new avenues for medicine, things like psilocybin, MDMA therapies that have been proven to work well to treat mental health issues, particularly PTSD.
I think it's a shame that so many of our veterans, even if they live in a state that legalizes those therapies, due to federal regulations, they're unable to access those therapies to help them. I think it's time that we looked into that, towards healing as opposed to punishing people who are suffering from addiction and utilizing medications and therapies that right now we're not able to because of the terrible scheduling process of the FDA [Food and Drug Administration].
As you said earlier, you're pro-gun. Do you see the government as having any role in regulating or controlling the guns that circulate within the country?
It should be the right of any adult to be able to purchase a firearm. I don't believe in restrictions, for guns "shall not be infringed" as the constitutional language. If there's a need for us to do any kind of regulation, you can't do that until you amend the Constitution because very clearly the Second Amendment has the "shall not be infringed" language.
I'm one who wants to undo gun regulations. I believe if you're living your life in peace, not using that gun to commit harm, if you're just going to the range or having it in case of the need to protect yourself or your family, it shouldn't be wrong for you to have a gun.
The only people who should be punished for having a gun are people who use it in an offensive manner to harm other people. And there should be stiff penalties for that kind of violence. I oppose violence, and I think that's one of the few legitimate needs for law enforcement in our over-criminalized society, is to punish those who would seek to harm others.
I'm happily armed. I'm someone who believes in the right to protect myself, and I'll continue to exercise that right as the Constitution and my inherent liberty affords.
Should people have to undergo background checks before they purchase guns? Or should former convicts be able to purchase guns?
I think a basic criminal background check to make sure that you're not currently under a restriction that doesn't allow for that. But I do believe that if you have been arrested for a crime, once you serve the time, you should be able to get your gun rights back. Same as you should be able to get your voting rights back. And that includes for felonies.
I tell people right now, I think it's wrong that Donald Trump, who's now been convicted on 34 felonies, has to give up his firearm until sentencing. I think that's wrong, particularly with nonviolent felonies.
If you're being convicted of a violent felony, you're probably not off out of jail waiting for your sentencing date. You're going to stay in jail. So it doesn't really apply there. But if you're in between conviction and sentencing, you shouldn't have to give up your firearm. And once you've served your sentence, if you go to prison or probation or whatever that is, you should absolutely have all of your rights restored.
I'm tired of seeing, particularly its communities of color and communities who don't have the means, lower socioeconomic folks, who are often stuck on these felony charges. They lose the right to vote for years, and I think that's wrong.
I know Libertarians generally want to drastically reduce the size of the government. I'm wondering, how does that impact programs like Social Security and Medicare?
For Social Security, I think we need to start the drawdown of it. My parents live on a fixed income. So do millions and millions of people due to Social Security. We shouldn't be affecting their benefits. But what we should be doing is for younger workers like myself, and this is why it's important to have millennial voices in the discussion.
We recognize that the Social Security system is going to go bankrupt. It's basically insolvent. And so what do I want for younger workers? The ability for us to get our employee contribution to Social Security given back to us. Keep the employer contribution so that way we can keep the system solvent long enough to let this last generation, or those who are about to go on benefits to retire.
For younger workers, we should be able to get our money back, put it into an IRA or even if we just put it into the S&P 500, it's going to perform better than what Social Security is providing to us. So I say let younger workers have the freedom to save for their own retirement, make this the last generation that ever has to rely on Social Security.
Then Medicare and Medicaid—we're going to start untying a million knots and federal regulation that have tied Medicare and Medicaid to the code. Eventually we need to phase these systems out too, because government sponsored health care stifles innovation. There are better ways to provide lower cost, high quality health care.
That's going to take a longer amount of time. I don't think you could get that done in four years. You'd probably need at least two terms to get that fully done. But that has to be our north star, moving ourselves towards free markets, and the innovation and the savings and efficiencies that come with it.
Both of these programs, you've even seen Republicans who used to be more pushing to reform Social Security and Medicare, they have sort of put that to the back burner because they've felt that the American people don't want to hear that. How do you package that message in a way that will be popular?
There's two reasons why Republicans have taken a step back on that. They move their principles with the political winds. We have to be honest with the American people that we can't afford these with a 35 trillion debt.
Younger voters are receptive to hearing this because we're going to be alive in the next 50 years to undergo whatever calamity the economy might undergo if we continue these programs. Of course, Republicans are changing their tune because their voters have gotten older. Now they're relying on these programs and they are afraid to tell the truth to their aging boomer voters.
That's just the nature of two party politics and the way the duopoly works. They blow with the political winds. Libertarians stand on principle. We have to tell you the truth, even if it's something that's hard to hear. We have to explain why you need to know it, because if we don't fix the problem now, it gets exponentially worse. I want a better world for my nephews and nieces to grow up in that doesn't have crippling problems from our debts and deficits, and through the welfare state spending that is causing it.
Both Democrats and Republicans regularly attack each other for restricting free speech in different ways. How do you view the concerns raised by the two parties?
I view it just as part of the two-party pro-wrestling match that we continue to see, that's full of hypocrisies, full of contradictions.
This is the nature of Republicans versus Democrats, and it's indicative of a system that allows a two party system to flourish. If we had more than two choices and more than two voices in nearly every race, and we had a broad spectrum of four or five or six parties that really represented the broad American electorate, you would see less of this kind of stuff happening. But it's because we continue to have this vote for the lesser of two evils [situation].
We got to vote for choice A so choice B doesn't win. That's what continues to have us lower and lower the quality of candidates. It's like monkeys throwing poo at each other, watching them go, "oh, you don't like free speech. Well, you don't like free speech. Well, you don't like my expression. Well, you don't like my expression."
The truth is, is both of them are anti-free speech. Both of them are anti-free expression in their own ways. The libertarian philosophy says, "Hey, if you're living your life in peace, you're not hurting anybody, you have the right to say and express yourself however you see fit. Even if we don't like it."
And of course, if we don't like what you're saying or how you're expressing yourself, we have the right to say, we don't like those things. That's what the true nature of freedom is.
I believe you've described the situation in Gaza as a genocide. Many people vehemently disagree with that term being used in this context. Can you talk about your views on that issue, and why you use that term?
I think if you look at the International Criminal Court and other international organizations that have identified this as a genocide, they lay out pretty clearly the reason why that term is used. It's not a term that's used willy-nilly.
There are several parameters such as attempting to remove a population, continuing to move populations further and further inward and compacting them for the purposes of removing their land. There is a lot of things that meet this standard. It doesn't just mean you're eliminating every person who's ever existed with that nationality or that identity. That would be a much higher standard to reach.
There's definitely a legal definition, which I believe the actions of the government of Israel, important to say the government of Israel, not the people of Israel, are undergoing. And so I don't use that term lightly. I have to use that term because that's how I see it.
I believe we need to call it out for what it is. If we are truly an ally to Israel and its people, we need to call out when its government does wrong. And I think there are millions and millions of Americans who are waiting for a voice to say that.
I always have to caveat with this. I want all hostages released. I also think it's wrong for Israel to be conducting airstrikes when there are hostages on the ground that we don't know where they are, and you could be killing them with these airstrikes. Their actions should have been much more surgical in response.
If you can't be a critic of what's going on with the government of Israel, if you can't be a critic of that without being antisemitic, I don't want to be your ally. Because I have plenty of Jewish voices for peace that join me, that are alongside of me speaking out against what the government of Israel is doing. I think if you have to use antisemitism to get your point across, it's disgusting. It's reductive to the anti-war movement and you should be better than that.
And so I joined those voices within Israel who are also calling for peace because they know a peaceful coexistence with Palestinians will actually be better in the long run and create a more peaceful coexistence with Israel.
You're against foreign military aid broadly speaking, and also want to bring back U.S. troops from abroad. Can you talk a little bit about that and how you would envision that working?
I think it has to be something that's done in a responsible way. But if I were president of the United States, I would signal that we're going to start removing our military footprint from so many places around the world.
Bases we leave, we can give to our allies. You know, we have many bases in Europe, for instance, that could be handed over to our allies if they would like to have them and maintain them. But we need to remove our military footprint from around the world because we've been exporting our values via the bomb and the bullet for decades and decades now. That has led to further destabilization in the world, further resentment against the United States and its people.
I think it's time for us to change our foreign policy to one that's more focused on peace and diplomacy, free trade, voluntary exchange, and working alongside our neighbors to create prosperity. Because if I'm selling something to you or you're buying something for me or, or vice versa, we're inclined not to want to shoot at each other because we're trading partners. That needs to be the way we facilitate our relationships around the world, through trade and through economic ties, not through militaristic ties and being basically a military empire around the world.
And how would that work in relation to NATO? Is that something the U.S. should abandon?
I think we need to remove ourselves from NATO. That, of course, would also be over time, but it would need to be done quickly. It's not that I don't support our allies in Western Europe. I just don't think that we should necessarily be tied into an entangling alliance that automatically signals us to have to go to war in every case, right?
I do believe in supporting the rights of free people. If we're ever attacked, we can defend our sovereignty. For those who are like, "Well, you will completely, you'll always abandon Western Europe if you're not NATO." I remind them that we helped fight the Nazis in Western Europe. In World War II, we didn't need a NATO clause to do that. I think if we were to see something terrible happening, I'm sure conversations would have to happen. Congress would have to declare war.
But what I don't want us is in a situation where, if something happens thousands of miles away from the American mainland, the United States has to commit itself to war even without congressional approval.
NATO's defenders would respond and say that the reason why we haven't had a major war in Western Europe, the reason why Russia and the U. S. haven't had a direct conflict, or why China doesn't invade the U. S., is because of NATO. What's your response to that defense of the organization?
I think you could argue that case up until the end of the Cold War. Once the Cold War ended, we needed to disengage NATO and start engaging Russia as a trading partner and as a partner within Europe. I think that would have diffused tensions far more than continuing the NATO state and expanding it.
It's not that I'm a fan of Russia. Vladimir Putin is a terrible authoritarian. He's horrible to his people. As bad as we complain about free speech in this country, the fact is, free speech is basically nonexistent in the state of Russia. I'm thankful every day that we don't have a Vladimir Putin in charge of the United States government because if we did, we'd be in much more trouble than we are.
I also understand that if we had engaged in more trade relationships at the very onset of the end of the Cold War, if we had engaged that diplomacy in a better manner, Vladimir Putin may have never risen to power.
We need to understand that the best way to disengage autocrats around the world is not to act like ones ourselves. The best way to disengage militarism abroad is to be the best example by disengaging our militarism. If we're not leading by example, it's easy for these dictators around the world to call us inconsistent.
When it comes to China, there's a lot of bipartisan concern in D.C. How do you think the U.S. should be managing that relationship?
I think much of what we're seeing out of China, honestly, I'm not scared of the economic side of things, because what I see now is China manipulating their currency markets to try to give themselves this artificial growth. And you can only push that so far before that bubble will burst. China's due for that.
I don't think we should engage in trade wars with China. We shouldn't be trying to one-up them on this because when we do that, we put our own economy in danger of this bubble burst cycle. I think what we need to do is insist on actually lowering the trade barriers with China, calling them on their bluff, engaging them in trade.
Enforcing market relationships, forging them even further than we have them, because the more we further entangle ourselves in free trade, the less likely we're to entangle ourselves in military conflict.
As far as Taiwan, Taiwan has gotten billions of military dollars, of military hardware from the United States over the last few decades. Taiwan can probably protect themselves the best they can. We do not need to engage in a hot war with China. And to that end, I think we need to be doing what we can to develop microchips at home. We shouldn't be having microchips abroad be what allows us to go to war.
I'm sure Democrats and Republicans are ready to be confrontational with China. But if you ask the average American who's got a kid who would be drafted into the military if we were to go to war with China, they're not very keen on doing that. They're keen on having a leader who's more responsible, who's willing to do the hard work of diplomacy. It's a more difficult, but necessary path to peace.
You've described yourself as proudly gay. In the past couple years, there has been a lot of cultural backlash against the LGBTQ+ community. What do you think the president's role, or the government's role is, in responding to that kind of backlash?
I think why this backlash comes is because we've seen government trying to manufacture cultural changes more quickly than they were going to happen.
I say this as somebody who's proudly gay, who's LGBTQ supportive. But when we try to use the force of government to try to push that upon people, when you push people feel pushed. I would much rather let the free market of ideas happen. I believe in a cultural ceasefire. I don't believe in fighting culture wars.
That being said, I support the civil liberties and the rights of each and every individual to be equal in the laws, in the eyes of the government. Period.
So, I don't believe in these things like banning health care decisions for individuals. I don't support things like a "Don't Say Gay Bill," where a teacher can't have a picture with their partner on their desk because that's somehow indoctrinating a kid. I think that's extreme oversteps from government in the other direction, and we're going to eventually see a backlash in this direction, right?
I think what we need to do is let government take a hands-off [approach] to culture, and allow individuals to live their lives with their values in peace. Ultimately, what we're going to see is a more pluralistic, more accepting society, because that's the direction we've always been moving in
I oppose all these kinds of bans coming from the state level because ultimately, you know yourself better than a bureaucrat does, whether that's in your state house or in D.C. You should have your right to live as you see fit in peace, to raise your family as you see fit in peace.
I believe you also identify as a Christian. A lot of the backlash has come from conservative Christians. How do you navigate that in your personal life, in your personal relationships?
I was raised in evangelical, but now I'm a proud Episcopalian.
I'm a member of a church that is LGBTQ-affirming. I believe that God's love is for all people. This is not a politician speaking. This is me as a person. You're allowed to have whatever faith you want and I respect that. But to me, the gospel of Jesus Christ is one that is about universal love and empathy for all people that extends to people regardless of who they love, and what their gender expression is.
It is hard to navigate those waters sometimes, but I'm willing to be a bridge between those communities. If I can be a bridge between LGBTQ people who feel like the faith community has left them out, and people of faith who feel like they don't understand LGBTQ people and want to know more, I'm happy to help bridge that divide as somebody who has a has a foot in both those camps.
I urge anybody who has those questions to ask them and be open and honest to hearing things. The most important thing is that we have open and honest discourse. I'm happy to be part of an LGBTQ-affirming church, and if you're an LGBTQ person out there who feels like you need that faith, that you maybe don't have from the church when you were growing up—I encourage you to check out the Episcopalians. They're great people.
Another issue that has been linked to conservatives—one of the biggest issues in the nation—is abortion, especially after the overturning of Roe. How would you work to address this issue as president?
I'm pro-make-your-own-choices on just about everything. I recognize that abortion is a very contentious issue. People have very personal held opinions about that.
I support the Hyde amendment that would seek to remove federal funding for abortion, because I don't think your tax money should be taken out of your pocket to fund something that is so divisive. I also believe that the private market and charity will pay for that. We'll cover that loss very quickly. I have no problems thinking that Planned Parenthood is going to make their fundraising budget this year.
But I also believe in being pro-choice. I think that you should not be prevented from [having an abortion] up to the point of viability. That's the right that you have under bodily autonomy, again, up to the point of viability. Post the viability standard, I do support rare exceptions for life of the mother. I think this is where most Americans are, honestly.
I am not going to be somebody as a man who is ever going to really have to have that real hard question answered. But God knows if I were somebody who were in the position to get pregnant, I wouldn't want some random politician making that decision for me. The Congress should be challenged to make that into a legislative decision and fundamentally protect the access for women across the country to their reproductive health.
There is a Libertarian social media account, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire X account, that has faced a lot of backlash for making posts that many view as racist and antisemitic. As the candidate of the Libertarian Party, what's your response to content like that being posted on official platforms?
I think it's irresponsible. It's wrong and it's not what some would perceive as racist and antisemitic—they are racist and antisemitic. Those messages saying that only right-leaning white men are the only people who understand libertarianism is disgusting, insulting, wrong, and many of the other things they've posted about that.
Allow me, as the candidate for president, to fully disavow the irresponsible messaging of whoever is in charge of the New Hampshire Party Libertarian account. I know many libertarians in New Hampshire who are embarrassed, frankly, by that kind of messaging, it's juvenile, it's edge lording, it's trying to get rage bait, and it's not real constructive political discourse.
It's not turning anybody into a libertarian. It's in fact turning many people off to libertarianism. So allow me to say I absolutely disavow all of those things that you just mentioned.
I would encourage people to instead look at positive liberty messengers, and not those who seek to tear people down, to divide people, or make it seem as if libertarianism or liberty itself is some sort of exclusionary practice. It's quite inclusive, it's cosmopolitan, and frankly, some of the stuff that has come out of the New Hampshire Libertarian Party in terms of libertarian philosophy are both irrational and repugnant.
Donald Trump was at the Libertarian Convention and he got quite the response. Do you think it was a mistake to have him come to the convention and speak, or how do you feel about that?
I had concerns going in because I thought there would be brand confusion.
I thought the room would be packed with MAGA people and we would see Donald Trump being cheered in a room with a Libertarian banner behind him. I'm happy to say that we had a room full of Libertarians there. They gave him the libertarian reception he deserved for his record as president, and for his rhetoric that comes out of his mouth.
I'm quite happy to see that he finally got to be in front of a hostile audience. It's something that he's not used to. You could definitely see it from his face and I'm glad we got to make sure that there is no brand confusion.
Donald Trump is not a libertarian. He doesn't have libertarian policies. He is a liar. He's a grifter. And he's somebody who just says whatever you want to hear, and then never follows through, whether that's in politics or business.
I'm happy to be running against him as an actual libertarian who supports reducing the size, the scope and the abuses of government, and not just using government as a tool to bludgeon my opponents, which is exactly the kind of politician Donald Trump was and would be again if reelected.
I read that the libertarian presidential line should be on the ballot in at least 37 states as of now, do you know how many states you anticipate to be on the ballot come November?
We're shooting for all 50. There's a couple of states [New York and Illinois] that present real challenges to us. Realistic expectation is 48 to 50 is what we're looking for. Even in states where we're not on the ballot, we will be certified write-ins. So if you're a libertarian, you can vote for the libertarian candidate.
As you said, we're already on the ballot in 37 states, more than Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or the Green Party. And I think CNN needs to look at that as the threshold for who's invited into their debate later this month.
A lot of people describe third-party candidates in general as, at best, you're going to be a spoiler for whichever candidate. What's your response when people come to you with that criticism?
My response is if you look at the approval ratings of both presidents, regardless of party, as well as the Congress, they're at record lows and you can't spoil something that's already rotten, which is Washington, D.C., and the way things are done there.
If I'm a disrupter, I'm happy to disrupt the political process. I did it in 2022 when I ran for us Senate [in Georgia]. I'm hopefully going to make people aware that there's more than two choices out there, and really try to ignite the next generation of libertarian voters so we can build our party up foundationally.
This isn't a one-and-done election. Unlike RFK, I'm not going to just be running and then poof, it's all gone. I'm running to build up the Libertarian Party, which is a vehicle that's been around for 50 years, but we want to grow it to be a true contender to the two-party system.
If you're putting your vote and your investment in us long-term, that's going to help us break down the two-party barriers and bring more choices and more voices into our process. In many cases, we're going to be the only alternative on your ballot due to our organization.
I encourage any independent or dissatisfied Republicans or Democrats to look at us as a place where you can find a political home, regardless of your own personal values. Just don't ask that the government push those values on others. And you'll be our ally and you will be welcome.
fairness meter
To Rate This Article
About the writer
Jason Lemon is a Weekend Editor at Newsweek based in Brooklyn, New York. Prior to taking on the editor role, Jason's reporting focused on ... Read more
