An interview with Nellie Pou

This is the sixteenth in a series of in-person, in-depth New Jersey Globe interviews with New Jersey’s members of Congress. The interviews will be published as-is, with editing for length and clarity.

This week, the Globe spoke with Rep. Nellie Pou (D-North Haledon), a first-term Democrat from Passaic County who serves on the House Homeland Security and Transportation & Infrastructure Committees. The Globe sat down with Pou to talk about her experience representing a newly competitive district, her thoughts on the Trump administration’s deportation agenda, her work on security and preparedness for the 2026 World Cup, and more.

Previous interviews: then-Rep. Andy Kim, Rep. Chris Smith, the late Rep. Bill Pascrell, Rep. Rob Menendez, Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, Rep. Mikie Sherrill, Rep. Jeff Van Drew, Rep. Josh Gottheimer, NJ-7 candidate Sue Altman, Rep. Donald Norcross, then-Senator George Helmy, Rep. Frank Pallone, Rep. Herb Conaway, Rep. Tom Kean Jr., Rep. LaMonica McIver

New Jersey Globe: You’ve been in politics for many decades, but this is your first time in this kind of spotlight, in this national setting. What has surprised you the most about Congress?

Nellie Pou: It could be just the time that I’m coming to Congress – it might have been different in years past. But as I sit today and consider what’s happening, the huge, huge, strong partisan views – they’re so vastly different from one another. We’re here, and they’re over here. I think that’s the one thing – I don’t know if I should say that I was surprised, but I didn’t think it would be to this level.

You’re coming from a district that was supposed to be a safely Democratic district, and it’s not. It’s a much more competitive district than anyone thought before last year. How does that impact the way that you’re looking at partisanship in Congress, coming from a district that’s so closely divided?

I am just trying to be laser-focused on my district, and laser-focused on the needs of my district and my constituents. I’m not surprised that we have some differences, but having such strong partisan views – what’s going on in Congress right now, with many of the bills and public policies that are being put out there by this administration, and followed suit by House Republicans. It’s quite astonishing to me that they’re just absolutely lockstep and totally in line with everything [from the Trump administration], regardless of whether it’s harmful or not for their own districts.

For me, I just want to make sure that I’m doing what I need to do so that my constituents feel as though they’re being heard, and their concerns are being addressed. I know that there’s a lot going on right now. Many of my constituents in my district feel afraid, and it’s just trying to make sure that we communicate with them and we let them know what we’re doing every day here.

When you say that they’re afraid, what are they –

Oh, God, afraid of the unknown. Afraid of the uncertainty. They’re afraid of what’s going to happen to them in light of some of the many different program cuts and funding cuts that very well may take place. They’re afraid of whether or not they’re going to be able to have insurance and health coverage, like Medicaid or Medicare. In some cases, where we have many federal employees, they’re afraid of whether or not they’ll have a job to go back to. People today are truly afraid. They’re afraid of all of the drastic, and cruel I might add, changes that are going on right now, and the impact that they will have. They’re afraid as to whether or not they’re going to lose their homes because of the lack of affordability, the loss of potential jobs, the increase in the cost of living. They’re afraid as to whether or not they’re going to be able to send their children to school. These are real-life stories, real-life issues, that people right now are very concerned about.

Your district’s voters did very narrowly choose this administration over a hypothetical Kamala Harris administration. Do you feel like there’s been a shift since the election, in terms of people becoming nervous about something they just voted for? Or are you hearing mostly from Democrats on these issues? I guess I’m curious about how you represent a district that voted for the other party while also fighting against what that party and that president is trying to do.

I think people really believed what they heard. People really wanted to believe a lot of what was being said. Today, I know that many of them have called here, or have spoken to me while I’m in the district, about, ‘Oh my God, I didn’t realize that this was going to happen.’ I don’t understand why they didn’t, because he was saying that he was going to do it. But they really didn’t feel as though it was serious – that he was joking, or he’s not really going to do that. But I think today, people really understand and are questioning how they voted, because who they voted for and what they voted for are not the same thing. People wanted an opportunity to see things change, but what they’ve gotten has been absolutely the opposite. The change that they’re getting is not for the good.

You have long been a progressive Democrat. Here, you’re a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Have you felt any internal or external pushback to that label, given this district you’re representing and given the political climate that exists right now?

I’m a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and I’m a member of the New Dems Caucus as well. I think the intent really is to try to be able to represent the views that best relate to the majority of my constituents. Do I believe in certain progressive issues? Absolutely. It’s something that I feel strongly that we should continue to do and speak out on. But I am also someone that understands the importance of balance, and have taken the necessary action in terms of my vote consideration to ensure that I’ve taken a very moderate position whenever that was necessary. I like to believe that I take issues not one way or the other, but I base it on, what am I voting on? How is it going to affect my constituents? Am I delivering in that way? That’s what I take into account. I don’t use the labels, but I understand the question.

Since you said that there are some issues where you feel like you have a more progressive perspective – what are those issues?

Like I said, I don’t look at it from a label point of view. I know folks like to label it, it’s not what I do. In fact, it was how I responded to a question early on last year, someone asked and I said, ‘You know, I’ve never labeled myself one way or the other.’

Do I believe in a woman’s right to choose? Absolutely. Does that make me progressive? Okay, if that is how it’s going to be identified, I’m happy to take that on. Do I believe that we need to ensure that we have strong public safety protection and good law enforcement support? I completely support the public safety community and law enforcement. Do I believe that we should have fair and balanced taxes, so that it’s affordable for everybody? Here’s what I will tell you: I do not believe we should be taking money away from the people who can least afford it, to give to the millionaires or billionaires, the rich members of our community. I don’t know how you label that, but that is something that I know how I feel. Do I believe that we should be protecting our borders and securing them? Of course, but that also means that I believe we should do it in a humane way, a sensitive way, a way of making sure that we have a pathway to citizenship. I don’t know how anyone would categorize that, but that’s what I think.

That’s actually what I wanted to ask about next: the border security, immigration, and deportation issue. The group that swung towards Trump the most in New Jersey, and in your district, was Hispanic voters, but the Trump administration’s very early, aggressive moves are on this issue of detaining undocumented immigrants, sometimes documented immigrants –

And sometimes U.S. citizens.

Right, and occasionally U.S. citizens. I’m curious for your perspective, from the ground in the 9th district and talking to people, what your reaction has been and what the overall reaction has been to these early Trump administration moves.

I believe that everybody should have an opportunity to come to this country, and they should do so in a legal way. There’s no question in my mind that we ought to have those opportunities. This country was built on the backs of immigrants, and we all want to recognize that effort and recognize that hard work and commitment. And we should not prevent that from happening. Do I believe that, in order for us to do that, we have to have safe borders? Of course. Do I think that the manner in which this administration is going about it is the correct way? Absolutely not. I do not believe that anyone should be apprehended by masked, covered, unidentifiable individuals, who are able to simply place handcuffs on you without telling you who they are or where you’re going or why you’re being arrested. And in many cases, we’re talking about not just undocumented people, we’re talking about U.S. citizens who have also been caught in that manner. I would say, to anyone thinking about this, close your eyes and think about how you would feel if that was happening to you, or a member of your family or a loved one.

This administration campaigned on removing all the criminals on the street. Well, guess what. Don’t take my word for it – think about all of the statistics that are out there from various different organizations, including some members of the Trump administration, on the number of people that they have incarcerated and placed under some level of detention, and how many of them have absolutely no criminal record. They were supposed to get rid of the criminals – all of these gang members doing horrible, horrible things. Well, that’s not the case. Clearly, we have to protect our citizens, we have to make sure that their rights are not violated, and we need to ensure we’re protecting democracy, and I really question whether we’re moving in a direction where the rights of anyone just simply walking down the street will be protected or be abused.

I did a story on that exact issue with New Jersey-specific statistics; at both the Elizabeth Detention Center and Delaney Hall, 90 to 95% of detainees are listed as having no criminal convictions. And DHS yelled at me about my numbers being wrong, but it was their numbers.

And that’s the problem. They have a tendency of either not knowing what’s out there, to your point, or finding a way of reversing and redefining the information and how it’s going to go out publicly. It’s their own information, their own records, and they’re not able to substantiate the whole premise that they’re trying to do mass deportations of all these criminals. Many of them are people who have been here for 10, 20, or more years, hard-working individuals, paying taxes from the wages that they’ve earned, being part of the economy – and now being dragged out and simply being told that they have to go to another country, oftentimes not necessarily their own country.

We talked earlier in the year about your vote against the Laken Riley Act. In retrospect, do you feel like that was the right call?

It was the right call. It was horrible, horrible what happened to Laken Riley. No question about it. And the person that did it needed to go to jail forever. So clearly, this is not about the horrific attack on this young woman. That’s not what they were attempting to do. What they were doing, and when I say they I’m talking about House Republicans, was taking the horrific situation that happened to this young woman, and using that as a political stunt to try to create legislation that was already on the books.

[Under the bill], someone who has been accused of theft would then be detained based on an accusation. But then that individual had absolutely no legal rights to go and prove his or her innocence, because they did not need to be convicted. All they needed to do was be accused of a so-called crime, with no legal remedy to prove their innocence, no right to go to a court and try to ensure that they even had the right person. That individual then would be subject to deportation just based on an accusation, without any legal rights or legal defense. That’s what I was voting against. I was voting to protect their legal right in the court of law. It’s all about fairness. I wasn’t voting to prevent someone from being deported for having committed an egregious crime. That already exists! Anyone who commits that type of crime, the law already exists! There are federal and state laws that would automatically apply to that particular type of crime.

I know that you’re a top person on the World Cup and Olympic Homeland Security task force. I’m curious about your work on that; do you think that the country is ready, as it stands right now, to host all of these major events?

I just left a briefing earlier today by the FBI, the Secret Service, and Homeland Security with our special task force, not open to the public. I think we will be ready. I do. This is an opportunity for the United States of America to really shine, to really put ourselves out there, and to welcome such an incredibly mass gathering – one of the biggest events in our country will be the FIFA World Cup. We are having these games throughout different parts of the country, but the finals will come to New Jersey and come into my district – I’m truly happy about that. It really will be a huge plug and a plus for us. We will be ready in every single venue that you can think of. It’s not the first time that we find ourselves in this situation, in terms of dealing with mass gatherings like this.

We just did a committee meeting, open to the public, dealing with learned practices and learned experiences from other major mass gatherings, such as the Boston Marathon. There was the horrible situation [the 2013 marathon bombing] that happened there – what did we learn from that? In New Orleans, when you had the horrific situation that happened on Bourbon Street [this January], when the car rammed into 20 people, many of whom died. That’s just to name a few; there are a number of other examples I can give. But basically, the idea is to understand: what have we learned? What are some of the resources that we need as a result of that? How do we apply new technologies?

Some things are easier than others. For example, if you’re in a closed, contained dome, then the security and safety levels there are very different, and you have greater control. It’s some of the fan-fests and celebrations that take place afterwards outside, before or during some of these celebrations in the surrounding towns – because you have such a large gathering, we want to make sure that we have all the necessary resources for that.

Are you concerned at all about how the Trump administration’s immigration and deportation policies will overlap with this?

It’s a question that I asked when Secretary [Kristi] Noem came to our committee to provide us with testimony. Unfortunately, she didn’t respond to the question quite honestly, to be honest with you. I said, ‘What are we doing to make sure that we are able to welcome people from other parts of the world that are going to either participate in the World Cup or that are coming as spectators – coming in legally, of course, because we want to make sure that’s the case – to ensure that’s not going to be done for the purpose of some kind of immigration raid?’ Those are the kinds of things that I am interested in making sure that we have the opportunity to say, ‘You are welcome to come into the United States,’ and not anything to the contrary.

New Jersey just held its gubernatorial primary – you didn’t take a side in the primary before it happened – and then a couple weeks later, New York City held its mayoral primary. National reporters like to analyze these races as, ‘What does this mean for the Democratic Party? Why did New Jersey Democrats choose Mikie Sherrill and New York City Democrats choose Zohran Mamdani?’ What are your thoughts on what these primaries, both in our state and in the city next door, mean?

First of all, it means that people are paying attention, and that’s a really good thing. In both elections that you’re talking about, you had a large participation. That’s excellent, that’s important, and that’s something that I hope continues to be the case. That’s exactly what we’re talking about in terms of exercising your civil responsibility and your civil rights. The beauty of our country is that we have the right to vote for whoever we want. And that is what was on display during both of the examples that you talked about.

Democrats need to continue to speak out and make sure that we’re heard loud and clear, and that our message is clear. We have done a lot of work towards that end, and I am happy to see that that is happening. Whether it happens on this perspective or this other perspective, it’s an opportunity to allow your position, your voice, your choice to be taken seriously and be registered.

Do you think that Democrats are on pace to do well in New Jersey?

I think Mikie’s going to do really well. New Jersey voters are really concerned about many of the policies that are coming out of the House Republicans and this administration, and the impact that they’re going to have on their lives. Even people who voted for Trump in ’24 are questioning, right now, ‘Oh my God, did I do the right thing?’ There’s always going to be a percentage of the folks out there who are going to continue to follow this administration. I’m sure that’s the case. But are we going to really see the kind of outcome that we saw last year, especially with what is going on with the Medicaid program, what’s happening with Social Security programs – the concerns with whether or not that’s going to be there or not for them. We’re talking about concerns about SNAP, and about higher education with the ongoing ridiculous conversation about the elimination of the Department of Education, even though [Trump] has no authority to do that, because that is an act of Congress. The House Republicans are permitting and allowing that to happen.

I’m a person that wants to let my voters know that I am open to discussion; I am open to listening to their concerns and their views. We answer every single call that comes in with a live person, so that we can hear their concerns, and we actually respond to our constituents. We have some regulars who call us practically every day; some of them might have very strong Trump views, but will absolutely feel comfortable calling us. We take their calls, we know them by first name now. The idea is that no person is ever turned away. Every person who calls and shares a concern is given very serious attention, and to the extent that we can respond to their needs and answer their questions, we will do everything in our power to do that.

You took on this seat from Bill Pascrell, who had his own long legacy. What does it mean to you to further that legacy in Congress?

We all loved Bill. Bill was someone who was truly a household name for everyone in our district, someone who did so much for so many people. I just want to be able to honor his memory by making sure that I do what, if he were here today, he would be proud of. I want to make sure that I’m a voice for everyone. Whether you agree or maybe sometimes disagree with me, it’s okay. I want to hear from people, and I want to have people feel as though I am actually not only listening, but also helping. I hope to be able to have an opportunity to really engage and bring legislation to New Jersey that really impacts and helps our communities in the 9th district. That’s what I hope to be able to do.