Free bonus podcast: Rachel Maddow guests on The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim

Hey everybody it's Rachel Maddow so you know Richard Engel from NBC News my old friend Richard he's just started a new podcast for Sky News with Yalda Hakim from Sky News and if you don't know Yalda she's incredible she has an incredible life story but she's also just an incredible journalist and anchor.

And since they started this podcast very recently, I've been totally hooked on it. I've been listening to every episode. It's great. The two of them, world travelers going to the most interesting and often war-torn places on earth, talking about what they're seeing in geopolitics. They obviously have been talking about what recently happened in the US election. And they asked me to be the first ever guest they have had on their podcast. Every other episode has just been the two of them talking, but they asked me to come in and

sit with them and be their guest for the first time, which was a great honor because they're both a really big deal and I really like this podcast. But the conversation itself was really interesting to me, challenging, interesting, really different than every other conversation that I've had about the election and its implications.

Anyway, I really enjoyed it. I thought it was great. I hope you want to listen to it. You can stay right here and listen to the full episode of The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim with me as their first guest. It starts right here, right now. Hello and welcome to this week's episode of The World with me, Yalda Hakim. I'm back in London after spending a few days in Doha in Qatar.

And me, Richard Engel, I am back home in Lisbon, and I have only just returned a few hours ago. I was also in Doha, and before that, I was in Jordan.

And Richard, we're going to do something a little bit different this week, a little bit special. It's going to be in two halves is how we're going to deal with this episode. And first of all, we're going to talk about our trip to the Middle East with you and Jordan and me in Qatar. And of course, the latest developments in Ukraine. And then we have a very special guest, our first guest of the podcast series.

Exactly. In the second half of our show for the first time, we will be joined by none other than Rachel Maddow. And she is a very important voice right now in the United States. She is the host of her own show on MSNBC.

And she is a controversial voice. Some people love her. Other people think in the United States that she is the worst person in the world and the worst at all that the American media represents. Far lefty, but she undeniably has a very important voice at the moment. We will also do some listener questions, which we love getting actually. I really enjoy hearing them come in. I'm excited about that. And then of course, our predictions.

And with that, let's get started and make sure you're following the podcast wherever you're listening. And remember, you can watch the full episode on our YouTube channel. Let's get started. Lots to talk about. We've both just returned from the Middle East. You're in Jordan. Just tell me, you know, Jordan's played such a crucial role both in ways partnering with Israel, but also being hypercritical of Israel and how it's prosecuted this war. Tell me what you were doing there.

So I was there meeting with some very senior officials, the top level people decision makers. I also went on an a drop and I went on one of these Jordanian cargo planes that flew over Gaza and then once they're in a relatively low altitude, they open the back and they push out these pallets of aid in the classic iconic image of boxes of food, you know, falling down with opening with parachutes. You've done this before.

Yes, I've done it before. So I was there to do that and witness that. And it's one of the only ways that aid is getting into Gaza right now. And it's terribly inefficient. These crates can fall onto people and they have in the path, killing people inadvertently. They can only carry so much because at the end of the day, it's an airplane and there were eight tons of material, each one on a one ton pallet. And then they just open up the door and then off they go.

It's inefficient, expensive, it's a drop in the bucket, and it also isn't working because there's such lawlessness in Gaza. That's what I learned this time because they pushed out the aid, all great, the shoots open, landing, no problems, nobody's hurt, but they landed in an area controlled by this one particular family that is now because there's such

Mad Max levels of desperation that clans are sort of claiming territory for themselves. And this aid pack at all ended on this one family's area and they came out with guns and protected it. So nobody else was able to get anything. So they came back empty-handed. We were filming with this guy who went out with his son and they're running to

three kilometers to get there, only to have guns fired over their heads and sent back. And it just shows that just law and order has broken down in Gaza. It's exactly that. There's famine, there's hunger, there's desperation, there's death and destruction, there's looting. And there's such a lack of trust. And as you say, the most inefficient way to deliver aid is one of the main options now for those trying to get food into places like Northern Gaza.

There's plenty of aid that can go in, and there was almost going to be sanctions from the US. The US had threatened to limit the supply of weapons into Israel from American weapons. If Israel didn't comply within 30 days, that's another reason why I was there. That 30-day

deadline ended while I was up in the plane. Actually, just after we landed, but that day, the Americans had threatened that they were going to do this unless more aid came in. A little bit more is coming in that went from a trickle to a drizzle, but it was enough that the US said, we're seeing progress and there'll be no change in policy. The UN, of course, went crazy and this is an outrage. Nothing has changed at all. Every humanitarian group said nothing has changed at all, but the US backed down.

They did, and as you say, on the aid issue, I was interrogating and asking an Israeli official about it, because their own stats and figures show that from the month of October, through to now, the aid that was, I mean, there's very little aid going into Gaza anyway, but it just fell off the cliff completely, especially northern Gaza. I mean, there's literally nothing going in.

The Israelis say that Hamas, as you say, criminal gangs, Hamas are looting and stealing the aid, and you've seen evidence of that. Yeah, these people weren't Hamas, and that's part of this whole issue. There's no police on the streets. Hamas, for better or worse, mostly for worse. It's on October 7th, a lot, a lot, a lot for the worse. But Hamas had been the government, and now the government is gone. So not only are Hamas fighters gone,

But there's no police, there's no traffic cops, there's no nobody. Not any kind of services functioning at all. There's no medical services to speak of. It's total societal collapse. And when I asked the Israelis about this, I said, listen, the UN is criticizing you. The Americans are criticizing you. All of your Western partners are criticizing you. They're asking you if you have a deliberate policy of starvation in especially Northern Gaza.

And the Israeli official pushed back and said, absolutely not. This is Hamas stealing the aid. I said, no, the aid actually isn't making it through yet across any of the border crossings for it to be looted. But it's interesting that you're saying that it's all the criminal gangs and elements.

You just did a big special on Gaza, and it was a big piece of work. Absolutely, on exactly these issues, the political office of Hamas is in Doha in Qatar. And last week, we spoke about whether their office would be closed, whether the Qataris had asked them to do so.

doesn't appear to be the case. And when I pushed back with the cutteries on this, they said, look, it's more of a warning shot. If you don't get your act together and agree to some kind of ceasefire deal, they feel the pressure of Trump breathing down their neck and about to come into office. And interestingly, Hamas, when I sat down with this guy, his name's Dr. Bassam name, he was very confident and defined. He said, we're not going anywhere. We've got our political office here. I said, have you guys been decapitated?

He said, listen, this has happened to us multiple times. Leaders have been killed, others emerge. You know, don't worry about Yahya Sinwar being killed. Don't worry about Ismail Hania, the leader of the political office being killed. We're strong. We will. We're strong. There will be others that will emerge. What you need to worry about is the killing spree that's taken place inside Gaza. What that will produce. Did you find him convincing?

You know, I even, even after the interview ended, we chatted for 90 minutes after when the cameras stopped rolling. And because I had interviewed him about six months ago, and he, when I asked him about October 7, he said, Oh God, why do you keep talking about this issue? And I said, are you kidding me? Why do you think? And I asked him this question. That answer says it all. Exactly. What's the big deal of October 7?

This conflict didn't begin on October 7th. We had 20,000 dead from the early 2000s. He was going into all that, and I said yes, but never in the history of this conflict have you had 43,000 people dead. As you say, Gaza turned into a wasteland. Do not register what has happened and been triggered as a result of your actions 13 months ago.

So I just got back from Jordan meeting with senior officials and I can't tell you what they're really worried about. They're worried about what happens over the next four years because Israel right now, Benjamin Netanyahu looks secure in his position. He looked very weak at right after October 7th, but now he's maybe at the peak of his power and his friend, his confidante, his ally, Donald Trump is now back.

in the White House yet, but on his way in already sort of making pronouncements and putting together his staff. And we're going to talk a lot about that with Rachel Maddow coming up, and that's going to be really exciting. But what they're worried about in Jordan is that over the next four years,

that they're not going to that the Israelis aren't going to necessarily do what they did in Gaza. They're not going to flatten it, but that they could annex the West Bank. So if they annexed the West Bank, the settlers would no longer be settlers. The Palestinians would effectively be guests somehow. They would have to have permits at permission to be living there and would end up in like

more reservation. One of the things that I'm hearing that Donald Trump is asking behind closed doors is, why are we giving so much money to the Egyptians when they can't just take these Palestinians from Gaza? Why are we giving so much money to the Jordanians if they can't help us and take this part? Why do they need to be there? He's saying things like, why can't we just give them 50,000 each to go to safety and go and live in Egypt, go and live in Jordan? And a real question.

50,000 to leave your homeland, to leave your tradition, to leave the place where you were born or your ancestors are buried and just 50 grand and go for it. And they think that's a good deal. As you know, Richard, even Netanyahu has said, look, despite all the noise, our policy is not to push them out, right? That is what he's maintained from the get-go. Like, whether or not they have these conversations behind closed doors and things are said,

Publicly, when he's questioned or he's government is questioned, when people are saying, hang on, the policy here appears quite suspicious. Not to be expulsion, yes. It's not, it's not expulsion. It's not, it's not expulsion. Before we move on to Ukraine, I really want to get to Ukraine. And we got a lot to talk to, because then Rachel Maddow's coming up. There was one Jordanian official who mentioned, who described it to me this way. And he thought maybe he could approach talking to Trump the same way. He said, just think of it like an immigration issue. Forget about who's right and who's wrong.

How could you accept 2 million people crossing the border, whether the policy is expulsion or the lives are made so difficult that people leave or violence or whatever the reason is that forces them out? He said, how could you accept 2 million people just coming in? And we're a small country. That's a big percentage of the population. It would have a major impact. So maybe on an immigration level, he could understand that the Jordanian official was one.

It's really interesting. And again, I spoke to a Jordanian official as well, and her approach was slightly different to what you're hearing. Yes, there were concerns. But she said this administration, the Biden administration, has been so difficult to deal with that we know the Trump administration is going to be tough, but we kind of are welcoming the opportunity for the challenge.

for clarity, and we kind of will have some understanding of where he might sit, whereas he said this particular administration for the last year has been so frustrating. It's been all procedure and little action. At least with the Trump administration, we may see some kind of action, even if it's not action that we like.

Look, and that is the big appeal that Trump has always cast over the world and to the people who voted for him, that he can be decisive and you can pick up the phone, get an answer, and have something delivered. We will see, we will see. But in these last few days of the Biden administration, you see that smooth segue right there? Like butter, it was like butter. I like how you did that. In his last

Days in the White House and one of his last sort of decisive foreign acts, I think, we'll see, maybe there'll be more. President Biden just said that the Ukrainians are going to get these longer range weapons and they can fire them inside Russia. And that was something that the Ukrainians have been asking for from the beginning and Biden administration has said, no way that's too risky for us. You start firing our weapons that go a long way into Russia. You're going to bring the U.S.

and or NATO into a war with Russia. We're not doing it. Now he's doing it.

Well, a few weeks ago, we talked about, you know, what it would mean this period. We talked about this lame duck period that Joe Biden is in, where I sort of said he's a lame duck, but he's not totally impotent. And he has this period of sort of 70 plus days. And what he could do is flood Ukraine, saturate it with weapons and give them what they want and have lobbied for for the last year. So another prediction, we got right.

And it's something, as you say, Richard, that the Ukrainians have been asking for for at least a year. And in fact, just a few weeks ago, you know, we make these predictions at the end of every program. We predict it. So you're shamelessly, you're shamelessly tooting our horns again. Well, we seem to get them right every single time. When we get them wrong, are we going to keep repeating them as often? And as we got wrong again last week, so probably not.

every week so far we've been right. But yes, we did say that they were going to flood the zone with weapons, escalate before de-escalating with some sort of peace deal that inevitably is probably going to see, not inevitably. I think inevitably is going to see Ukraine seed some territory.

And I remember speaking to his secretary of state, the US secretary of state, Anthony Blinken, and asking him about this. I said, you know, is it on the table? He said, absolutely, everything is on the table. But we are not sort of three weeks ago.

Yeah, I would say about four or five weeks. It just may be like three, four weeks before the election, right? I interviewed him and I said to him, listen, is this something you guys are considering? And he said to me, everything is on the table. We're not ruling anything out, but we do understand the risks involved. We don't want to trigger a wider sort of conflict. And this is something that Putin has always threatened, hasn't he? He sort of said, if you allow this to happen, this is a declaration of NATO basically getting directly involved on Russian territory.

And you know, the Russians are freaking out right now about this new Polish base, this new NATO base in Poland as well. So they're feeling very nervous about that. More NATO presence. Right. Right. Breathing down the neck. But what's the cost? Putin, we haven't seen what he's going to do yet.

So we'll have to wait and see how this plays out but Zelensky has I also think sees the writing on the wall with this new administration and feels like I need to now position myself where we are going to have to sit

at the negotiating table. And you know what, one of my predictions, I'm gonna make one of my predictions now. Oh, you're jumping the gun. I'm jumping the gun. Why don't you hold it? Why don't you hold it? Listen, why in this conversation right now? And let's hear some of these questions. And then we'll do the predictions. Deal? Deal. Okay. Let's go. You go first. Come on, I'm not that technical. I gotta pull them up. I gotta put my reading glasses back on. Oh my gosh. Nobody knew that I wore these reading glasses online. And now they're all commenting. Somebody did comment on them.

And by the way, they're the best thing ever. I had been hesitating to get reading glasses. The greatest thing I ever did, or not that greatest, but one of the greatest things I've done recently, question is, what is preventing Hamas right now from releasing all the hostages? You just met with the guy and what did he say?

Well, I asked him this exact question, why are you not releasing the hostages? And he described them as prisoners, their prisoners. And I said this with the air quotes. Yeah, the air quotes. And I said to him, they're women, they're children, they're elderly, they're Holocaust survivors, they're people you've dragged out of their beds in the middle of the night early hours of the morning, when you took them away into Gaza. And he said to me,

And when have you asked Israelis about when they've rounded up Palestine exactly Palestinian children he said just as they have thousands of Palestinians in their prisons and I said well the Israelis would say some of those people have committed crimes and they see them as bargaining chips having you know in their custody women and children and thinking

13 months on that they can still use them as bargaining chips is, you know, again, we know this but sitting across from them and listening to them say this and describe the prisoners, you know, the hostages with air quotes and sort of be quite dismissive about who they were was really quite disturbing actually.

And do keep asking your questions, comment on our YouTube channel or write to us at the world, one word, the world at sky.uk. And now the time has come for our predictions. So y'all, do you want to start? Yeah, you know, we've been talking a lot about Ukraine, the Middle East, in the context of

Trump presidency the second time around, what is he going to do? And frankly, I do think that the Afghanistan model is going to be the model going forward for the Trump administration. What I'm trying to say is that what we're going to increasingly see is

Donald Trump cutting deals with the enemy, selling out partners and allies in order to have a deal and be able to get to some kind of agreement to end these conflicts. Joe Biden did it in Afghanistan, so I'm not going to totally blame Trump for this one, but what I will say is that that is what increasingly

These countries, Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East will have to prepare themselves for. I think I'll make a more time-sensitive one. I think we could see a Lebanon ceasefire soon, like within the next week or two. I think the Israelis have... This is also what I'm hearing. I think the Israelis have basically hit everything that they wanted to hit with Hezbollah. They've decimated the leadership. They've taken out

huge percentage of their missile capacity, particularly their medium and long-range capacity. They're kind of done, so I think they probably are going to announce some sort of ceasefire and have Hezbollah pull back to the Latani as they had agreed on before, because I think Hezbollah has taken a serious beating and is at this point where they're going to have to accept a ceasefire. We're just going to pause there, and when we come back, we'll have Rachel Madoff with us.

And here we are with the one and only Rachel Maddow. It is so great to see you like this on our podcast. Thank you for agreeing to be our very first guest. I am honored and nervous. I'm sure you guys aren't nervous because you're total pros, but the fact I've been listening to every podcast, every episode that you've put out, I think it's fantastic. I'm so happy you've brought this podcast into the world. I don't know that it deserves guests and I certainly don't believe it deserves me in the sense that I don't know if this is going to make it any better.

Well, then we're over. That was Rachel Maddow. Thank you very much for joining and tune in next week. I love the dynamic between the two of you and the different perspectives that you bring and the mutual respect that you bring to every conversation. So I'd rather just listen to you, but I'm honored that you guys asked me to be here.

Well, we're so grateful that you've joined us because you're not just an author and a host of a television show. I think in the United States, you represent significantly more than that. And you also are a kind of a leading figure for let's call it the left in America. People who agree with you love you. And on the other side, you represent everything that is wrong in America. I don't know if you agree with that setup. How would you describe yourself?

I think the person who is least capable of analyzing their own influence is the person him or herself. And so I don't know what my resonance is in the world, but I do a cable news show. I am liberal minded. I am allowed to express my opinions as well as delivering the news. And the Democrats did just lose an election.

So I'll give you all of those, I'll give you all of those fact-based things in terms of what it means in the country and what people think of me. I don't know. I feel like ever since I was in local morning zoo radio in an unranked tertiary market back in my 20s, I've had sort of an equal amount of love letters and death threats. And that's the same as it is today.

Yeah, someone once told me, obviously, it's not on the same scale as Rachel, but never read the love letters and don't read the hate mail. Just do your job. And I think you do that so well. But you just talked there about the Democrats have just lost an election. What does it all mean? And we look at these polls time and time again, and they seem to get it wrong. Just if you could talk us through a little bit about the lead up to and sort of what the mood was like and what you were thinking at the time.

So the science of American polling has fallen on hard times. For the last few election cycles, both those one on the left and those one on the right, the polling has very often been wrong. And I think some of that is just the state of the science as the way you communicate with individual humans has to change when we've left landlines and moved to cell phones. And there's a lot of spam and people don't answer their cell phones.

There's also something that's happened in the United States where there is sort of bad faith partisan polling, which is effectively press release and messaging by another name. It's an artificial attempt to create a perception of momentum on one side or the other with trash polls that are then very highly publicized.

There's a lot of noise. Aside from the technical problems, though, you are in it every day in immense detail. Rachel's famous for her opening monologues. Nothing, no graphics, no movement of any kind. I'm just going to talk at you for 15 minutes and encapsulate the day's story or the point that you want to make.

It really works. You were inside, as I say, as a daily analyst, but also part of this larger body politic. So how was it? What went wrong? How did you feel? How are you feeling now?

I know a lot of people, particularly on the left and on the center left, have spent tons of time thinking about what Kamala Harris' campaign could have done differently and what Democratic messaging, how it could have been tuned in a different way or where their media strategy could have been calibrated to hit different types of, there's been a lot of that. I have not done a lot of that.

I feel like from a global perspective, right now we're in a moment where governing parties and industrialized democracies lose office when people have a chance to vote on them. As well, I also think that people who market strongman leadership

tend to find an audience for it. It's something that resonates with people emotionally. And I feel like it's been kind of a nine year project of the Trump movement within the Republican Party to acclimatize Americans to the idea that our system is bad.

and weak, and what we need is a strong man who breaks all the rules and breaks all the laws and doesn't care about doing things that are offensive and hurtful because he has a vision for the country and we ought to just ride him to it. And that is a message of strength and an exciting message to a lot of people. It is a message that is about undoing what American governance is and undoing America's role in the world in a very big way. It's a very radical decision that I think the American people just made.

I don't think it's all that mysterious. Let's talk about where we are now and where we're going in the future, and that's where you were just starting. Do you think that he's going to, as you described, tear up the laws of the United States, fundamentally change what Americans think about being American and what people outside the country think of the United States?

I do. I don't see any evidence of moderation or I didn't mean it or I just said that to get elected in his behavior since the election. It might yet be wrong. It may be that he's pounding his chest in the transition just to try to intimidate

his critics or the opposition or anybody in his own party or in the government who might try to impede him, and this is just a show of force and he's not really going to try it. But if you look at his nominees and you look at the things that he's demanding already of people within government, it's everything he said he was going to do. And I expect that it will be

mass deportations. It will be millions of people in camps managed by the US military. I expect it will be military raids in civilian areas to try to take on this extreme anti-immigrant agenda, which I think he means every word of. I think that it's the end of American participation in NATO in any meaningful sense. I think it's

really, really bad news for Ukraine. I think ultimately it's bad news for Taiwan. I think that it is a big, big leap toward the multipolar world that Vladimir Putin has been dreaming of and preaching for a long time. And I think internally in the United States, they will start arresting their enemies and bringing bogus prosecutions and justice department, civil lawsuits against everybody who disagrees with them. I think all of that's going to happen. Oh my God, you're anticipating the end of America as people know it.

I have just come back from the Middle East, Rachel, and speaking to several leaders, prime ministers, members of Hamas, for example, Israelis, the Lebanese. And the feeling that I get from the Middle East is that, and again, ambassadors to Gulf states in the United States, Jordanians in the United States, who have said to me, there just wasn't clarity with the Biden administration.

We had no clarity. It felt like things were in absolute disarray. There was process, but there was no leadership. That American leadership felt like it was completely absent, certainly when it came to the Middle East, for example. And that what they got from the first Trump presidency was at least they knew where they stood for better or worse.

Whether they were happy with it or not, the feeling is that perhaps there will be a level of clarity which they didn't have from the Biden administration. Clarity is of virtue in the abstract, I suppose, but if somebody's being very clear about terrible things they want to do, I don't know that it's helpful to have it in a muddy way or a clear way. I mean, certainly Donald Trump uses short sentences.

And when he tries to use longer sentences, the sentences can't be completed. And certainly Trump uses blunt force when it comes to threats and extortion against especially American allies. And he's literally proclaimed love toward Americans, America's supposedly most lawless, unpredictable and dangerous enemies, Allah, North Korea.

To do the scenario you're describing requires having emergency powers. And when you have emergency powers, they generally stay. So is that what you're imagining? That there's a state of emergency, the military is used, there's military roundups. And what Americans just clap, they sit on the sidelines. What do they do?

I mean, Trump said he for somebody else spelled out there will be a state of emergency declared and the US military will be used for these roundups and Trump overtly stated in his own social media account all capital letters true with multiple exclamation points. Do you think people know what that means? Do you think Americans have a concept of what a real emergency law actually looks and feels like?

No, because I think that the idea of an emergency as proclaimed by the government is something that's been watered down in terms of our sense of what it could mean. But what he's talking about is using the US military inside US borders on American streets going into people's homes and forcing local law enforcement to do it if they don't want to. But lots of local law enforcement will want to do it.

I think there will be a lot of enthusiasm for this effort, but there will also be resistance to it. They've talked openly about using the military to suppress resistance, to go after American protesters in the streets. Trump, while in his first term in office, asked for the US military to shoot civilian protesters in the streets and the military said no.

Richard and I work in the Middle East, we work in North Africa, we work in these volatile, dangerous parts of the world where we see how authoritarian leaders operate and function. And then I just wonder about the United States in terms of the way that Trump is being described at this moment in time.

He did ask for protesters to be shot at, but then the military didn't do it. I just wonder, do we still have faith in American institutions and the military and the fact that in the last Trump administration, there were those who were putting guardrails in place to prevent

bad things from happening. And so I guess it wasn't the end of democracy. It wasn't the end of America as we know it because you yourself, Rachel, have said that we should sort of judge people by what they do rather than just what they say. Do you think it's going to be a case of that with Trump? The thing that you're describing, I think that has the benefit of not only being true, but being universally acknowledged in the United States, left, right and center as the most important lesson of what happened in the first term, which is that Trump had undeniably

authoritarian and violent intentions. And there were guardrails put up within US institutions, places like the military, places like Congress, places like other, you know, people, other people at other parts of his administration who pushed back and hemmed him in.

And everybody agrees that's what happened. The left and the center think that's a good thing. And the right thinks that was the problem. And so they have taken steps for the second term to correct for that problem. He has announced nominees who are explicitly, I think, they would acknowledge, designed to be the opposite of guardrails. He's chosen people who will do what he wants. He's chosen a lot of green lights and rubber stamps. And it's because of the diagnosis that you just gave.

If we think about sort of the issue around migration, it's such a heated topic. And it was something that Europe dealt with. In 2015, you'll remember we had over a million people arrive on European shores. And some countries locked migrants up and pushed them out. And other countries like Germany, Angela Merkel was the leader at the time. And she said, let everyone in.

and didn't have quite an immigration policy. Ten years on you still see children drowning to the bottom of the ocean in the Mediterranean trying to get to these different places.

immigration is such a heated topic and as a child of immigrants as parents who fled a war-torn country, I feel quite passionately about the issue of immigration. But I also understand that someone who grew up in Australia and they had very strict immigration policies, what would be your report card in terms of the Biden administration's

tackling of the immigration issue. And why then the pendulum moved so far the other way where millions and millions of Americans voted as a result of the way the Biden administration handled things. And then they thought, well, Trump might fix it.

Certainly, the politics of immigration is red hot all over the world, and it is certainly a racialized political point. I mean, the candidate who has just elected has openly, you know, wistfully mused about, oh, what we really want is immigrants from the Scandinavian countries. What we don't want is immigrants from these asshole countries. I mean, he's very overt in the racial coding of this as a political issue.

Listen, the most recent American president who has deported the most people is Barack Obama. And that was that rewarded in terms of the Democrats being seen as hard line and doctrinaire and law and order on the issue of immigration? No, it wasn't.

Donald Trump decided to make immigration his issue coming in after a president who had deported more people than anybody ever in US history. And who deported actually more people than Trump did once he was in charge of the presidency. So there is a dislocation between what's actually happening at the border, which actually happening with the way that immigration policy is being run and effectuated.

and the political mobilization around it. I would argue that what Trump has done is just used immigrants as a scapegoat in a traditional authoritarian, strong man campaigning for a sense rather than having mastered anything about the actual policy of immigration that moved the needle for the American people in anything other than an emotional way.

I mean, Obama was known as departure in chief. Do you think that he did it in a more kind of sophisticated way without sort of screaming about it the way that Trump does? Yes, exactly. He did it as policy. Trump is doing it as scapegoating emotion and let's have a strong man form of government and get rid of democracy.

My head has been spitting since we started talking because that is the sort of, is that really what's at play here? You're painting a very vivid picture of, again, what Trump has said he's going to carry out and people who are close to him have already laid out. So if you game this forward,

And the world starts shrinking and there is more censorship and there is more division and sometimes violent division in America. You represent a very powerful and active voice on one side. Can you still have that voice? And or do you become a, you become the defacto smoked woman or leader of that movement, whether you want it or not?

Do I become their leader? Richard, what are you talking about? Well, I don't know. Before I try to answer that, I feel like you keep saying your head is spinning and you're really focused on this and that's what you want to talk about. When I was describing, when I was laying out what I think is going to happen both domestically and internationally with the United States, did I say anything that you disagree with? Am I surprised by your reaction, Richard, in particular? Am I painting a picture that's darker than what you're seeing?

You're saying it very clearly.

America let people down and I know the people say well bad things happen in Yemen bad things are happening across the world. There was a 20 year American investment in a project project Afghanistan and in the end it was sort of betrayal and abandonment because they wanted to get out.

And then sort of you look at the Middle East and tens of thousands of people in the hundred year conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. More people have died in the course of the last year than at any other point, you know, where American leaders were able to put a stop to the killing. So I just wonder on one level, how much worse

Can it get for the state of the world at this point with a Trump administration? And maybe I'm just not grasping it because I've been so frustrated with the way that the world has been going in the last year. How much worse can it get is the scariest question that looms over all of us right now, I think? I mean, when I think about all the things that you just described, the fall of Kabul, the situation in the Middle East right now, I mean, it's all

It's more than a parade of horribles. It's the worst things you can imagine in the world, unless you can imagine it worse. I also think that as much disappointment as you're expressing, and I think that we all feel about what America has been able and hasn't been able to get done in the world and particularly in support of our allies and innocent people and all of the scenarios that you just described, I think having a United States government that just doesn't function

that isn't capable and that is withdrawn from any constructive role in the world, other than making alliances with dictators and strongmen, literally including Kim Jong Un. I think that's likely a recipe for things being even worse.

When I said my head was spinning, it's not because what you're saying is blowing my mind that I've never had these thoughts before or entertained them. My head is spinning because there's so many different directions we can go in, so many things to ask. When you mentioned in the beginning of how this is happening all over the world and that it's on the rise that these authoritarian leaders or leaders with authoritarian tendencies who say that they can fix all the problems with the stroke of a pen and their charismatic personalities will win over the day,

Is it all just about nostalgia? In a way, I think that's the text of the message. The text is make America great again, like the again is doing a lot of work there. It's about this idea of former greatness, former simple glory that has somehow been lost. And how did we lose our glory? It wasn't because of our so-called enemies in the world. Actually, our so-called enemies in the world, those ought to be our friends. The real enemy is the enemy.

within, which is people within our own country who are our enemy. We're going to have to use force. It's going to be extreme, but we will get rid of those people, we'll silence them, we'll win once and for all, and then we'll rule forever. And that idea is eternal in terms of what strong men

offer and what what authoritarians. I mean, that's the it's the basic thesis of fascism, which is why the word fascist has been thrown around so much in this election cycle. It's because it is a it is a classically fascist message. And I think it works in a dictator and or fascist. We'll see how he rules, but his message is a classically fascist message is his appeal. What he's promising this idea of lost glory in an enemy within and a need to suspend the rules and take violent action. I mean, that's if you look it up, that's the definition. I just wonder on on that.

described as a fascist, as Hitler, authoritarian tendencies. I'm just curious to know why so many millions of Americans went out and voted for him. I mean, what do you think the reason for that is? And, you know, we talked about the border. There was a high turnout of Hispanics, for example, who turned away from the Democrats, voted for Trump. It's sort of trying to understand what is happening within America, why they've chosen

Donald Trump after the chaos of the first time. I think people liked the message that Trump was selling. I mean, I think there's a structural dynamic at work, which is that governing parties in the post-COVID era have all, 201, in every industrialized democracy that has had an election, they have all been voted out. And so the Democrats were ripe to be voted out, I think just for all the same reasons that every other governing party all over the world was in the post-COVID era.

A, B, I think that Americans are susceptible to the type of authoritarian messaging that Trump was selling. And this idea that we're going to go back to a time when men were men and men are in charge. And if you have a feeling of racial animus or prejudice against

against either people in your community or people who you imagine are the bad people who aren't really the Americans among us, then sing it, sister. Then let it go. Don't feel afraid. Wear it as a badge of honor. Do you think people have a shift if there are cops kicking down doors and detention centers with searchlights operating just outside of

major American cities, you know, black sites in America, you think people will say, well, this isn't what we voted for. Forget this.

Maybe, I mean, I think we saw a moral uprising in the United States when it emerged that the Trump administration had decided that as a matter of government policy, the United States government would take little kids away from their parents and not only deliberately separate them, but make no plans for ever reuniting them.

And when the American public realized that was happening, there was a moral uprising in response to that. And if you remember the resolution of that, they didn't do a very good job ending the policy. There are still more than a thousand kids who were never returned to their parents, but the policy was ended. And Trump signed a document rescinding the policy and taking credit for having ended this terrible policy that the American people wanted, which was his policy.

public opinion matters and I think the institutions to get back to your earlier point yelled at, the institutions matter, Congress matters, all of these things matter. That's where I'm trying to find the distinction here. I hear you and I understand what you're saying and the concerns you have. I'm trying to grasp that between that and thinking about the bad things that Trump could do, but also the pressure that

American institutions can put on. The media can put on that we're public opinion. And by the way, in two years time, there's no need for civil war, because in two years time, the way that your election cycles work, you know, they can be the midterms and we can have the Democrats back. And we saw that with Roe v. Wade, right? Like, you know, to yell this point, what would you say to people who say, Rachel, you're being hysterical? This isn't going to happen.

Listen, I'm talking about what Trump's intentions are and what Trump wants to do. I believe him when he says what he wants to do. Like I really think it is not hysterical to write down what he says and figure out how he's gonna do it. I think that's what he's gonna try. That said, I don't think it's over. I think that the American people now have a say and I think that what does get pushed back, again, what gets pushed back against will happen slower and less.

does he talk a big game? I sort of look at the arc of history and, you know, how much changes in a space of time. And I sometimes wonder, I mean, speaking to reporters who are covering the border, for example, they said to me, it's utter chaos here. There's no policy. And I feel like, you know, the right sort of latched onto that. But he said he's going to build a wall and never happened. You know, he said a lot of things that just never happened. And I know you're saying that he's trying to correct it this time, but I just wonder if it's

big game that he's going to talk. It's going to be chaotic. There's going to be a lot of firing and hiring, at least in the first year. And I'm not sure we'll end up seeing Tulsi Gabbard sell American secrets to the Russians. I mean, I don't know. I just wonder if there's, I mean, the naive about all of this.

I want to live in your world. You all die really do. Had he not nominated actually nominated Tulsi of all the people in America to nominate Tulsi Gabbard to be the director of national intelligence at a time when you are saying there will not be background checks for security clearances.

I mean, just think about what that means, given what Tulsi Gabbard has done in public in the last few years. I mean, the only thing she is famous for in American politics, the only thing is regurgitating verbatim Russian government disinformation talking points. Is it too late? Is the government too much in his pocket? Richard, you wouldn't be doing this if you thought there was no harm. This is what we trained for. This is what we were built for. This is why we are growing.

Exactly. I mean, we have a First Amendment in the United States Constitution that protects free speech. It doesn't protect nice speech. It protects the worst speech. We call ourselves patriots. We say we believe in democracy. You don't only do that when democracy is doing great and all the policies are working and everybody's happy. You stand up for democracy when it is threatened. And why is it threatened? Because people are dissatisfied, right? This is hard work, but this is what we are on Earth to do. If we're here to stand up for

democracy, freedom of speech, pluralistic, multiracial democracy that we have lived in this country for a quarter of a millennium, this is the time we have to do it. And it doesn't mean it's going to be easy. But we have a million levers to pull and we need to pull them all. We need to pull them all. As you say, it's game on for those who think that this is a direct threat to democracy as we know it.

It's four years, it's Trump, it's chaos. But if I look at Trump's four years in terms of foreign policy, he did things and put sanctions in place against the Russians, whether it was him or the administration, that the Obama administration, for example, didn't do. He encouraged or threatened NATO partners

and allies and said, up your defense spending, spend more than the 2% that you're doing, because we're not going to pay for it. And now you've got the NATO Secretary-General, whether he's kissing the ring or not, saying Trump is right. We need to spend more on defense spending. The problem with Trump, I think, is he knows how to speak Thug. He knows how to use power, but he just speaks Thug with both allies and adversaries as well, you know, with his enemies, with his friends. That is where I think where it gets murky with him, because things are transactional.

But whether all of these things that you're saying that he's threatening to do, I just think that American institutions and the American people are bigger than that. I absolutely agree. I think that the American people, at least, are very much not going to be interested in what he is selling in the long run. But in the short run, they certainly are.

And so when he makes decisions that are, I think he has authoritarian intentions. When he makes decisions that are moving the country in that direction, the American people and every institution that can muster the will and the courage to do it needs to push back and say, no, you're not going this far. And we see that already in the transition before he has taken power. He told

Within days of being elected, he told the newly Republican elected Senate, I expect you to go into recess. The Senate is supposed to confirm his nominees. He said, I don't want you to confirm my nominees. Go into recess and I'm going to put all my nominees in without confirmation votes, without confirmation hearings. And the Senate is still quietly mulling that.

and whether or not the Senate decides to consent to it. They seem to have cooked up sort of a trick where they may, and it's something that's never been attempted before, that they think they have constitutional room to do, they may have the house adjourn and the Senate, even if they don't adjourn, Trump may forcibly adjourn them. Again, and what's the purpose of this? To take the legislator out of government. This is an authoritarian project to consolidate the entire US government

to one man's will, and he is already working on it. And every institution and every agency along the way has the opportunity to push back and say, no, we just don't know yet whether they will. And it's up to the American people, I think, to try to put some steel in their spines, even to put some steel in the spines of Republicans, so that they recognize what this is and stop it as soon as he starts it.

Rachel, you know what I do and what I've been doing for the last several, you know, it's coming out to 30 years. I was going to say, you get not even years. It's decades, my old. So I cover rapid political change. Yalda and I often meet up in the same places covering rapid, violent political change. And I've seen states capitulate to a strong man. They generally do.

And people like heroes, whether the hero is a villain or has villainistic tendencies, people like superheroes. And they always have. If you look at all the statues in every museum, it's full of some, all full of tyrants and dictators and authoritarians. They just happen to be 2,000 and 4,000 and 5,000 years old. Does he have enough popular support? Does he have the skills? Does he have the people around him who can break the institutions to allow this executive takeover?

He won a very narrow election in order to take power the second time. He won less than 50% of the vote in order to come back and take power. He won six more electoral votes than he had in his razor-thin margin in 2016. It's a narrow win. The popular support is, I think, strong among his supporters, but it is not broad. So it's deep, but it is not broad. And so there's most people in the country voted for somebody else and not him.

Now, what that means in terms of whether that translates to institutional and individual bravery for people trying to stop what he's doing, part of that depends on whether people recognize the authoritarian intentions and consequences of what he has proposed. Do they see what's going on? Do they see it? And that's where the media comes in. We are seeing a decline in legacy media. I mean, this election wasn't the election of podcasts, right? More people were listening to podcasts. The candidates felt they needed to go on podcasts.

in terms of the role that we have as the media to hold these leaders accountable and their actions. So how do you think this is all going to play out as we sort of move forward and hold these people accountable going forward? Well, it's a moment for self-awareness because we're talking about ourselves as people who work in the legacy media, but we are talking on a podcast. So clearly, we all intrinsically have a little bit of an understanding of what's going on here and are trying to meet the moment.

I mean, listen, I don't think authoritarianism is new, and I think one of the interesting dynamics when you look at it, even just in an American context, is that sort of every authoritarian, every demagogue in particular, sort of rises to meet the media moment. And so, you know, a father, Charles Coglin, who was our great radio demagogue in the 1930s, mastered that medium and spoke close to a quarter of the population of the United States on a weekly basis, while he was in

incredibly radical. I mean, he was explicitly endorsing fascism, and he organized his followers into platoons that were armed, that were prepared to take over the U.S. government. I mean, like, and he had 30 million people listening to him at a time we only had 130 million people in the country. You think about the influence of talk radio during the 1990s when people talked about

the rise of not just radical, but incredibly schismatic partisan republicanism, hard right republicanism. So we're in another moment like that. And maybe we're shifting from the social media era, which I think most social media platforms, their iterative nature has been destroyed by

bad ownership and bad decisions. And we're moving into the sort of influencer and podcast era instead. And that will drive different forms of demagoguery and will have small D Democrats playing catch up because I think those media are better suited to authoritarian messaging than they are towards the sort of pluralism that small D Democrats are preaching.

And correct me if I'm wrong here. You don't think this starts on day one. You think it's already starting now. And that day one is just when the starter gun goes off. But that it's already happening, that the runners are lined up at the tape and they're getting ready to go.

Oh yeah, I mean, the intimidation of critics and the media would be guardrails to use Yaldis' term, like for example, within the military. The intimidation stuff has already started. It's all just trying to clear the ground so that they can operate freely, and that's happening before they take power. This demand that the Senate

literally shut itself down, that the Senate take itself online so that Trump can act without their constitutional role in his way to install whoever he wants in whatever position. Their decision already that they're not going to use background checks for security clearances or for vetting nominees.

means that they are handing out security clearances. They are handing out access to classified information to people who are never even checked for being foreign agents, criminals associated with organized crime, sex predators, drug addicts, whatever they are. They're giving classified information to anyone who Trump says should get it without any check from an institutional background check, like, for example, through the FBI.

So that's all happening in the transition. That is all to lay the ground, and I think to shock the American people into thinking that the institutions cannot hold. It's our job to prove them wrong, to not be shocked to know that this is what they promised, and this is what they're going to try, and to say no, and to make the worst things they want to do really hard for them to do. And that's the project now. That's what we're all involved in.

So what is your prediction? We do predictions on this programme and this podcast, you know, as you know, I'm curious to know what your short term prediction is and long term, where do you think will be?

The thing that I am most worried about is what we've seen in other modern democracies or proto democracies that have gone through the authoritarian shift, which is that scary stuff starts to happen in the public space and in the political space. People start to get hurt. People start to get in prison. People start to get assassinated. There starts to be mass violence. There starts to be repression in a way that affects regular people.

And the effect of the fear is for people to just leave the public space and to retreat only to their private lives. And to say, I don't want anything to do, not only with politics. I don't want anything to do with anything public facing at all. But we need support. We need support from the American public. We need to stay in the air. We need to keep telling the truth and we need to not be afraid.

I don't feel afraid. I feel energized. I feel like I was made for this moment. And I think a lot of Americans feel that same way. And this is a time when there's real clarity of purpose to standing up for the structure of American government, for the democracy that we've got standing against autocracy. It's a really clear to-do list. We're all going to be really busy. And I've never felt more clarity about what I need to do.

And we'll take that as your prediction, but that's what I wanted to get to, that sort of fight of spirit that you have. Of course, we've talked about the darker side of this, but also the fact that you're talking about being energized is quite exciting. And you're going to be right at the center of it. That's what I was asking earlier. I was saying one day, are we going to see you on the burning barricades? I think even you said, what is he talking about? But we don't know where this is going.

I'm not a person who leads these things. I'm a person who talks about these things. But I think that's needed in its own way. Listen, in terms of fighting spirit too, I mean, you guys don't sell yourself short. You guys have been literally through the wars and your clarity and your sense of purpose and what you're doing is inspiring to me too. So keep going. Long may you wave, you guys. Thank you very much. Our first guest, what a great episode. Thank you so much for joining us.