Trump’s Looming MAGA Military Purge

Bye!

Welcome back to Pate the World. I'm Tommy Vitor. I'm Ben Rhodes. Ben, you think Aaron Rodgers is going to leave the Jets and go work for RFK Junior now? Well, I thought he would be in the running for CDC, but I see that Dr. Oz is in there. I mean, Aaron Rodgers, instead of working out, clearly, to be the Jets quarterback last couple years, he's just kind of been doing his own research. But he lost out to Dr. Oz.

Our country is such a joke. We have multiple reality show. We have president, we have reality show, cabinet numbers, Fox News hosts. I think what? Okay. Here we are. Yeah. Yeah. Well, let's just say that our country is about as functional right now as the jets. That's right. So it's kind of kind of some parallels there.

Yeah, basically Woody Johnson running the show. This week, we've got a great show for you guys. We're going to talk all about the latest news on Trump's national security team. The selection since last week have been interesting to say the least. We'll talk about Biden's major policy change on Ukraine, the UN Climate Summit happening in Azerbaijan, President Biden's trip to the G20 in APEC in Brazil.

in sports gambling in Brazil. Pretty amazing story there, Ben. And then you'll hear my interview with Senator Bernie Sanders about his efforts in the Senate to cut off arms to Israel. Basically, Sanders has introduced all these resolutions trying to cut off U.S. shipments of specific weapon systems and force a vote on those in the U.S. Senate. So very glad he is doing that, Ben.

Yeah, and it'll be interesting to see how many votes that gets. I mean, obviously you would like the Democratic caucus to be united behind it. It probably won't be, but it'll be a good measure of kind of where Democrats are on this, you know, clearly not where they need to be, but I'm glad Bernie's leading it.

I'm glad Bernie's leaning it. I would bet you lots and lots of money that Senate leadership is whipping against these votes. But we shall see. Ben, you'll also like that the interview, I think, was the shortest interview I've ever done in Padse the World History. I think it was nine minutes because Bernie is to the point. He's concise. We're in. We're out. And that's why we love him. Hey, he's sufficient. He's got something to say. He says it, and then he's done with his business.

He's got things to do, votes to cast. All right, so last week we talked about the Trump national security team picks that had been made so far. I think the takeaway was like they were surprisingly normal traditional hawkish Republicans, people like Marco Rubio.

And then we recorded, and then everything changed then. So now we've got Fox and Friends weekend co-host Pete Hegsef nominated to be Secretary of Defense. Tulsi Gabbard was tapped to be the Director of National Intelligence. Cash Patel is reportedly a front-runner to become the next Director of the FBI. He might report into future Attorney General Matt Gaetz. And then Politico says Seb Gorka is on the short list to become Deputy National Security Advisor. So God help us all.

Okay, so let's talk about a few of these goovers in depth, starting with Pete Hegzeth. So he is 44 years old, served in the National Guard for 20 years, served in Iraq in Afghanistan, and was awarded two bronze stars for his service. Hegzeth is a graduate of Princeton University. He got a master's in public policy from Harvard. He served as the director of two veterans advocacy organizations, which were pretty small. I think he managed like

five to 50 people is what I've seen reported. But most of his career in the last decade has been in Fox News. He has railed, as a Fox host, he's railed against wokeness in the military. He suggested banning women from serving in combat roles. He's talked about firing the current chairman of the joint chief, CQ Brown.

He wants to abandon all efforts to diversify the military. He lobbied Trump to pardon war criminals, and according to the Washington Post, Hegzath paid hush money to a woman who accused him of sexual assault. If confirmed, Hegzath would be in charge of managing 2.3 million people, including about 1.3 million active duty members in the military. He'll be Trump's primary advisor on defense policy,

and he would assume even more power in the event of a crisis or a national emergency, real or manufactured. Let's hear a clip of Hexath from a podcast interview recently on the Sean Ryan Show.

Well, first of all, you've got to fire, you know, you've got to fire the Chairman and Joint Chiefs, and you've got to fire this. I mean, obviously you're going to bring in any Secretary of Defense, but any general that was involved, General Admiral, whatever that was involved in any of the DEI woke shit, it's got to go. Either you're in for warfighting, and that's it, and that's the only litmus test we care about.

You got to get DEI and CRT out of military academies, so you're not training young officers to be baptized in this type of thinking. And then, you know, whatever the standards, whatever the combat standards were say, and I don't know, in 1995, let's just make those standards. And as far as recruiting, to hire the guy that, you know, did Top Gun Maverick and create some real ads that motivate people to want to serve.

So let's just go back in time and emulate a movie. All right, let's talk about this guy. So I think clearly there's a part of this where Trump just like hires people, he thinks look the part and he said, Hegg said this is like a central casting guy. But he also, he's clearly an ideologue and Trump reportedly wants to purge military leaders who don't agree with him. And then according to NBC, they might even potentially court martial military officers involved in the withdrawal from Afghanistan. NBC even said they're considering charges as serious as treason.

So, you know, long story short, like a very serious job in a dangerous pick. The question I have for you is how Democrats should manage this one. Because obviously, this guy shouldn't be nominated for this position. But I do worry there's a trap here for Democrats. If we insist that, you know, this Princeton Harvard educated combat veteran who wants to shake stuff up is not qualified, but that a bunch of blobby

DC, you know, Goobers who are part of the post-9-11 War on Terror have the right experience of just thinking about how to frame this conversation and not, you know, walk ourselves into a trap here. Yeah, I think, I make a broad point about this team and then about HEXF himself. The broad point is they really know what they're doing. They really know what they're doing. You know, you look at this from the outside and it's easy to laugh at individual appointments, but let's think about what they're doing.

The agencies, and we'll get to these, but the agencies that Trump hates and wants to wreck are DOJ, FBI, the intelligence community, where he has these kind of personal grievances. And so we'll get to those people, but that's who he put there. Rubio, the state, he wants state to function. He doesn't seem to have it in for them. You could have a conventional guy there. Frankly, as we talked about last week, Rubio's not going to be running foreign policy anyways. We ran out of the White House.

What is hexed there for? They want to turn the US military into an extension of MAGA. That's something that Trump has always wanted. He's wanted a military that would follow his orders, no matter how extreme those orders are. He wants a military that kind of culturally reflects the people at his rallies. That's why he liked hexed's advocacy for Eddie Gallagher, the Navy SEAL, who committed war crimes that Trump pardoned. So this isn't just because he looked good on Fox and Friends. It's because of all this stuff he says, like in those clips.

And in terms of what I'd focus on then, you guys covered the sexual assault piece on PSA well. Obviously, that should feature. But what I'd be looking at is how far are you willing to go to follow those orders? So in other words, what does he think about the use of the US military in the United States for either mass deportations or for kind of crushing

If there are protests that are against Trump, that's a huge issue. That's a Rubicon that could be crossed using the US military inside this country in a way it hasn't been done before. I want to know about that. Where you connect the sexual assault to the anti-woke agenda, is this going to come in and roll back all the efforts to women now serve in combat roles, women now serve in leadership roles? Is that all?

gone? Is he going to claw all that back as well? And in terms of gutting the senior officer corps, again, that gets to the MAGA point is if you're the litmus test for being a three or four star general is fealty to Donald Trump, that is remaking the American military in ways that will have a generational impact.

So what do they mean by this? Who are the people that are going to be on their radar screen for joint chiefs? My worry here is that this guy kind of actually knows what he's doing, even if he sounds buffoonish. And if we look up in four years, one of the things where Trump can do kind of existential damage is changing the nature and character of the US military in a way that we've never seen before. That's what I'd be focused on.

Yeah, and I think it's worth wondering if he wants to roll back Don't Ask, Don't Tell and bar gay and lesbian service members from serving because if he wants to go back to 1995, I mean, that seems to be a very specific choice. And yeah, but it does seem like there's this broader mission to purge the military and make it politicized. And I think it's incredibly dangerous.

Yeah, and where does it end? And what is the function of the military in that scenario? What happens in terms of cohesion in the military? How would you feel in the military right now if you were a woman or if you were a minority? And what does that do to morale? Recruitment, are they just going to go off and recruit MAGA people? Are they going to go off and recruit white nationalists? And I don't say this just because the guy is a tattoo, but that's kind of who they're putting out the bat signal to.

And it's a little alarming to think about what that might look like in four years. If this guy does everything he says they're going to do. And what does he mean by DEI? I mean, because if there's diversity training, it's all over the military. So is everybody involved in that? How are they going to select who's quote unquote guilty and not? It's a lot of rhetoric that could lead to pretty scary places.

Yeah, and they're so offended by any effort to diversify the military. And often what you're talking about is like one hour of training in some like multi-week months course, you know, it's like very, very little. And there is a lack of diversity in the US military, especially at the senior level, which Obama and Biden have tried to work on and now it sounds like Trump is going to just completely roll back.

The other pick, though, that has a lot of people worried is the nomination of former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard to be the director of national intelligence. Tulsi, like Hexeth, is a veteran. She was in the Hawaii Army National Guard from 2003 to 2020. It has been in the Army Reserve since 2021. She also did a 12-month tour in Iraq.

In the House of Representatives, Tulsi served on the Homeland Security Committee, but she did not serve on any of the relevant intelligence committees. She's got no experience working at an intelligence agency. I don't think she's managed a large organization as far as I can tell. Here's a clip of Democratic Congresswoman and former CIA officer Abigail Spanberger talking with our own Matt Berg from Kirkhead's What A Day newsletter about Tulsi Gabbard. Hello, combination.

It's not an outpatient. It's like comically outrageous. And it was not even a figlet of a rationale that he can assign to it. She doesn't have an intelligence background. She wasn't on the internal committee during her time in Congress. The DNI is a new position that was deemed newer, that was deemed essential after the September 11th of the past.

It was created to ensure communication within the IC. It was created to ensure a streamlining of information to the president. What happens if we have a DNI who's not so interested in protecting America's secret fair, who's not so interested in protecting the kind of legitimacy of American leadership on the global stage? The amount of damage that could be done to our

ability to protect ourselves, our ability to start on the global stage. I mean, it is just an untold reality.

So, you know, Tulsi ran for president as a Democrat in 2020, and she quit the Democratic Party a couple years later to reinvent herself as this Trump super fan. Before that, though, you know, one of her more controversial moments was back in 2017 when she traveled to Syria and met with Bashar al-Assad, who at the time was many, many years into massacring his own people. She has also questioned US claims that Assad used chemical weapons on the Syrian people and criticized the US for supporting the Syrian opposition.

Then in 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Tulsi blamed the US and NATO for starting the war. A lot of her critics suggest she's kind of a Russian stooge or an asset. Personally, I think that's not a very smart way to talk about her. I think she has clearly just shown poor judgment over and over and over again and seems incapable of separating out good information from bad. And she tends to think that claims from people like Vladimir Putin are credible.

or more credible than information from the 18 intelligence agencies that she would be overseeing. So, she also will be the one making sure that good intel gets to Trump in the form of the PDB event. So, I don't know, man, this is a wild pick. Surprised the hell out of me. How much does Tulsi wear you in this role? It worries me a lot. I pick up on two things. One thing that Spamburger said, one thing you just said.

And Tommy, it's always a little embarrassing when I make a reference, such as my age. But I'm so old that I worked on the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission that led to the creation of this position of the D&I, which as Spemberger said was created because

The problem before 9-11 is that the CIA and the intelligence function of the FBI and these other agencies, they didn't share the bits and pieces of information they had. So the point of the DNI, they don't run the CIA, right? So they're not running like the covert operations of the CIA and stuff, but they're there to oversee all these different intelligence agencies.

in a management role, right, to help make sure that information's being shared, that they're not turf wars. There's zero chance that Tulsa Gabbard has any interest in doing that. She has no vision for the management of the intelligence community. She probably couldn't name the agencies within the intelligence community. And so that's a problem because then these intelligence agencies, again, kind of become fiefdoms.

The second piece of this is what you reference, which is the DNI is the person responsible for briefing the president of the United States on intelligence. So every morning in the PDB, I was in that for a few years, the DNI comes in the Oval Office and tells the president what they need to know. And that shapes what's in the president's head going into the day and going into any policymaking.

In NSC meetings and you were in some of these, Tommy, in the Situation Room, those meetings usually begin with the Director of National Intelligence briefing the President and the National Security Team about whatever the situation is, you know, so we're having me on Ukraine. We'll start with a few minutes in the DNI to give us a level set of what's happening. And just consider that

being filtered through Tulsi Gabbard's worldview. I agree with you. Just calling her, bringing back the Moscow Mitch talking points and calling her a Russian stooge. Yeah, sure. I mean, I'd be curious whether she ever had any Russian connections, but she seems to think these things or want to think these things no matter what. And that's what I worry about. She is the filter of worldview to Trump.

And so just think about what she's going to be saying in the PDB every day. It is pretty chilling that this is someone that has clearly an affinity for the Putin worldview, the Assad worldview, now being the person who breathes the president every morning.

Yeah, and she accused the US of funding ISIS in Syria. She accused the US of war crimes in Syria. I don't know if she went and met with Assad and then got attacked for it and then got so dug in that she just assumed more and more entrenched positions, but it's very strange. Look, I'm all for meeting with your adversaries, but Bashar al-Assad is a terrible person. There's no question about it. Even if you doubt that he used chemical weapons on his own people, which you shouldn't doubt that he killed.

tens of thousands of them and tortured them and starved people to death. I mean, this man has been massacring his own people for years. There's no love lost there. Why would you defend him and say that the US was a real problem there? Similarly, I mean, clearly the Russian invasion of Ukraine was just an act of naked aggression. We can debate whether NATO expansion was a good idea. But again, to blame Ukraine, to blame the US for that happening, just suggests a bizarre worldview that you're right. I mean, it's not fact-based.

It's a worldview, you know, Tommy, where the left meets the right, you know, you move so far left or so far right that you're in this kind of conspiracy theory world in between. And that may be an interesting person to get high with in your college dorm room and talk about, you know, Noam Chomsky or something.

And I, you know, I said, actually, Noam Chomsky, smarter than Tulsi Gabbard. He's formulated his opinions based on a lot of research. But yeah, it's this conspiracy theory mindset at the center of power that should be alarming to people. It's alarming to me, at least.

Yeah, and for what it's worth, I mean, when she decided to run for president, she went pretty hard at Trump. She called the Soleimani strike, the assassination of Cosmo Soleimani in act of war. She criticized Trump's trade war with China when the Trump folks didn't sanction Saudi Arabia after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. She tweeted at Trump, quote, being Saudi Arabia's bitch is not America first. So there is a version of Tulsi in there when the politics strike her right. Yeah, they can be useful, but not this one.

So Ben, just to close out this personnel section, I don't think we need to tell anyone why Matt Gaetz shouldn't be attorney general. That's pretty self-explanatory. But just a little further down, you know, sort of the list of top positions, the deputy national security advisor will either be, according to some news reports, this accelerationist right-wing speechwriter guy named Michael Anton or a right-wing Hungarian doofist named Seb Gorka. So that's great. Maybe it'll be a, maybe it'll surprise us and pick somebody else who knows.

But I think the most consequential fight we'll talk about today could be over who is the next FBI director. The establishment types are pushing for a guy named Mike Rogers. He was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee for many years, just lost a Senate race in Michigan, but is clearly qualified for the job. He came out of the FBI.

The hardcore MAGA type, as I was listening to Steve Bannon's show yesterday, he was talking about this goober. They want Cash Patel. Patel is someone we've talked about on the show before. He has very little relevant experience. He was basically a low level congressional staffer and MSC staffer, and then spent three months as chief of staff to the acting secretary of defense at the very end of the Trump administration when they were all were storming the Capitol and such.

But the maga folks love him because of comments like this. We will go out and find the conspirators not just in government but in the media. Yes, we're going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens who helped Joe Biden rigged presidential elections. We're going to come after you. Whether it's criminally or civilly, we'll figure that out. But yeah, we're putting you all on notice. And Steve, this is why they hate us.

this is why we're tyrannical, this is why we're dictators, because we're actually gonna use the Constitution to prosecute them for crimes. They said, we have always been guilty of, but never have. So, you know, look, I think you're talking to Bannon there. Normally, I give people a little bit of pass for hyperbole, but I think we have to take him very seriously and literally here. And that's why I think this selection is really gonna tell us a lot about which direction this administration is going, because, like, putting Cash Mattel at the FBI,

when he's grossly unqualified is just saying, I want someone who is willing to do whatever I say to use the power of the government to punish my enemies and re-litigate all these old fights. That's the only reason you would select this guy. And by the way, Christopher Ray, the current FBI director, has many, many years of his 10-year term left. They would be pulling him out early.

And it wasn't entirely clear whether Ray was going to be replaced, but then JD Vance confirmed it today in a quote tweet dunk on some other woman who works for Steve Bannon who said they were vetting replacement. So it sounds like this is very much in train this sort of FBI replacement process.

Yeah, it's truly scary. I mean, I heard another Cash Patel clip where he said, if he was running the FBI, he'd close the building, the FBI building, turn it into a museum of the deep state and send those people out into the country to find the real crimes. So this is the caliber of person we're talking about. As usual, as with these other appointments who talked about,

loss in the discussion how crazy it is is actually you'd want the FBI to be doing some pretty important stuff, you know? If you're actually worried about drug cartels, if you're actually worried about crime in this country, you kind of want competent leadership with the FBI, but put that aside, this is the example of the worst-case scenario of taking the instruments and machinery of the US government that is most capable of targeting your enemies

and putting the worst people in charge of that. So Mike Rogers would be much better, be kind of a Marco Rubio type pick, would make me feel a little better. I mean, I don't agree with Mike Rogers about a lot of things. But if Cash Patel is in there, even if he's the deputy FBI director, let's say they make Mike Rogers the FBI guy, it's still a very scary signal because the only thing this guy's done

in the last eight years is this, is trying to go after people. When he was at the House Intelligence, I mean, full disclosure, I got hauled in front of the House Intelligence Committee when he was Devin Nunes' guy based on a complete conspiracy theory about, I mean, to play the old hits, Tommy. Remember unmasking this theory that read invented the Russia thing?

And it didn't make any sense because it said we had unmasked Trump people talking to Russians and we'd invented it. So, you know, both those things can be true, neither were true, actually, that we invented it or that we did this unmasking to do it. But the point is that this is all this guy cares about. He doesn't even have another agenda. His agenda is

to go after Trump's enemies, and we should take that seriously. If you also look at the Gorka Anton thing too, that'd be interesting to pick too, because that deputy job kind of runs the machinery of the NSC, and it could be that they have got guys like Waltz as the front men in some of these places, but then they burrow in these mega-pilled guys, these staffer types, to go in and really do the dirty work. And so that's what I'd also be looking for, is whether these types of people end up at these deputy levels where they have a lot of power.

even if they're not necessarily the front people, even if they're not necessarily confirmed for their positions. Yeah, and look, I was listening to Dan and talk about this and we're like, we need cash at the top job at the FBI, not Deputy, but even if he got the Deputy Director job then, I just Googled the current

deputy FBI director, a guy named Paul Abate. I've never heard of him before. He apparently joined the FBI in 1996 and has been a career FBI agent ever since. He worked at the Counterterrorism Division. He worked at the Newark Division's Joint Terrorism Task Force. He worked back again at the Counterterrorism Division. He was in LA. These are career

civil servants with deep experience in counterterrorism, in law enforcement, and the legal structures around the authorities the FBI has. These guys are just taking like utterly unqualified hacks, people who are just partisan political operatives. Like Cash Patel wrote a children's book called The Plot Against the King that was an allegory for the Russia investigation. That is how much time he spent kissing Trump's ass. And this is the person that are going to make the FBI director. Like that is batshit crazy.

Yeah, it truly is. I mean, we're about to be living in some very interesting times. And again, we have to put the pin in it again. This is not Trump 1.0. I mean, Trump 1.0 Cash Patel started, you know, working for Devin Nunes. Now we're talking about him being maybe the FBI director.

So that just shows you how far this pendulum has swung. And people can say, yeah, they want people to shake it up. And Americans, they're looking for that. And I've made that argue myself. But they're taking it to an extreme here that is well beyond shaking it up. It's about breaking it and remaking it into instruments of Trump's will.

Yeah, and that reinforces personal interest. And then just the last thing, there's a bit of lingering Trump 1.0, which is that Jared Kushner is not going to go back and be the pretend shadow secretary of state in the White House, but he reportedly will be an outside advisor helping with any normalization talks between Saudi Arabia and Israel, sort of a continuation of the Abraham Accords work he did.

despite the fact that the Saudis cut his investment firm a $2 billion check after he left the administration. So there's this massive conflict of interest there. And he apparently, you know, he would work with Trump's real estate and golf buddy, this guy, Steve Whitcock, who is named the Middle East Envoy. So again, like the sort of

friends who are not qualified or family members, some of them outside kind of the guardrails of the government when it comes to financial disclosures, et cetera, will be coordinating relationships with these, you know, multi-billion dollar, trillion dollar Saudi Gulf autocrats. So, you know, not great.

Yeah, I think this is really important. Chris Murphy, last week, made the point that the main thing to watch in Trump's foreign policy is corruption and the monetization of American foreign policy. And this is how they do it. And I think one thing people have to understand is that this is not unusual around the world.

You know, let's pick a turkey. Erdogan's son is like a billionaire, you know, there's a lot of corruption. He goes around the world and he makes deals because if people want to get to Erdogan, you know, they can invest in this guy and then maybe Erdogan does him a favor, right?

There's actually transactionalism that is familiar to countries. I think what we've never seen before is that the United States, with all of our power, all of our military, all of our technology, being in that game at this level. The thing I'd watch is that,

how will countries try to carry favor with Trump? It's not the charm offense. It's fucking bullshit. We should devote some time to how they cover Trump. It's not that they're gonna try to charm him. It's that they're gonna try to pay him. And they're not gonna pay Trump directly. And it's not even that they're gonna stay in his hotels, as grotesque as that was. It's that they could cut checks to people like Jared or other people in the Trump orbit who are nominally on the outside. Let's not forget Elon Musk here.

billions, billions, hundreds of billions of dollars potentially. If you want the United States to do something bad enough and you can buy it, why wouldn't you? And so I think that it's really important to watch this space to see where the money is flowing to the people around Trump. And Jared's case in point, but there are others that will come into focus here.

And the reality is it's what Trump always said about, you know, everything's corrupt and rigged. I mean, we're about to find out what that actually looks like.

Yeah, that's right. And there's a lot of ways to get money into this pocket these days, whether it's the crypto venture, whether it's the DJT stock that's now listed on the NASDAQ, whether it's some of these friends and family, there's just a lot of avenues for corruption. We've got two things for we're going to break. We've got some exciting announcements here. First of all, if you're into British politics and you want to deep dive into what our

Second Trump term is going to mean for the UK. Check out the latest episode of Potsay of the UK. Nicki and Coco will break down this looming political reshuffle, what it means beyond the US border, and it's just a funny, delightful listen. So always listen to Potsay of the UK. And then we got a big guest booking coming next week. Well, actually, at the end of this weekend next week, but Ben can explain.

Yeah, holiday special coming up Thanksgiving week. I sat down with Malala a couple days ago. She is an executive producer and helping to publicize a really brilliant film called Bread and Roses that is basically about what's happened for Afghan women since the collapse of Kabul. It follows a number of women. It really gets inside their lives over the course of the last couple of years.

I talked about that, but I also talked about the state of the world. I have to say, if you're looking for some inspiration and some resilience, please check out this interview, not just me, but our whole team that was there left feeling

kind of motivated, inspired by her and her message. We're going to drop this on YouTube. So on the Pod Save the World YouTube channel, this will be available this Friday. So in advance of the podcast and then full interview on the Pod next week, people should check it out. Excellent. We all could use a little hope right now.

Alright, but let's switch gears here because there were some big news on the Ukraine front. So after months of pressure from the Ukrainians and a lot of people in Congress, the Biden administration finally decided to allow the Ukrainian military to use U.S. provided long-range missiles against targets on Russian soil.

These weapons are called attackums. They can travel up to 190 miles. Biden's team told the New York Times that the change in policy was a direct response to North Korea sending thousands of troops to join the fight in Russia. There's also reportedly 50,000 Russian in North Korean.

Troops preparing for an assault to take back the Kursk region of Russia, which Ukraine took this summer. The Russians are very unhappy about this policy change. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said this would cause, quote, a new spiral of tensions. And then back in September, Putin said it would be considered a direct attack by NATO against Russia.

Earlier this week Putin signed a new nuclear doctrine that basically expands the rationale Russia can use to use nuclear weapons. The new policy basically says that if a non-nuclear country attacks Russia but is backed by a nuclear country then Russia can consider that a joint attack and therefore could potentially merit a nuclear response. So some serious saber rattling there.

Response to this move was mixed, especially in Europe. Poland was psyched, Hungary and Slovakia criticized Biden's decision. The Germans basically just refused to follow suit. And then last week, German Chancellor Olaf Schulz actually called Vladimir Putin, which is the first time in two years that any Western leader had spoken directly with the Russian president.

Charles said he urged Putin to negotiate in that call, but Zelensky and the Ukrainians were very upset about it. Germany has election coming up in February. I imagine that's part of this. So some of the MAGA types were quite unhappy. Donald Trump, Jr. accused Biden of trying to cause World War III. Mike Walts, the incoming national security adviser, was a little more measured. Here's a clip of him on Fox News Monday.

This is a development, but it's a tactical one. President Trump is talking grand strategy here. How do we get both sides to the table to the end this war? What's the framework for a deal? And who's sitting at that table? This is an all-star team, Brian, that President Trump is assembling that will think through these broader strategic issues. And how do we drive this war to an end, as President Trump promised on the campaign trail?

A lot of deep fucking thinkers on this team. So Ben, two things. I remember talking with you like a year back about this exact scenario where you got Biden as a lame duck and Zelensky desperate to do as much damage to the Russians while he can before Trump comes in. And it just feels unbelievably risky. Point one and point two, if we're being honest and I was the Trump administration kind of handed this policy change, I would be furious.

And it just feels like an 11th hour escalation with a kind of confusing rationale. The North Koreans shown up is what did this? I don't know. I just don't get it.

Yeah. First of all, I want to echo you and we're going to have some fun. People shouldn't worry about our darknesses. We're here to inform. We're here to try to shine light on things, but we'll have plenty of time to make fun of people like this, you know, dropping in grand strategy. At the same time he's talking about Donald Trump assembling like the dream team when it's like Cash Patel and, you know, Tulsi Gabbard. Dr. Oz and that kids.

Any incoming administration would be furious at this significant of a tactical change in a war with two months left to go, not even. I think in terms of the Biden administration, this has been the problem with the Ukraine policy all along. You and I have talked about this. This pattern of not doing things, but then ultimately doing them late.

This came to a head a few months ago, right? Remember the Brits were pushing forward, Keir Starmer, some others, and they said no. And if the only thing that's changed is the North Koreans, the North Koreans have been there for a while. They didn't show up yesterday. And what it feels like to me is that the Biden administration

sees that they're two months left, they're trying to get all that military assistance out the door, all the assistance that was in that supplemental that passed earlier this year. And they're just trying to let the Ukrainians, I don't know, do some damage to the Russians to put them in a slightly better position when Trump comes in and things might be moving to negotiation. Is that worth the risk? Is that worth the kind of chaos? I mean, just consider if Trump comes in and takes us back.

Then there's an immediate, weird battlefield seesaw. They had a capability that they no longer have. It's a pretty destabilizing way to do this. I think the Putin thing, I don't think he's going to use nuclear weapons, but I think he knows Trump will be a bit brushed back by that.

And I think Putin is very determined to show that he's not going to cave to Trump, that he's not eager for a deal, that he can escalate to, that he has cards to play. And so I think the Ukraine more to your point is in for a pretty bumpy ride. The Ukrainians might ratchet things up. The Russians might ratchet things up to show that they're not too hungry for some Trump deal.

The Trump people are coming in. They don't know these people. They don't have relationships in Ukraine in the way that the Biden administration does. A lot of these people don't have relationships with the Europeans. The Europeans are divided between the hawks, as you said, in Eastern Europe, and then they're kind of more Trumpy people in places like Hungary and Slovakia. And then people like Schultz are just kind of worried about them getting run over by the politics of this.

So, this could be a pretty uncertain few months. North Koreans are fighting. All of a sudden, the Ukraine war, I think, is going to start to be not so much the status quo ante that we've seen. You could see escalations and flare-ups and brinksmanship that could be pretty alarming.

Yeah, meanwhile, the poor Ukrainians. I mean, the Russians are just pounding them with airstrikes over the weekend. They hit, I think, 120 missiles and 90 drones. They're firing at mostly energy infrastructure. I think up to nearly 70 percent of Ukraine's energy systems have been destroyed. And of course, we're going into the winter. And then to your point on the politics, I mean,

Schultz is eyeing this election in February. I think a lot of people think that he is going to lose. But the Greens and his coalition want Germany to be more aggressive in supporting the Ukrainians. The more conservative party candidate wants to be more aggressive against the Russians in support of Ukraine. So it's like the politics are kind of jumbled.

And then I saw today, Ben, there was a Gallup poll of Ukrainians in Ukraine, obviously. 52% of Ukrainians would like to see their leaders negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible. That number was closer to 22% in 2022. Back then, there was an overwhelming majority of the country that wanted to keep fighting.

And then I saw, of the 52% of Ukrainians who want to negotiate an end to the war, about half of those are comfortable with conceding territory. So I feel like there's a lot of fatigue, there's people seeing the writing on the wall, and then there's just the political winds are blowing in a tough direction.

Yeah, I mean, what's really frustrating, you know, we talked over the last couple of years about this triumphal, it's kind of neocon triumphalism about imminent Ukrainian victory. What's pretty frustrating is what should be happening now, and we've talked about this. I did that episode on it for the election series. We should be moving into negotiation precisely because the Ukrainians are exhausted. But the question is, what kind of deal can they get?

Can they get a deal where they basically hold the territory they have and maybe try to negotiate back some other bits and pieces in exchange for things like EU membership, sustained security guarantees, the viability and success of Ukraine as it remains as a country. And Manuel Macron talking about some form of peace keeping presence from European forces there.

There's a deal that could end this war, but Trump's so forward leaning and his desire to end it, that paradoxically it incentivizes Putin to push and push and push and push and take and take and take and take more because he has this upper hand and he thinks the US is withdrawing support and the whole world feels that way.

And so I see why some Ukrainians like were happy that Trump won because they just won a different approach. This approach of kind of slow bleed and, you know, incremental weapons flowing in and no end on the horizon would fill me with a lot of despair. But I really feel

terribly for them because they're in this bind because I wouldn't necessarily want Donald Trump to be the one negotiating that deal. Trump may want something from the Ukrainians. He may want natural resources, and God knows what he'll want from them. A dirt on his political opponents member that was way back in the first impeachment. So the prices seems like it's going to get higher for the Ukrainians not lower.

Yeah, man, I hadn't even thought about the prospect of him demanding some kind of cut off the top of any deal. That is bleak. And yeah, I mean, for the average Ukrainian, I mean, you're just seeing all your friends go off to war. The draft age is getting lower and lower and lower. More people are getting conscripted. Things are not looking good. And it is awful. Speaking of awful depressing events, Ben, the COP 29 UN Climate Summit is underway in Azerbaijan.

fun stuff. So this year's COP got off to a tough start when the United States once again elected a climate denier. It's not good. We're now waiting to see, I guess, if we get pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords again. The main issue at play in this COP is once again, when and how much developed countries will contribute to a loss in damage fund for developing countries. This fund would provide the means for developing countries to transition away from fossil fuels

as well as money to mitigate the effects of climate change. The number that's getting kicked around that will be needed is $1.3 trillion a year, which would come from rich countries, but structuring who gets the money, how, where it comes from is a very difficult task. It is now the second week of talks, negotiators are still far apart.

And if you think it's a little odd that the climate talks are being held in an autocracy where 90% of exports are made up of fossil fuels, you are not alone. And it didn't help that the president of Azerbaijan kicked off the conference with a speech praising fossil fuels as gifts from God and he promptly insulted both France and the Netherlands. Before the conference, there was a video or audio going around of a Azerbaijani cop official discussing a fossil fuel deal with someone

and pretending to be an investor. So this whole thing has not been on the level. We caught up with Semaphore's Climate and Energy Editor, Tim McDonald, who is in Baku for the talks. Here's what he had to say about the atmosphere. One thing that I think is kind of sad or sort of missing from this process when you have it in a country that doesn't have a very free civil society in the press, like I said, you miss out on a lot of the kind of

the protests and the marches and the civil society and the activists and people coming from all over the world to kind of stand up for what they want to see happen. And I think back to Glasgow a few years ago where there was a march in the middle of the thing that had tens of thousands of people at it. And I really do think that that has an impact on the way that the actual country delegates and both leaders who are here sort of sense that pressure. And that's totally missing.

here, obviously, that kind of protesting and activism is not possible in this context. So Ben, I got to be honest, very few things make me feel as bleak as imagining for more years of climate policy under Donald Trump. It's hard for me to find a silver lining here. You got any pitches? I don't. You know, Elia, the president of Azerbaijan, locked up a lot of people in the run up.

which is interesting because the theory behind some of these events in the past is, oh, there'll be a spotlight on this country that will moderate their behavior with respect to things like human rights. But they've been lock-and-up journalists. They've been locking up people who are activists on climate. Never mind just not allowing the kind of mass protests we saw in Glasgow.

And it kind of just shows you how the geopolitical winds have shifted, that a country can feel that comfortable doing that, knowing that everybody's coming to town. And look, Tommy, I guess my only dark humor, because maybe that's how we have to find a way through this, is that if you were to write a thousand-page novel about what's happening in the 2020s, you could do worse in opening it.

at the climate change summit that's being held in an autocratic state that has 90% of its exports on fossil fuels at the same time that Donald Trump is being elected President of the United States. That's what's happening in the world right now. That kind of transactionalism, that kind of autocracy, that kind of corruption,

That kind of disregard kind of in the same way that MAGA likes to own the Libs in this country. You know, Aliyah wants to own the climate change activists globally. That's where we are. And so we have to kind of rethink everything about how we advocate on climate just showing up at the, you know, at the COP that's in Azerbaijan and asking for more money for the loss and damage fund. That's important.

That's not going to get us there. No. So we have to kind of go back to the drawing board about this cop process. I think the Paris Agreement will continue even without the United States, but maybe like let's have it in the next ones in Brazil, which is good. That's the kind of place it should be, you know, in a country that is pretty serious about climate action. Not perfect, but yeah, this one is, I mean, you could, you know, I don't know what I mentioned novel. I could also see like a,

10 part Hulu documentary. I mean, this sounds like in a strange way, this is the perfect encapsulation of what is happening in this world right now.

You know, it's pretty dark. The only one that would be worse would be doing it in Argentina, where Javier Millet is now saying he wants to leave the Paris climate agreement to. He's also someone who called climate change, quote, a socialist lie. So no surprise there. But you mentioned Brazil, Ben. Biden's in Brazil right now. He's a little international summitry. He became the first president to visit the Amazon rainforest, which is good and important. He's had there to highlight the need to preserve the Amazon to prevent logging

because the Amazon takes all this carbon out of the atmosphere. Biden talked about his record on climate change. He argued that the clean energy revolution in America is irreversible, which is, I think, an attempt at a hopeful message. Biden also pledged some US funding to protect the Amazon, which, unfortunately, will almost certainly be reversed by the Trump administration. So we're going to take a few steps back before we can go forward again. But these two summits, we got the G20 and APEC. Most of the focus was on Trump.

And just to hammer that home, somehow Biden and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau missed the G20 group photo of the leaders. They were just late for some logistical reason. So on the margins, you know, Biden and the Chinese president Xi Jinping, they cut a deal agreeing that artificial intelligence will never be in control of nuclear weapons. I'm glad they got that done, but it's a little scary. I think that that was like on the table.

It's talking about that. But I don't know. There is a Brazil-specific stuff I want to talk about. Have anything else from these summits from you? I feel for Biden, every lame duck at a summit, you always feel like a lame duck, but it feels like it's really exacerbated this time.

I thought a lot. I went to an apex summit with Obama after Trump's last victory. And it was pretty dark. But people didn't quite know what the hell was going on. What's Trump going to be like? He was his team that he was rolling out. Yes, it had C. Bannon, but there were some conventional people in the mix. I'll always be haunted, Tommy, by this comment that Xi Jinping made to Obama. I was in the meeting at that summit in Peru, St. Lima, the same place that Biden had an apex summit.

Xi Jinping said about Trump, if an immature leader throws the world into chaos, the world will know who to blame. I think we've kind of been dealing with that ever since. China's doing business. This is what jumped out to me from this. Xi Jinping opened a billion dollar plus port.

in Peru. That's a big part of their investment to win over the Global South. They build infrastructure and then they extract critical minerals for clean energy transition. Portoni Blinken announced a few million dollars in diesel train engines. That's not a shot at them. The Chinese are running away with this thing in terms of they have a predictable policy that they can continue administration to administration.

And we're all watching the Trump show here. The rest of the world is moved on. They're aligning around China. They're aligning or they're neutral like Lula. The guys like Lula are going to be very important to Brazilian President in the next couple of years. Where do they go? Do they just kind of go all in with the bricks? Which Brazil is obviously part of? Or do they kind of hedge their bets and move back and forth? Do they keep working on climate change?

But you could kind of, the vibes out of the summits were very, it wasn't just, because these countries priced in Trump, the vibes are very much like the US is kind of, them not being in the picture was unfortunately a pretty apt metaphor for kind of where the world is going. And look, there's, to find the opportunity, and I think you and I have talked about having conversations, you know, heading into next year, but the opportunity is we got to

I was going to say build back better. It's a rebuild. We need a new foreign policy as Democrats, entirely new, to deal with this world that I'm just describing, a world in which there is no liberal rules-based order with the U.S. at the center of it.

There's opportunity in that, frankly. There's opportunity in a rebuild. And that's kind of how we have to start thinking. What is a different foreign policy look like that is actually designed for this world that we're in? The problem of the Biden foreign policy is so much of it was designed for a world that doesn't exist anymore.

Yeah, the America's back is just not going to work. We're not going to be back in the same way. There's a different spot. One just Brazil specific thing we want to talk about. There's an issue that's causing enormous problems in Brazil itself, which is sports gambling. Brazil is now the third largest market in the world for sports betting after the US and the UK. It was responsible for $21 billion in transactions last year, which is a 71% increase from four years ago.

And it is so pervasive that consumer spending in the country and aggregate is down. And the GDP of Brazil could take a 0.3% hit this year because of gambling. And making things worse is the fact that many people are using credit cards or mobile loan apps to gamble. And they're ended up paying massive interest rates on their debt up to 430 some odd percent. But then maybe the most shocking part about this whole story is that sports gambling only became legal in Brazil in 2018.

Before that, most forms of gambling were banned with a few notable exceptions like lotteries or horse racing. Data released by the Brazilian government suggests that in August of this year, more than 20% of the funds from Brazil's welfare program were spent on sports betting. This is impacting the poorest people in the country in a very meaningful way, in the country itself as well.

And the question of how it got so bad so quickly, there seems to be a few parts. I think some of it was people were isolated and bored during the pandemic and they turned to this new hobby. There was an explosion of marketing, including almost all of the soccer teams in Brazil being sponsored by sports betting companies. And there just clearly weren't anywhere near enough regulations in place to prevent abuse or prevent kids from getting on the side or prevent people from doing hard pull things.

The good news is that the government has already taken steps to regulate and rein in the sports betting industry, but it was sort of an eye-opening story bend because I think people in the UK in particular are very used to gambling being sort of a pervasive part of culture about them endorsing teams. It's something in the US that was everyone

People had a bookie or you had to go to Vegas, the gamble, and now lots and lots of states are allowing online sports gambling to happen. But it's a story about how there does need to be some regulation in place, some friction in place to protect people or else, man, a 0.3% hit the GDP. That is a shockingly large impact from betting on a soccer game.

Yeah, you're right to highlight this. You mentioned the story to me and I was reading up on it and it's truly wild and I guess the constructive thing I'd say to connect some of these threads that we've been talking about, there is a ripeness for a certain kind of populism.

that doesn't exist right now. There's so much talking about the populism on the right, which is a populism against the establishment and against the way things have been done and against identity politics in this country or whatever it is. There is a space for a populism

that is basically about the people that are actually screwing most people. The people running sports gambling in Brazil, the kind of crypto bros trying to take over the American economy, the corporate malfeasance that's out there in the world, the kind of fossil fuel interest trying to undermine climate change. Just think about what we have talked about in the last few segments.

Think about the populist message it could be created, about taking back power from those people. I know you're talking to Bernie later. It's a little different than Bernie's redistributionist populist message. This is about how does power work? It's an inverse of what Trump's message is. Trump's message is power has been in the hand of these establishments. Let's break them and take it.

But he wants to take it and give it to the kind of people. I guess he would probably love to invest in sports gambling. There'll probably be a Trump gambling website in this country before the end of the next week. Oh, yeah, surprise you guys already. Yeah. Sorry if I just gave them an idea. You know, not junior. So this is something that we should think about, is what is that populist message that speaks to the kind of sense of pervasive corruption in all these different aspects?

Well, Don Jr. apparently is going to go to work at a venture capital firm that is investing in anti-woke everything. They're calling it the Republican parallel economy, which I guess means. I've been joking about this with friends. I'd love to see anti-woke plates, anti-woke cup, anti-woke catheter bags. What are we talking about here?

made up nonsensical job, but this is apparently what he's going to go do for a little. Here's the thing I'd watch on this is they want these corporations to kind of do what they want, you know, maybe give them money and things like that. There is a big tax bill coming up. What if the price for your corporate tax rate is how anti-woke are you? You know, there's going to be a lot of pressure, right?

Well, there's also apparently talk about all the cuts they're going to need to put in place to pay for the extension of the Trump tax cuts, which might include things like food stamps or Medicare, Medicaid. It's going to be a big price tag. You're right. Well, this is in the category of what Trump does, not just what he says.

Yeah, that's right. Finally, Ben, you know, you and I have worked in campaigns, we worked in the White House. Doing advanced work for politicians can be very tough because you have to think through every minute detail if something gets screwed up, it's on you. You've got to be on the site hours and hours in advance of them showing up usually before dawn. And then you have to relay

any weird special requests and kind of be an efficient little pain in the ass at times. And that is why we here at Pate of the World want to raise a glass to salute all the staffers who worked for Paulina Brandberg, Sweden's Minister of Gender Equality. According to emails leaked to a Swedish tabloid, Brandberg is either extremely allergic to or just afraid of bananas,

The first staff sent a series of emails to host of events requesting that no bananas be in the area where she was staying. Another said that no bananas are allowed on the premises while she is at the meeting itself. And another declared that there should be no traces of bananas in the rooms where she was in. So to her credit, when asked about it, Brandberg said, it's sort of an allergy. You could say it's something that I get professional help with. But Ben, any vegetables or fruit striking fear in your heart these days?

No. I wonder what your source of potassium is. This is a new one for me. I mean, you used to the white M&Ms in the dressing room, but they've been anything. I mean, it's like a cilantro version that's apparently a genetic thing that I can get. There's one I've heard of that I think I might have a little of. There's something called trip topophobia. People don't like small clusters of bumps. I feel like I don't like that. I feel like that kind of grosses me out.

Yeah, I'm trying to think about what my, I don't know. I don't like spiders. I don't like spiders. Yeah, I mean, again, animals, you know, snakes freak me out. I wouldn't want to snake in the, in the whole room. But that would be a bad thing. God, that's going to be tough. Imagine it's like your first day in the job. And, you know, you just didn't know to adjust the fruit bowl that is, you know, universal and all these conferences.

I mean, the thing is, bananas are pretty omnipresent. I encourage everybody to kind of keep their eyes out for bananas. You're going to see them in a lot of places. They're great and smoothies. My kids love them. The other story we considered talking about for today, but I couldn't do it because I don't like the subject matter, was some South Korean guy was trying to smuggle

320 tarantulas, 110 centipedes, and nine bullet ants out of Peru, I guess back home to South Korea, to sell them. 35 adult tarantulas, 285 juvenile tarantulas, and bullet ants, they're sting hurts so much that it feels like you got shot and it can paralyze you. And this man had them in bags, strapped to his stomach.

Okay, so first of all, the tarantula thing is a phobia of mine. I don't want to see one of those. I'm out. What does sell this to who? Is this some weird Dr. Evil shit? You know, it's just like, because it does seem like, you know, Dr. Evil would be sitting there that had the table with, you know, there's Dr. Evil that had a table and there's Matt Gaetz and there's Telsi Gabbard and he'd bring him in and be like, we have these bullet ants and because there's not like some pet purpose, you know,

No, I would answer that. There's some people that collect exotic animals, and I think that's where the giant tarantulas come in. I guess the bullet ants can be used in traditional medicine, maybe same with the centipedes. I don't know, man, I don't want any of this shit touching me. All these things end up basically being a form of a agritude, don't they? That's the strangest thing about this. It's just like everybody thinking, hey, I need a little bullet ant.

Yes, some dude a thousand years ago found a rare shark cut spin off and got a boner and is like, oh, I've never since said they've been through that. No, I don't think that's going on. All right. Well, that's a great lead into Bernie Sanders. We're going to take a quick break. We'll talk to Sanders. Sanders about the warring Gaza, his frustration at the Biden administration's policy and why he's put four of these resolutions in the Senate to try to block arms sales to cut off U.S. support for the war. So stick around for that.

I am thrilled to welcome back to the show for Mont Senator Bernie Sanders. Senator, good to see you. Tell me great to be with you. So you published an op-ed on Monday that began quote, the United States government must stop blatantly violating the law with regard to arms sales to Israel. Can you explain why you believe that the current policy is violating the law and how these joint resolutions of disapproval that you have introduced in Congress could help stop that?

To be honest with you, this is not just my opinion. The facts are very, very clear. The Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Export Control Act, what they tell us in very explicit language is United States military aid cannot go to a country which is in violation of international law.

are humanitarian and which is blocking humanitarian aid israel according to the united nations according to every humanitarian organization on the ground according to numerous countries around the world is in fact doing just that they are violating international law with regard to the way they are conducting their efforts in gossip and they are certainly blocking humanitarian aid so no question to my mind

but that it would be against the law for the United States to continue providing offensive weapons to Israel. About a month ago, Tony Blake and the Secretary of State and Lloyd Austin, the Secretary of Defense, they sent a letter to the Israeli government raising concerns that the IDF was laying siege northern Gaza, and it listed a bunch of demands, including that the IDF allowed at least 350 A-trucks into Gaza

per day or else, you know, some unspecified consequences, the suggestion was that the U.S. might cut off military aid to Israel. In response to that letter, the Israeli government basically did nothing. And yet, the Biden administration announced that there would be no changes or consequences. What do you think happened? Why do you think the response is so consistently fabulous? Actually, a very painful issue for me.

I consider Joe Biden a personal friend. I have worked with him on many domestic issues. I can believe that on issues facing workers in America, he's probably been the most progressive president since FDR for a variety of reasons. But on this issue of Israel, they are dead wrong. And what pains me is they are embarrassing themselves. You just gave one example.

But I think many of your viewers have heard Biden saying, time and time and time again. I'm talking to Netanyahu. I'm angry at Netanyahu. We're going to do this. We're going to do that. Oh, but here's some more money. You continue and Netanyahu continues to do exactly what he wants to do. So this is really almost an embarrassment in my mind for the Biden administration. And essentially, we've got to stop it. We have finally got to say,

to the Biden administration. You know what? The law is the law. What is going on right now in Gaza is unspeakable. We're talking about a horrific humanitarian disaster. We're talking as we speak, Tommy, at this moment, the likelihood that many thousands of children are not only suffering malnutrition, they are actually starving to death.

And every request that the Biden administration has made to Netanyahu has been totally rebuffed, laughed at, ignored. And I think finally, the United States Senate has got to say enough is enough. You ain't going to get any more money. You're not going to get any more arms while you continue to violate American law and Americans' America's sense of morality.

yet and so we're we're talking on tuesday i believe these votes on the resolutions are wednesday corrected a series of votes on different weapons systems that's right to be uh... three we're talking about three weapons systems

We're talking about 120 millimeter tank rounds, 120 millimeter high explosive water rounds, and blocking the sale of J dams, which are guidance kits attached to many of the bombs dropped in Gaza. So three separate resolutions, three bones.

Right. I think sort of the, the, the, the elephant in the room here is that President Trump is going to be back in the White House soon. He has signaled, you know, basically full support for Netanyahu in Gaza and in Lebanon. On top of that, he just named Mike Huckabee to be his U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Huckabee is out there saying that there is no such thing as a West Bank or a settler or a settlement or an occupation, right? He's someone who, it sounds like he wants full annexation. How concerned are you about the Israeli government fully annexing the West Bank in the next four years? And is there anything Congress can do about it?

Well, of course, Congress can do something about it. And I think that a majority of the American people and a strong majority of Democrats, especially, and young people, are sick and tired of funding a right-wing extremist government, which is waging all-out war against the Palestinian people, including killing some 40

3,000 and injuring over 100,000. So the answer is, is there something that can be done? Of course there's something to be done. That's what we're responding to do tomorrow is to say to the Netanyahu government, you know what? You're not getting another nickel of US taxpayer money unless they're a fundamental, very, very deep reforms, not only in terms of your conduct, your atrocious conduct in Gaza, but on in the West Bank as well. So we have the power of the first look Israel is an independent country. They can do what they want.

They can become an international prior, but they should not be able to do it with American taxpayer dollars. I think in this election, President Trump, I think, pretty successfully argued, or at least convinced voters, that he was the anti-war candidate while the Democratic side, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, were pro-war, were pro military intervention overseas. How do you think Democrats can get back the mantle of the anti-war party?

well for a slot voting for these resolutions uh... and by the way on top of all that you have a good friend elan musk making the very valid point

that I think for the seventh consecutive time, the Pentagon, which received something like $900 billion a year, failed to successfully undertake an independent audit. So if the Democrats, in my view, were smart, number one, they would say, you know what?

President of the United States has called for an immediate ceasefire. That's what we have. President of the United States has called for a two-state solution. That's what we got to have. That's what we got to work for. President of the United States said there is a humanitarian crisis. We need to bring huge amounts of aid into Gaza right now. That's what we should be calling for. And I think from a political point of view, Tommy, what you will find is that most Americans do not believe

that American foreign policy and military aid should be tied to the starvation of thousands and thousands of children.

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the other foreign war that I think got a lot of attention in the election was the war in Ukraine. President Biden just allowed the Ukrainian government to use U.S. made attack on missiles to hit targets within Russia. Do you support that decision this late in the presidency? Honestly, I heard about it. I read about it. I just don't know enough about it right now. It's something that I've got to be thinking about a little bit more.

totally understand. Last question for you. I mean, President Trump is rolling out all these picks for his national security team. You've got Matt Gaetz, who's going to be the Attorney General. You got a Fox News host going in Secretary of Defense, Tulsi Gabbard at the DNI. Many of them don't seem that qualified for the jobs. Others have some vetting issues. But on paper, right? The Republicans have the votes. How do you think Democrats should approach this process? Do we need to pick our battles? Do we go after all of them? What do you think?

I think you pick your battles and you, you know, President has the right to make appointments. There are a hearing process where senators are able to ask the hard questions that need to be asked about the views, the backgrounds of the candidates. But I think a wholesale decision to oppose just point blank all of Trump's nominees would be a political mistake.

yeah i agree with you pick your battles well center thank you for talking with us thank you for uh... putting for these resolutions i think it's long pastime the u.s. stop funding this war in gaza in lebanon by the way uh... it's appreciated okay thanks very much take care bye thanks again to center centers join the show uh... thanks again to the guy

with the bullet ants and the tarantulas on it. Thanks to the advanced staffers who just couldn't have those bananas. Yeah, give her those bananas. Plantains too. Just, you know, anything that looks like it. I love a good fried plantain. I love a good fried plantain. Delicious. Delicious. One unhappy note. All right, buddy. We'll see you soon. And no one gets too despondent. We got time. Yeah, yeah. We're going to get this together.

If you want to get ad-free episodes, exclusive content, and more, consider joining our Friends of the Pod subscription community at crooked.com slash friends. Don't forget to follow us at Crooked Media on Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter for more original content. Host takeover and other community events. Plus find Pod Save the World on YouTube for access to full episodes, bonus content, and more. If you're as opinionated as we are, consider dropping a review. Pod Save the World is a Crooked Media production. Our producer is Alona Minkowski. Our associate producer is Michael Goldsmith.

Our executive producers are me, Tommy Vitor, and Ben Rhodes. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick, and engineered by Vasili's Photopolis. Audio support by Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Madeline Herringer is our head of news and programming. Matt DeGroat is our head of production. Andy Taft is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Phoebe Bradford, William Jones, Hyrule Polyveve, and Molly Lobel, who upload our episodes and videos to youtube.com slash Pod Save the World.