2/25/25: Trump Demands Ukraine Minerals, Trump Backs Elon Email Purge

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this
election and we are so excited about what that means
for the future of this show.

Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. Have an amazing
show for everybody today.

Speaker 1 (00:36):
What do we have, Crystal, indeed we do so.

Speaker 2 (00:38):
Trump met with Emmanuel matcrone of France yesterday. Lots of
news made on Ukraine, so we will break all of
that down for you. We also have the very latest
in the wars between Elon and the agency heads and
OPM and Trump and whatever with regard to this Doge
five bullet email, so lots of developments there will break
that down for you. We also have Apple making a

(00:58):
big economic announcement. Is it real though, because there are
some other counter indicators, I would say, and with regard
to the economy with the Apple specifically, a lot of
developments with regard to Israel that we wanted to get to,
including they appear to be annexing a significant part of Syria.

Speaker 4 (01:14):
So that's the thing that is just happening now.

Speaker 2 (01:16):
Also, tanks rolling through the occupied West Bank, so a
lot of folks on there. Huge shake up at MSNBC.
Joy Read is out, Amon is getting moved, Jensaki is in,
just a lot of shifting of that lineup. And actually,
notably she almost never does this, but Rachel Maddow directly
criticizing the network there, specifically with regard to the cancelation

(01:39):
of Joy Reid Show. So I'll write that down for
you what it says about that network and where they're
heading in the Trump era. And I'm taking a look
at this is an astonishing story. So West Virginia experience
these horrific historic floods, devastating, two thousand houses destroyed, three
people lost their lives, etc. They've been begging Trump for
an emergency declaration. Still as of today, they haven't gotten it,

(02:01):
which means zero federal help on the ground in West Virginia.
And these are some of the poorest counties in the country.
These are also some of the most Trump supporting counties
in the entire country there. So I'm going to take
a look at what is going on there, which I
still have a lot of questions about, to be frank with.

Speaker 3 (02:14):
You, Yeah, I'm very curious. I wasn't even aware of
the situation. So I'm excited to hear that monologue. Thanks
to all of our prem subscribers for supporting the show.
But let's get into it with Ukraine. So there's been
some significant developments here. As you said, President Trump meeting
yesterday in the Oval Office at the White House with
Emmanuel Macrone. Manuel Macrone's real mission was to come here
and basically to sell Trump on stopping whatever he is doing.

(02:36):
But it does not look like that will be successful.
Here's a little bit of Donald Trump and the Oval
describing this quote unquote minerals agreement which we're going to
return to in a little bit that he wants to
sign with Ukraine.

Speaker 1 (02:47):
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 5 (02:49):
It looks like we're getting very close. The deal's being
worked on. I think getting very close to getting an
agreement where where we get our money back over a
period of time, but it also gives us something where
I think it's very beneficial to their economy, to them
as a country. But you know, we're in for three
hundred and fifty billion dollars. How we got there, I

(03:11):
don't know. But that's a lot of money, a lot
of money invested, and we had nothing, nothing to show
for it. And it was the Biden administration's fault. The
Europeans are in for about one hundred billion dollars and
they do it as a form, in the form of
a loan. And the Europeans have been great on this issue.

(03:32):
They understood it wasn't fair and we were able to
work something out.

Speaker 3 (03:35):
So that is the description of the quote unquote Minerals Agreement.
But all of this is all coming back to Big
War between the Europeans and between Donald Trump in terms
of wanting to sign this peace deal with Russia over Ukraine.

Speaker 1 (03:48):
The Ukraine Minerals Agreement is kind of secondary to.

Speaker 3 (03:51):
The overall peace deal, the Big The Big Peace Deal
is basically negotiations with the Russians, which is currently Secretary
of State and the Secret State and Steve Wikoff have
been engaged in to return what it appears to be
is to the Istanbul framework of April of twenty twenty two.
So it is interesting because obviously the Europeans are freaking

(04:12):
out about that. They do not want to be on
the hook for their thirty thousand peacekeepers. They're saying, even
if we did that America, you guys still have to
pay for it, all of the intelligence, and there's a
big war and a feeling of abandonment on the continent.
It fits very well with the Germany story that we
did yesterday, the new Chancellor of Germany saying that we
will have to try and have independence from the United States,

(04:35):
which is the logical endpoint of a lot of geopolitical
forces over the last decades or so.

Speaker 2 (04:40):
I mean, it also goes with that, like some of
the numbers and stuff. He just completely makes up the
three and fifty billion number, the comparison with Europe. Macron
actually jumps in, I think we have that.

Speaker 4 (04:48):
Yeah, we have it, and it's like let's go and play.
He actually jumps in.

Speaker 2 (04:51):
He's like, well something, you know, it wasn't all just loans,
like we actually some of that was hard money.

Speaker 1 (04:56):
As well.

Speaker 4 (04:56):
Let's take a listen to that moment.

Speaker 3 (04:57):
We'll grant to.

Speaker 6 (04:58):
Support the usbe I support the idea to have Ukraine
first being compensated because they are the one to have
lose a lot of the fellow citizen and being destroyed
by this attack. Second, all of those who paid for
could be compensated, but not by Ukraine, by Russia because
they was the one to aggress.

Speaker 5 (05:18):
Again, so you understaid, just say you understand Europe is
loaning the money to Ukraine. They get their money back now.

Speaker 6 (05:25):
In fact, to be frank, we paid. We paid sixty
percent of the totally faults and it was through I
like the US loans guarantee grants, and we provided real money.
To be clear, we have two hundred and thirty billion
frozen assets in Europe Russian assets. But this is not
as a collateral of a loan because this is not

(05:46):
all belonging. So they are frozen. If at the end
of the day the negotiation we will have with Russia,
they're ready to give it to us, super it will
be loan at the end of the day and Russia
will have paid for that.

Speaker 5 (05:58):
If you believe that, it's okay with me, but they
get their money back and we don't, and now we do.
But you know that's.

Speaker 6 (06:05):
Only fare close to her.

Speaker 2 (06:06):
Very weird interpersonal dynamics between these two as well, very
like touchy, a lot of sort of like alpha male
positioning and jockeying there or whatever. But you know, I mean,
I have a lot of feelings about this, and number one,
I just want the war to end. Like the fact
that we are going back to a framework that was
originally negotiated at the very in the very early days

(06:27):
of this war. And frankly, I think Ukraine would be
very fortunate.

Speaker 4 (06:31):
We would be very fortunate.

Speaker 2 (06:32):
Look if they're able to achieve you know, that agreement
that was on the table at that point, because if
you'll recall, and of course we discussed the Synauseum here
on the show, at that point, Ukraine really did have
Russia on the back foot. They really had outperformed. There
really was this coalescing of the US and Europe and
all these forces behind them. We had just put on
this massive amount of sanctions, you know, the biggest sanctioned

(06:55):
regime in history. It was very uncertain how that was
going to go for Russia, et cetera. So the dynamics
were a lot more in Ukraine's favor at this point,
and so when you think about going back to like
it's just heartbreaking the number of people lives that have
been lost, the death and destruction, all because and this
is the part where I get to like the way
Trump frames this is just like wrong and a lie,

(07:16):
all because the US wanted to use Ukraine as a
proxy in this fight against Russia. That's why that peace
deal wasn't pursued. And so, you know, like I said,
complicated feel On the one hand, if he's moving towards ending.

Speaker 4 (07:29):
The war, great, I'm on board with that. Let's do it.

Speaker 2 (07:31):
On the other hand, like saying that it's Ukraine's fault
that the war started, saying we should be reimbursed. No,
we're the reason why we pushed them to have this
massive war and devastate their population, devastate the country, etc.
And you know, of course I'm also disgusted, which is
like the naked return to colonialism and imperialism where it's like,

(07:52):
you know, we're going to just make you a you know,
a client state and extract whatever resources we can out
of you. And I don't know if you saw this,
why did I Russia came in. Russia came in and
was like, oh, we have rare earth minerals too, Like maybe.

Speaker 4 (08:06):
You know, let's let's cut a deal.

Speaker 2 (08:07):
And I'll tell you why why it's bad is because
I believe that these countries should actually have sovereignty. I
do actually think that the post World War two order
in which the norm generally followed around the world in
which countries small countries are left alone and where it is,
you know, a breach of international law and you know,
something to be guarded against when you have large countries

(08:28):
that are just taking advantage of small countries, Like that's
why I think that is a bad direction to go in.

Speaker 4 (08:34):
But the other thing is that is.

Speaker 2 (08:35):
Really unclear to me, is Okay, if we strike this
like raw earth minerals and their ports and their you know,
oil and gas resources, this across the board fifty percent,
we're basically taking over your state.

Speaker 1 (08:48):
Deal.

Speaker 2 (08:49):
Well, I mean that doesn't get us less entangled in
that region. That gets us more entangled in that region.
So I still have a lot of questions about how
this is all goingting.

Speaker 3 (08:57):
Well, see, this is where I just totally depart from
this like kind of liberal fantasy view of the world.
Like not to go all Howard's in, but the idea
that the post World War two order has protected small
countries is ridiculous. I mean, if you look again, I
would borrow some left this commentary. Look, take a look
at tiny little countries in South America and how independent
they've been over the last year, seventy five years.

Speaker 1 (09:16):
It's ludicrous. It's all just complete bullshit.

Speaker 4 (09:19):
And so this is this is my issue. Sorry to
cut you.

Speaker 2 (09:22):
Off, like this is to me the sort of core
ethos of the Trump administration two point zero, not just
with regard to foreign affairs, but with regard to domestic
affairs too. It's like, Okay, well things are bad, and
like we've been hypocritical, so instead of trying to improve
those international laws, try instead of trying to actually act

(09:45):
as you know, moral actors in the world and respect
territorial sovereignty, have additional cooperation, et cetera. Instead it's like, well,
things have been bad and we've been hypocritical, so let's
just make it worse. And it's the same thing with
regard to you know, the government here, it's like, well,
government has failed, so let's just strip it down and
make it so it can't even deliver your social security
medicare in the things that it actually does well. So yeah,

(10:07):
I you know, reject this return to just naked colonialism
and imperialism. And you know, there are a lot of
ways that you can do. There are multiple ways you
can do a multipolar world, one of which is to
actually have respect for smaller countries around the world, actually
to respect territorial integrity, actually to move in the direction

(10:29):
of cooperation with large powers. And when Trump says things
about like hey, let's cut the military fifty percent and
strike a deal with Russia and China, that would be
a move in that direction, there is no way in
hell that I think that is actually what's going to
play out here whatsoever.

Speaker 4 (10:42):
Instead, I think.

Speaker 2 (10:43):
We're headed much more towards like a new imperialism, a
new naked like just we're going to take Greenland, We're
going to take Panama, we're going to take Canada, we're
going to bomb Mexico, we're going to take Gaza, et cetera.
And an increase in militarism and defense spending very much
in line with like you know, the Cold War hostilities
with the SOVIETI but.

Speaker 1 (11:02):
This is the thing.

Speaker 3 (11:03):
We don't have a choice, and all countries in the
international system will do what's in their best interest. It's
just again like a literal liberal fantasy of the nineteen
sixties that we could create some grand peace architecture when
the United States and the great.

Speaker 1 (11:17):
Powers will always rule the world.

Speaker 3 (11:19):
We're going to get to this to the United Nations,
and just again to show you there's no such thing
as international law. There is no such thing as a
UN General Assembly. No one gives a shit what Montenegro thinks,
nor should we all of all. The international system of
all time, multipolarity, bipolarity, unipolarity has always come down to
the say of the great powers. It is built into

(11:41):
the United Nations that the p five powers have absolute
authority to veto anything. It's actually implicit in the international
system that the great victors of World War two will
decide the new fate. And so this idea also that
we shouldn't have Ukraine pay us back.

Speaker 1 (11:57):
I mean, again, you're not wrong.

Speaker 2 (11:59):
That faults well like we should be paid, to be
honest with you're the death and destruction.

Speaker 4 (12:04):
That you know led them into.

Speaker 3 (12:06):
Well again, that's just again, in my opinion, kind of
a ridiculous notion. If you are going to expend one
hundred billion dollars plus into building this country and ensuring
its territorial integrity, the idea that we should not reap
the rewards and the benefits of it is insane. I mean,
go back to the Marshal. No, No, because this is
the architecture of the post World War two era.

Speaker 2 (12:26):
The Marshal, these tensions that led to NATO's expansion, that pushed,
you know, this direction for Ukraine, like we've used them
as our toy.

Speaker 3 (12:36):
Yes, but they all know that, of course, but that's
also what they want, right, is a willing participant pay.

Speaker 2 (12:42):
Back when we're a key component, not that Zelenski doesn't
have an agency whatever, but we are a key reason why
this country has been at war, why Russia invaded this
but we are far more responsible for.

Speaker 4 (12:54):
That than Ukraine is.

Speaker 2 (12:55):
So you know, again, I want the war to end,
but I cannot just city and brook this complete inversion
of reality in which is Ukraine's fault that they got
invaded by Russia and they somehow owe us something when
we're the whole reason why this war wasn't settled years ago.

Speaker 4 (13:11):
In that is Stanbul.

Speaker 3 (13:12):
It's not just US, it's also the UK which always
needs to get out in that.

Speaker 1 (13:15):
Yeah, I think it was mostly US. I don't agree.
That's why I think Biden is terrible. It was an
awful president.

Speaker 3 (13:20):
But again, if we return to this idea, do you
think we did the Marshall Plan out of the goodness
of our heart?

Speaker 1 (13:25):
Or did we do it to prop up a.

Speaker 3 (13:26):
Democratic europe democratic you know, small d to do what
so that we could, you know, have a nice, big,
old marketplace over there. We don't do anything out of
the goodness of our heart, nor should we. It's a
stupid idea. That's not how countries conduct relations with others.
If we have now expended over one hundred plus billion dollars,
the United States has depleted its stockpiles and more, that

(13:47):
we should just say, oh, you know, deal's done. No,
if we're going to ensure your territorial integrity or do
this piece deal with Russia, we're going to get something
out of it. Whether Ukraine exists has absolutely no import
to the United States whatsoever. The only thing that if
we're going to get something out of this should of
course be to the economic benefit of the United States consumer,
which again is the backbone of the US liberal world order.

(14:10):
I know people don't like when I talk like this.
It's the truth, all right. The other people who are
telling you about democracy and oh NATO, it's all bs
completely What Latvia matters so much to America?

Speaker 1 (14:21):
No, it's ludicrous.

Speaker 3 (14:22):
I mean, these countries are both in the traditional Russian
sphere of influence, as you said, with the NATO encroachment
on Russian borders and more. The entire idea behind it
is a US and European basically market system which we
use our military power to protect to the benefit of
our consumers, of our companies, and of the European companies

(14:43):
as well. Let's all just be honest about it. And
that's where I have to return to. Where when we
look at the way that the Ukrainians are complicit in
this is that they have wanted since that push for
more militarism, for more war. They want to basically, you know,
you know, take all all of our stockpiles.

Speaker 1 (15:00):
They want to increase their war with Rush.

Speaker 3 (15:02):
Their plan from the very beginning is what is to
draw the United States in. Whatever they're doing is definitely
bad for American security interests. And so while yes, I
won't let Biden or Boris Johnson off the hook. The
Ukrainians also are, especially the Ukrainian government has tied itself
legally to this framework where they're not allowed to have elections,
even though we're protecting democracy. They're not allowed to even

(15:24):
negotiate on any territorial integrity.

Speaker 1 (15:27):
According to their own laws.

Speaker 3 (15:28):
Like they have locked themselves in to this paradigm, and
that's where they have agency, and we also can reset
the paradigm of how we conduct relations between states. The
ideal foreign policy that I would ever want is exactly this.
Right now, we're meeting with Russia Ukraine. You're not even there.
You know why, because it's not about you. That's the
whole What.

Speaker 4 (15:48):
Happened in them having agency, what happened to it being.

Speaker 3 (15:50):
Their fault They can do whatever they want inside their
country soccer? When is that an the pro level we
will decide what's.

Speaker 2 (15:58):
That's my point is that it's not their fault that
we wanted to drag this war out for years.

Speaker 4 (16:05):
We were the ones who.

Speaker 1 (16:06):
Were driving that trade.

Speaker 4 (16:07):
It were the reason.

Speaker 2 (16:08):
Why in twenty twenty two in Istanbul, we went in
and said no, we don't want this peace process to continue.
It wasn't because of Ukraine. They were at the table negotiating.
We covered those negotiations. Okay, they have desires and agency,
and of course, if they're going to be invaded by
this nuclear superpower, they want whoever can have their back
to have their back. But we are the reason why

(16:31):
this has been dragged out for years, and the fact
that you have an election, have new president doesn't wipe
that slate clean and now means somehow that they owe us.

Speaker 4 (16:40):
No, they don't we owe them.

Speaker 2 (16:41):
That's the truth of the matter if you're actually looking
at things from an equitable perspective, because we are the
primary reason that they have lost hundreds of thousands of
lives and their country has been decimated because we wanted
to use them as a plaything in our geopolitical ambitions.
That's the truth of the matter. And so this idea
that it's Ukraine's that Russia invaded them, I think is

(17:02):
a discussing why it's bullshit.

Speaker 4 (17:04):
It's complete inversion of reality.

Speaker 2 (17:06):
And also, you know, to frame Zelenski, Trump gets asked
another point here he had no problem calling Zelenski a
quote unquote dictator, even though he was democratically elected, And yes,
I agree with you they should have elections, although I'm
also sympathetic to the argument they make that, like, hey,
it's kind of hard to have elections when you've got
millions of people who have fled the country and people
who are displaced, and parts of the country that were

(17:27):
not even sure whether they're US or Russia at this point.
But yes, they should have elections. But he was not
willing to say Putin was a dictator, but he's perfectly
comfortable saying Zelenski's a dictator. So again, listen, I want
this war to end, but I also we have to
exist in some sort of reality based framework here, and
he has completely inverted what actually happened in this war

(17:50):
and the entire trajectory.

Speaker 3 (17:51):
A look again to return. Now, is Putin a dictator?
I can say that, yes. Do you know why it's
a bad idea, for example, for the president of the
United States to call a Russian nuclear superpower of leader
of that country a dictator or a war criminal? I
dare say, like maybe Joe Biden is because we have
to conduct relations with these great powers. Now, is Russia
like a pre eminent superpower? No, but it's a nuclear

(18:12):
arm power, and it's military has already you know, dramatically
increased its power and its size to the point where
even the so called great powers of Europe are unable,
by their own admission, to even keep up with them
from a war production level. In general, it's a good
idea to just make sure that things are unbalance. That's
really what pisses people off is and this is what
I just don't get. People would really liberals really would

(18:34):
rather live in a world where we vote correctly in
the un GA and don't call Zelensky a dictator than
to have peace piece.

Speaker 4 (18:41):
Is all the dictator.

Speaker 1 (18:44):
He is irrelevant, that's but.

Speaker 4 (18:47):
It's also just a lie.

Speaker 2 (18:49):
And so that's why because I care, because having reality
and like factual accuracy is something that I think we
should all care about. I mean, you know, to turn Ukraine,
which was truly a victim of the circumstance into like
they're the aggressor, and to say that, oh, Russia, you know,
it's not Russia's fault that they invaded this country, Like

(19:12):
it's number one Russia's fault.

Speaker 4 (19:13):
It's number two our fault.

Speaker 2 (19:14):
And it has really very little to do with being
the Ukrainian's fault and no, so no, I'm not going
to just sit by and say like it's fine to
just make up this preposterous, upside down worldview. And I
don't even see how that actually helps in these negotiations either,
because your goal in the negotiations, since Russia was the aggressor,

(19:36):
and you don't want to have countries just willingly taking
over other countries because that leads to more war and
more death and more destruction and more devastation and us
getting entangled more places. By the way, what you would
ideally want is the best possible deal you can achieve
at this point on the Ukrainian side, to me, going
into this calling Zelenski dictator, throwing him under the bus

(20:00):
signally you you know, aren't going to call putin a dictator,
that you're going to side with them even in their
preposterous narrative of how this war unfold and somehow make
it about like Ukrainian aggression is insane and completely gives
up any leverage you had to try to secure the
best deal you can for Ukraine, which would be the
most justice here.

Speaker 3 (20:19):
That's the presumption that you made there is incorrect. Is
that why should we care about securing the best deal
for Ukraine. That's Ukraine's problem. We should secure the best
deal for us, and that is exactly how countries should
conduct international relations. Ukraine's job is to push for its
own interests. Congratulations to you. I actually think they've done
a pretty good job. I mean they've got to save
eighty percent of their country twenty percent of their countries

(20:41):
controlled by Russia.

Speaker 1 (20:42):
They literally get to live and exist. That's your victory.

Speaker 3 (20:46):
They refuse to acknowledge that victory when you're up against
a nuclear arm power. Our job is to do what
is best for us and for our quote unquote allies. Ukraine,
you know what kind of allies this is currently always
asking us for money into broil our nuclear arsenal on
their side, to give them NATO umbrella Like this is
not something that is beneficial to us whatsoever. Not to

(21:08):
mention how much money we have all paid in extra
gas because of these Russian sanctions. To return to that
Spring twenty twenty two framework. Steve Witkoff, who is Trump's friend,
Envoy Envoy extraordinaire from Israel Gaza now involved in this
as now talking specifically about the istan Bul Framework as

(21:30):
one that he would like to see in the deal.

Speaker 1 (21:32):
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 7 (21:33):
They are responsive to an end to this. They were
very very what i'll call kojint and substantive negotiations framed
in something that's called the istan Bul Protocol agreement. We
came very very close to signing something, and I think
we'll be using that framework as a guidepost to get

(21:55):
a piece deal done between Ukraine and Russia, and I
think that will be an amazing day.

Speaker 3 (21:59):
So the Istanbul Framework or Spring of twenty twenty two,
which you previously mentioned, that is important because that's the
deal that was on the table of which Boris Johnson
basically went over to the Kiev on behalf of Joe
Biden was like, yeah, I don't do this. Actually, we're
going to be behind you this entire time, and it
leads to this complete quagmire. So I'm not letting Joe
Biden or Boris Johnson or Mmanuel Maco, any of these

(22:21):
NATO leaders off the hook. But we are where we
are right now, So how do we deal with this?
And so the way that we deal with it is
end it as soon as possible. It's bad for us,
it's bad for them. It's bad for the Russians too,
just in terms of well, actually, let's put it to
this way.

Speaker 1 (22:36):
Is it good for us to have an isolated Russia.

Speaker 3 (22:38):
With a war economy that is booming war production more.

Speaker 1 (22:42):
Than the United States and NATO combined. That sounds bad.

Speaker 3 (22:46):
So whatever we can do to try and bring that
temperature down and just make sure that we're not having
this not only ongoing land war humanitarian disaster, but just
geopolitical tension rise again over a country which is completely
irrelevant to the United States. Yeah, I think that's overall
a good thing. And I mean this is also where
we have a bit of a binary choice here. We
had Joe Biden, Kamala Harrison, all of them who genuinely

(23:09):
did not want peace in Ukraine. They wanted this war
to go on forever. And then we have whatever the
hell this is realism with the Trump flavor, the Trump doctrine,
whatever it is that we can describe it. I'm going
to choose the latter. I mean, I think the latter
is far preferable. If the war ends, and especially if
the US taxpayer or at least US consumers benefited in
some way.

Speaker 1 (23:28):
That seems to be somewhat.

Speaker 3 (23:29):
More of a net positive and whatever the hell we
were doing over the last three years, and I think that, honestly,
I think this will be tremendously popular if it comes
to fruition. The only I would say counter to all
of this is the problems that could be sidelined in
the rare earth minerals deal that you talked about. Let's
put that on the screen for example. So here we
have the actual text of the rare Earth Minerals deal

(23:52):
quote worth hundreds of billions of dollars, under which the
US would express its desire to keep Ukraine free, sovereign,
and secure. According to this draft, which is obtained by Axios,
the Ukrainian deal would effectively allow US investment in Ukrainian
mineral companies with some sort of split guaranteed in the future.

(24:13):
As you said, the Russians are also saying, hey, we've
also got a ton of rare earth minerals, which apparently
on paper is correct. I did not know that in
terms of what they're rare earth mineral stocks.

Speaker 1 (24:21):
Well, and all of that.

Speaker 2 (24:22):
Ryan was right when he was like, you know, these
rare earths turn out to not be so rare.

Speaker 1 (24:26):
He's right. Yeah, he's like, they're in Mexico, they're in Chile.

Speaker 3 (24:29):
We actually had Chinese posts here now Afghanistan.

Speaker 2 (24:32):
And I also read that Ukraine is a little bit
over selling their rare earth situation. But that's why it's
important to understand some news outlet, I can't remember which
one got their hands on the deal that was proposed,
and it was not just rare earth mineral it was
basically all of Ukraine's economic active, primary economic activity, including
their ports. They're oil and gas, they're quote unquote rare

(24:53):
earth minerals, which also, by the way, like which rare
earths have been important, have shifted over time as well.
So in any case, yeah, it's I mean, if some
sort of deal like this actually goes down, then it
means we are obligated to Ukraine forever, because we're not
we're going to You don't think we're gonna protect those
economics and be committed to protect those economics sorts.

Speaker 3 (25:16):
It's a desire to keep Ukraine free, sovereign, insecure. Desire
is different than the guarantee of their security, which is
the actual opposite of what we should ever get ourselves into.
It's nice to have a free and a sovereign and
secure Ukraine.

Speaker 1 (25:29):
It's nice to.

Speaker 3 (25:30):
Have a lot of things. Honestly, the text of that
deal is perfect. It's like, yeah, we can express a
rhetorical desire to have something, but we don't have to
do anything about it. And that's the problem I have
with what Zelensky ultimately wants. He wants not only he
Let's be honest, a lot of the Ukrainian people now,
they think they belong in NATO, they think they're entitled
to our security umbrella. To us having to trigger Article

(25:53):
five on their behalf. Sorry, never gonna happen, Like already,
not only you been invaded twenty percent of your country.
They're in terms of the historical spheres of influence and
in terms of the actual like economic and security benefit
of adding this gigantic territory to our security umbrella and
our further interests. I mean, this would only further embroil

(26:17):
US into the affairs of the continent, which is less
and less and less important every day to the United
States economy and to the United States security. So overall,
the text or whatever of this deal, which is not
one that secures any need right legally or whatever for
the US to get involved here while reaping some benefit.

Speaker 1 (26:38):
That's the best you could possibly get.

Speaker 2 (26:39):
But Tigara, why do you think that Zelensky is proposing this.
It's because he knows if we have significant economic interest
in the country, then we are going to defend those.

Speaker 1 (26:49):
Then we can make a choice.

Speaker 2 (26:51):
Especially we're talking about you know, this is going to
be some of Trump's billionaires buddies that propose this, that
want to get their you know, their claws into the
Ukraine economy, et cetera. And so that's the whole reason
why Zelenski is open to this is because he sees
that as a way of guaranteeing that we stay embrailed
in this in this country, that we keep these interests

(27:13):
there and that we will defend them if they are
encouraged upon. He sees it as being sort of like
a security guarantee.

Speaker 3 (27:19):
Yeah, I don't disagree, but the thing is that then
actually prove it, you know, become important to us.

Speaker 1 (27:24):
If you are, then yeah, maybe we'll defend you.

Speaker 3 (27:26):
But for right now, I mean, if you just looked
at the bilateral trade we had with Ukraine, we're doing
four times more trade with Brazil, We're doing four times
more trade with multiple other countries, then we do with
Ukraine and Israel, by the way, if we all want
to talk on those terms. But of course nobody also
nobody who's pushing this piece deal wants to see anything
like that. My only point is that as we continue

(27:48):
to go down this, we are marching towards, in my opinion,
a good outcome, which is a rejection of this rhetoric
based international order, because it's not rules based, it's rhetoric based.
Let's put the next up there, because this affirms that
the US actually voted against the UN resolution quote condemning
Russia for the Ukraine War. But this is why, again

(28:08):
I want to return to the point that the great
powers rule the world. So there's a lot made of
this from the pro Ukrainian side, they're like, oh my god,
ninety three different countries voted in favor of this, eighteen
against and sixty five abstained. Well, the people who voted
against it are the US and Russia. China abstained, and
so did India. So the world's largest population abstained, the

(28:29):
second world's population abstained.

Speaker 1 (28:32):
Two out of the five p five powers voted against it.

Speaker 3 (28:37):
So whatever, these ninety three other countries say, cool, nice,
thank you for your words of affirmation.

Speaker 1 (28:42):
It doesn't matter.

Speaker 3 (28:44):
And that's my point around international law or the UN
or any of these other resolutes, complete crap, I mean,
And this is something where you just have to return
to the preference, in my opinion from what I can
see from these liberals, is literally rhetoric as opposed to
a result.

Speaker 1 (29:03):
And the result is.

Speaker 3 (29:04):
Obvious no matter what, even if it was literal Ukraine vassalage,
if you wanted a quote, you know, independent Ukraine or
at least of Russia.

Speaker 1 (29:13):
How is that not preferable?

Speaker 3 (29:15):
Then the continuing ongoing march to death of the entire
Ukrainian population, it's state, its economy and everything. The idea
that it was just going to emerge as some you
know what new Brussels or something is obviously not going
to happen. And so I don't know, I find there's
just so much fake idealism, you know, that has been
baked into this, both right and left by the way,

(29:37):
that comes into this which is falling apart on its
own merits, and I think that is a necessary event
for a more stable international outcome in the future.

Speaker 2 (29:46):
Well, what I will just say is this First of all,
you know, as I explained before, I don't think the
answer to us having been hypocritical or you know, things
being not great in the international order is to just say, so,
let's just do total like barbarism and my mix right,
and you know, conquest here and there and everywhere else,

(30:07):
and more militarism and likely more aggressive like Cold war
posture towards China, et cetera. I don't think that that
is the correct direction to go. In number one and
number two, you can't ignore the fact, like we take
for granted now that all of these European nations can
coexist peacefully, that has not been the historical track record.

Speaker 4 (30:29):
And in fact, the.

Speaker 2 (30:30):
Architecture that was set up after World War Two, which
by the way, was set up to serve our interests primarily,
but also was quite effective at making sure that there
were not repeated constant wars on the European continent. In fact,
the Russian invasion of Ukraine is the largest land war
in Europe since World War Two. So it's you know,

(30:55):
it's not like it didn't accomplish anything. It actually was
quite successful in that way. And could it have been better?
Could we have like certainly the Cold War era use
of all of these smaller countries in proxy wars against
the Soviet Union and the you know, obsessive like have
to get rid of any communist regime whatsoever like that

(31:16):
was the wrong way to approach multipolarity. And frankly, I
think that's exactly the direction that we are headed back
in with the Trump administration.

Speaker 1 (31:24):
I fire that we will see.

Speaker 3 (31:25):
But the point, you know, the reason why that that
mattered in the past, these European states warring were they
were the bedrock of the global system and of the
global economy.

Speaker 1 (31:33):
They're irrelevant today there well, okay, still.

Speaker 4 (31:35):
Matters if they go to war with each other, the
war with each other.

Speaker 1 (31:38):
That's their problem.

Speaker 3 (31:39):
The only reason why did the United States get involved
in World War One? Right, It's like, let's all be
really honest about it. It was about the attacking of
the Lusitania and about the well that was a pretext,
and then US getting involved was to basically bigfoot the
European powers and say no, we're the ones actually who
are going to be in charge. Why, because we want
the spoils of the international system After World War two,

(32:00):
what we become the come pre eminent guaranteur of the
West and of the rule space international or the Soviets
get their side of it, which again is about a
complete division of the world for market based purposes. Europe
will no longer even be fifty percent of global GDP
by twenty thirty. Its irrelevance to the global affairs is
dramatic compared to how it was in one hundred years

(32:22):
ago or even seventy five years ago.

Speaker 1 (32:24):
So if there's a.

Speaker 3 (32:25):
War between Latvia and Estonia, it doesn't matter at all.

Speaker 2 (32:30):
But Tiger, you're missing one point a little bit, which
isn't that you know, Europe is the most important region
on the planet right now or whatever. My point is
that you dismissed that international architecture that was set up
after World War Two as being fake and a waste
of time and not accomplishing anything.

Speaker 1 (32:45):
And that's just not true.

Speaker 4 (32:47):
That's just not true.

Speaker 2 (32:48):
That architecture actually did service for years, even though you know,
I think again, the way we approach multipolarity with the
Cold War was deeply destructive and led to that incredibly
hypocritical approach which ultimately leads to the downfall of all
of this.

Speaker 4 (33:04):
But that international architecture that was set up.

Speaker 2 (33:07):
It did its job in terms of preventing wars additional
wars in Europe. So you know, to say, none of
this is possible and we can't do any better than
just barbarism and conquest and taking over whatever countries we
feel like taking over. I don't think that that is
the case if you look at the historical record.

Speaker 3 (33:23):
But my point is is that that was an outdated
model for an outdated market which does not exist anymore.
The United States is an Asian power, and this one
where it's destiny for both on a consumer at a
technological level, will be accomplished there. No, there's not a
seeringle serious economist who would even dispute that even Obama
had the whole.

Speaker 1 (33:42):
Quote unquote pivot to Asia. This has been on paper
on it.

Speaker 3 (33:45):
If you just look at it as a balance sheet
and take out everybody's nice little vacations to Munich or
to Italy or whatever, it's obvious. And my point is
that over committing to this European security and fetishizing it
as some great, incredible thing, just because we did it
sixty years ago, we should continue to do it today,
which is mostly the argument. If you really look at

(34:05):
it on a merit level. For why we should be
so supportive of Ukraine is bad for the overall US.

Speaker 1 (34:12):
Interest now I know, the whole barbarism and all that.

Speaker 3 (34:15):
Again, like what you think, other countries don't operate that way,
Like in a certain sense, there's a Thucidides trap there
always will be with the way that great powers function
inside of the system. In a sense, you don't have
any choice. And beyond that, when we talk about how
the United States has conducted itself, it has always been
this way. It's just been rhetorically dressed up. It's not

(34:37):
just us, all these other countries. Like when China wants to,
you know, justify its expansion, it does so in the
same rhetoric, like in criticism of Western rules based international
or when Russia invades Ukraine, how do they do it?
They do it in a criticism again, as if they're
the ones who are being encroached upon. They don't just
outwardly say we want, you know, oil or whatever, or

(34:58):
it used to be ours and so thus we deserve it.

Speaker 1 (35:01):
That's basically their argument, which is stupid.

Speaker 3 (35:03):
But that's what it all comes down to, and so
honesty in the international system Let's say you were talking
there about Russia and China and the United States, this
idea of a meeting.

Speaker 1 (35:13):
It will not happen in the rhetoric that you're describing.

Speaker 3 (35:16):
The only way it would happen is to be like,
all right, let's all be honest here, who needs what?
How is it going to happen? And you know who
we borrow this from. This is the great irony. This
is what the European powers did before World War One.
They carved up the world because they were the guaranteurs
of security with the might and the ability to enforce
those borders, and there actually was a period of some

(35:38):
relative piece on them.

Speaker 4 (35:39):
Then there was World War One.

Speaker 3 (35:41):
Yeah, okay, I mean I didn't say every system is perfect,
but it always breaks down because things change.

Speaker 2 (35:46):
Here's what I would say, and then we can move on,
which is that when we have pursued what we perceived
to be in our just total naked self interest. For example,
when we went into a rock, those things have ended
up being a disaster.

Speaker 3 (36:03):
Well, I would flip it. I don't scar that was
for our self interest and that was part of the problem.

Speaker 6 (36:07):
Of course.

Speaker 2 (36:07):
I mean that I think we clearly went into cure
natural resources, just as we're now talking about being in
Ukraine forever to secure natural resource, just like we're talking
about being greenland in Panama, in Gaza to secure our
own naked self interest. And so what I would say
is that I don't think that that is number one
beneficial to America in the long term whatsoever. And number two,

(36:32):
I certainly don't think it's good for you know, the
people of those countries who are getting blown up and
having their societies destroyed.

Speaker 4 (36:40):
And the amount of blowback.

Speaker 2 (36:41):
That we've seen from that hypocritical adventurism where we were
really nakedly pursuing our self interest, no matter what language
we know wrapped it around democracy or markets or whatever,
where we really were just nakedly pursuing our self interest.
The amount of blowback from that has been utterly catastrophic
for US. So'suing it more nakedly without an even ear

(37:02):
of democracy. It doesn't improve the fact that this has
led us. That is a big part of the decline
of this country. Is that adventurism, and is that naked
pursuit of our own self interest which has led to
massive blowbacks for our own country and created more horror
more barbarism, more terror, more danger.

Speaker 4 (37:22):
All of that.

Speaker 3 (37:23):
My last word would be I would dispute that the
Second Iraq War was a war of national interests, and
that's exactly why it was such a terrible idea. It
was born of an ideological obsession with nation building, and yes,
securing the oil was also a great uh.

Speaker 1 (37:39):
It didn't even work out.

Speaker 3 (37:40):
Ironically, the Chinese currently control the oil market out of Iraq.
But if we look in the past at both Vietnam
and the Second Iraq War, those were ideological projects, not
born of national interests. They've basically fused ideology with well,
it's in the US interest to make sure South Vietnam
is demanded.

Speaker 2 (37:57):
It sounds so a domino effects later they thought of
it iry.

Speaker 3 (38:02):
My point is that if you actually had a true
balance sheet analysis of that, which many realists at the
time of both Iraq and Vietnam said, you would never
do it, and actually they would be better off and
so would we. And so if we pursue things that
are openly from a position of national interests and don't
let ourselves get sucked down the trap of democracy or

(38:25):
human rights or stopping communism, or we have to can't
let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud, then we
will be better off overall. This is kind of a
Kissingerian view of the world, which I agree with one
hundred percent, and it was one where if we had
pursued that we'd be richer, we'd be more prosperous.

Speaker 1 (38:45):
Those people will be better off and we would be
better off.

Speaker 3 (38:47):
So you can read it two different ways, but I
would read them much more of mistakes of ideology rather
than of mistakes of natural interests. I would say, when
the United States works in its national untests, it actually
works out pretty damn well. And it's when we depart
from that, like our stupid experiments in Cuba and in
the Philippines, when we just want to like appear, you know,
like one of the great powers, or whenever we pursue,

(39:09):
you know, this land war in Asia against Vietnam, or
invade Iraq for no purpose literally whatsoever, that's when we
lose our treasure. That's exactly how the Roman Empire, like
frustrat as.

Speaker 2 (39:19):
Well, for example, wanting to take over Gaza. I mean,
that's the problem, that's I know you do.

Speaker 1 (39:23):
We're doing that on behalf of these rayless.

Speaker 2 (39:25):
The problem That's the problem is that the way you
might calculate that balance sheet as you described it is
not there's no like universal way to calculate that.

Speaker 1 (39:34):
Yeah, that's and so you know Trump.

Speaker 2 (39:36):
Is looking at it and his calculation is, Oh, we
should have fifty percent of Ukraine, which again obligates us
to Ukraine forever. Oh we should take over Greenland. Oh
we should take over Panama. Oh we should take over Canada.
Oh we should bomb Mexico. Oh we should do total
ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza and take that over,
because that'll be good for our interests. That's That's what
I'm saying, is that when you are unconstrained by anything

(39:59):
and it's just purely might makes right, what you're going
to end up with is a lot of disastrous foreign
adventurism that both is bad for our country, but also, yes,
I do care about the fact that you know it
leads to mass slaughter and devastation and horror for people
in other countries around the world too, like the Palestinians,

(40:19):
for example.

Speaker 1 (40:20):
I think that's fair. I understand how you got there.

Speaker 3 (40:24):
I again, I just think and look, you're right in
terms of the balance sheet many people disagree with me.
All the Libs in my neighborhood, they will tell you
Ukraine as a vital national interest and they can express
their wish at the ballot box, you know, if they will.
This is just an argument that I made. This view
is not popular in Washington. It's really not actually all
that popular in America. Most Americans like to trust up

(40:44):
you know, you know, their their foreign policy and some
sort of doing good in the world. It's how we
basically serve.

Speaker 2 (40:50):
Because humans want to believe that they can make the
world like that we don't have to accept naked barbarism, colonialism, imperialism,
that things can be improved. They yes, they have a
basic belief in the power of human beings to improve civilization.
And instead what we're seeing is just a return to well,
actually we're just going to go back to pure resource grabs.

(41:14):
You know that we feel like doing an adventurism around
the world wherever we feel like.

Speaker 3 (41:19):
I think the nightmare scenarios if that doing that would
actually lead to a more stable scenario. Now, of course,
as I said, the big risk of that is gaza,
because that is the definition of doing something outside your
own national interest, and for literally another nation's interest, which
we will get to later on in the show. So
why don't we send it there? All right, it's been
a good discussion.

Speaker 2 (41:37):
Yes, all right, let's move on to the latest of
whatever the hell is going on with this doje Elon
email that he sent out and asking for everybody to
send in their five bullet points, et cetera. So Trump
yesterday when he was with Emmanuel Macron, got asked about
the Elon email and whether or not people should respond

(41:58):
and how he felt about it. He seems in this conversation,
or really go to bat for Elon and back him up.

Speaker 4 (42:03):
Let's take a listen to what he had to say.

Speaker 1 (42:05):
People to ignore it.

Speaker 5 (42:06):
But you're learning about the last email that was sent
where he wanted to know what you did this week?
You know why he wanted that. By the way, I
thought it was great because we have people that don't
show up to work and nobody even knows if they
work for the government. So by asking the question tell
us what you did this week, what he's doing is
saying are you actually working? And then if you don't answer,

(42:28):
like you're sort of semi fired or you're fired because
a lot of people are not answering because they don't
even exist. They're trying to find that's how badly various
parts of our government were run by it, especially by
this last group. So what they're doing is they're trying
to find out who's working for the government. Are we
paying other people that aren't working?

Speaker 1 (42:49):
And you know, where is all this?

Speaker 5 (42:51):
Where's the money? Gud We have found hundreds of billions
of dollars of fraud so far, and we've just started.
Some of the agency heads instructed their employees not to
respond because they were waiting on further guidance.

Speaker 3 (43:04):
But Elon Musk's tweet said a failure to respond would
be taken as a resignation.

Speaker 5 (43:07):
So there's been a disconnect in communications.

Speaker 4 (43:10):
Are you concerned all about that?

Speaker 1 (43:11):
No?

Speaker 5 (43:12):
No, no, that was done in a friendly manner. Only
things such as perhaps Marco at State Department where they
have very confidential things, or the FBI where they're working
on confidential things. And they don't mean that in any
way combatively with Elon did just say there are some
people that you don't want to really have them tell
you what they're working on last week.

Speaker 2 (43:32):
They don't mean that in any way combative. So he's yeah,
I mean, so number one, he's backing at Elon. Number
two is trying to downplay what we covered yesterday, which
is that a bunch of these agency heads really started
actually by cash Metal, but then the Apartment of Defense
jumps in Secretary of State Marco Rubiozi reference RFK Junior
went one way and then went.

Speaker 1 (43:51):
The other way.

Speaker 4 (43:51):
Telsey Gabbert like basically.

Speaker 2 (43:53):
All the agency heads ultimately were like, no to their
own people, you don't have to reply to this email.
So Trump's trying to downplay that, but he seems to
back up Elon there. Then let's put this next piece
up on the screen. This is great reporting from our
friend Jeff Stein and co. By the way, Jeff Stein
got a promotion over the Washington Post. Congratulations to him.
He's going to be their chief economic correspondent. In any case,

(44:16):
Trump administration tells agencies they can ignore Musk's order on
this email reply. The awsome personnel management told HR officials
that employees would not be let go for not replying
to an email asking what they did last week. So
seems to contradict Trump. But this is the you know,
direction coming from effectively like the HR Department of the

(44:37):
whole federal government. This is the o PM email that
came out later in the day that seems to now
indicate people are supposed to respond to this email. They say,
to further clarify response to the email sent on Saturday's
voluntary was strongly encourage once again, you should not transmit
any confidential or sensitive privilege or investigative information.

Speaker 4 (44:59):
Please send your bullets to this email going forward.

Speaker 2 (45:02):
I've asked the office to operationalize this exercise, so please
stay tuned for instructions.

Speaker 4 (45:06):
In the future.

Speaker 2 (45:07):
OPM may consider incorporating expectation that employees submit weekly accomplishment
bullets into its regular weekly reporting structure, because you know,
having to send in five bullshit bullets every week is
certainly going to improve government efficiency. Again, thank you for
your dedication to our agency's mission. So they're saying here
they're going to operationalize this exercise moving forward. And then

(45:29):
we've got one other piece here from Elon. He says,
subject to the discretion of the President, they will be
given another chance for referring two employees who did not respond.
Failure to respond a second time will result in termination.

Speaker 4 (45:41):
So anyway kind of indications all over the place.

Speaker 2 (45:44):
Trump backs up Elon, Then the Office Personnel Management says, no,
you don't have to respond. Elon says you're going to
have to. You get one more chance. Then OPM comes
in and says, well, it's not mandatory right now, but
we're going to operationalize this.

Speaker 4 (45:57):
So that's basically where things are.

Speaker 3 (45:59):
Yeah, I have a read now of elon blowback, which
I was trying to tease out to you yesterday. Is
boss theory is that the more Elon is seen as
a dickhead boss as opposed to a visionary entrepreneur, the
more Americans will turn against him. So the vast majority
of Americans are not like us. They're not self employed,

(46:20):
you know, they don't own their own business.

Speaker 1 (46:21):
And that's fine.

Speaker 3 (46:22):
It's a pain in the ass over all for the
people who want to know what it's like out there.
They work for W two, or they have a boss
right or they and or are the boss, having been
subject to somebody's authority previously. You and I previously have
worked office job, so you know intimately what it's like
to have a literal moron trying to performance review you
or tell you what you can and can't do. Differently

(46:43):
in some sort of like hr software that rates you
one out of four. It's both dehumanizing and also incredibly
stupid at the same time. But the stakes are so
high because your salary is on the line. And so
I believe that the more Elon has seen as a
capricious and an annoying boss over the vast majority of

(47:05):
over the largest employee in the employer in the United States,
and the more that people have a connection to that employer,
there will be more pushback against that. And now part
of the reason why most Americans had not really cared
about it previously is you know, at the end of
the day, the private institutions like Tesla or SpaceX, you
have a choice of whether you want to work there
or not. You're also incredibly well compensated, and it's not

(47:25):
like worldly important that you work in your job, which
at least some government jobs are. But I think that
the more publicity that there's a spotlight on this type
of behavior, that Americans really don't like to be screwed
with by their boss. I remember reading a statistic it's
like seventy percent of people like hate their boss, or
they were just like twenty some percent of people would

(47:46):
literally like kill their boss if they had, or say
they would they could.

Speaker 1 (47:50):
People really hate their boss.

Speaker 3 (47:51):
I get it, you know, it's one of those where
I've been in that position before, where they're so annoying,
and so I think that the more that this permeates
to people, it will really start to piss people off,
because if you think about it, white collar, service based,
everybody knows what it's like to have an annoying supervisor,
or to be scheduled, or.

Speaker 1 (48:10):
To be told one thing and then told the opposite.

Speaker 3 (48:12):
I mean, how often does that happen when you work
in a workplace.

Speaker 1 (48:15):
It's maddening.

Speaker 2 (48:16):
And white collar employees get treated way more humanly and
I mean like literally like human beings than blue collar workers,
who you know, are completely dehumanized, often like searched, subject
to these ridiculous security procedures and surveiled even while they're
in the breakroom eating their lunch and all that sort
of crap. And so, yeah, everybody hates bosses.

Speaker 4 (48:39):
Everybody hates bosses.

Speaker 2 (48:40):
Really, So I think you're right about that, and I
think Elon is leaning hard into the asshole boss persona.

Speaker 4 (48:48):
So when you couple.

Speaker 2 (48:49):
That with the fact that you know these federal garment jobs.
I was telling Soccer before the show, one of the
states that has the highest proportion of federal government workers
is actually Alaska. Pople think of federal government workers being
here in d C. They buy and large are not.
I mean, there are many here in DC, this is
obviously the greatest concentration of them, but they're spread down

(49:09):
across the country and their impact is felt across the country.
And then you think about like the ancillary workers and
just the You know, anytime you have this level of
like glee and delight and firing people and destroying their
lives in their livelihood, it's gonna rub people the wrong way.
So I think we are starting to see that pushback.
You know, what's going to happen with this frickin' Elon

(49:31):
bullet point sich you I don't really know, and it
is an interesting subplot to see. And one thing I
didn't anticipate is the possibility that the agency heads themselves
could be somewhat of a check on Elon. Because they
got the their Senate confirmations, they went through the thing.
They thought they were getting this level of power and

(49:52):
agency within these departments, and then they're watching Elon just
completely bigfoot them, even to the point of like, well,
I get to say who works for you and who
does what and how this whole thing is run, and
I'm going to get access to all your data and
my little like goofy twenty year olds are going to
come in and run wild through your agency whenever the
hell they feel like it, whether you want them there

(50:12):
or not. And so while the congressional Republicans, because of
the politics around it, will just bend the need of
Trump and Elon, and Elon has threatened them with primary challenges,
and that's an important enforcement mechanism, et cetera. It's a
little bit different dynamic with these agency heads. So it
is a particular dynamic that I want to watch and
I think is a little bit unsettled as of now

(50:33):
in terms of how all of that is going to
play out. There was yesterday an interesting protest, I guess
you would say, at the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
we can put this up on the screen. Somebody hacked
into the screen the building and played this AI generated
video of Elon Elon having is like feet kissed.

Speaker 4 (50:56):
But yeah, it's it's kind.

Speaker 1 (50:58):
Of disturbing to see she put a trigger one to
be honest with.

Speaker 2 (51:00):
You, and then across the screen it reads, long live
the real King courts, a reference to the position of
power Elon has taken. And also Trump's previous reference last
week to long live the King in the context of
the New York congestion pricing situation. So that is something
that happened, that was confirmed by multiple reporters, including Justine

(51:22):
as I said, there's also a few developments in terms
of the legal battles against Doge. We can put this
next one up on the screen. So the Federal ethics
watchdog that Trump has been blocked from firing by a
federal court has ruled that some of the terminations of
probationary employees appear to be illegal. So Trump tried to

(51:45):
fire this dude, a court said you can't do that,
or at least there's a temporary injunction put in on that.
And so he has said that according to and this
is not a court ruling, to be clear from Hampton Dellinger,
this is just he's the Federal ethics watchdog. He's advising
that some of these probationary employee firings may be illegal.
You also had we don't have an element for this.

(52:07):
But yesterday you had a judge that really harshly questioned
the constitutional constitutionality of the entire setup of DOGE. And
part of this soccer comes down to you, guys. Remember
the Trump administration put in this court filing like Elon
he has nothing to do with DOGE, Like he's not

(52:27):
in charge of DOGE, He's just an advisor to the president.
But then when this judge was questioning them, okay, well
then who is in charge of DOGE, they had they
couldn't answer, They had no idea. And the reason that
this is important in terms of its potential constitutionality is
there something called the appointments Clause, which means if you
have a significant position, it has to be confirmed by

(52:48):
the Senate. That's why the government was trying to say, like, oh,
Elon doesn't have anything to do with that, because obviously
he's not confirmed by the Senate. And so the fact
that they're this far in the administration and they're pretending
Elon not in charge when like clearly he is number
one and number two, they can't say who the acting
director of DOGE is when it obviously has been given

(53:10):
these incredible hole of government powers. That's why this judge
was questioning whether or not this whole situation was constitutional
at all.

Speaker 3 (53:17):
Yeah, it's a very interesting in terms of how this
will continue in the core process. But for me, I
am just still mystified of this whole oer PM situation
because it does really get to a crux of It
gets to the crux of who not only who's in charge,
but to what extent they will have authority going forward

(53:38):
under their own department and if Elon can just parachute
in and outside of some programs, like is he going
to be able to run the so called day to
day I mean, I guess the thing is with Trump,
And again I think this is the thing about Trump
as well.

Speaker 1 (53:49):
Trump is also a boss, right. Trump is also somebody who.

Speaker 3 (53:53):
Probably empathizes with this idea like, oh, my employees are
stealing from me or you know, they're taking advantage of me.
And so now that he runs the government, he probably
empathizes with that sending such an email. But this, like
I said, I think it's starting to flirt with people
who are feeling jerked around, because that's where I think
most people can again empathize with the chaotic nature of

(54:17):
all of this, and if there was a plan and
there were going to be cuts, I think a lot
of people would be fine with it, you know, but
or or at least Trump maga folks would be not
necessarily liberal ones. But the idea that your job boys
in jeopardy or not, and all of these legal theories
and you have to send us email or not. It
detracts from the idea that there's like a steady hand
and competence on the wheel, which, if you think about it,

(54:38):
that was the pitch that Donald Trump made whenever he
came back to office, is I'm going to make everything
normal and restore it to twenty nineteen. Again, there are
very different interpretations of that, and that's why it's important.

Speaker 1 (54:49):
But that's why I think it matters.

Speaker 2 (54:51):
Yeah, absolutely, And then just to go through some of
some of the impacts here and some of the things
that really cut negatively against them. Let's put this next
piece up on the screen. It's impossible to keep up
with like all the things that are impacted and all
the things that are going on. So this is a
bit of a sampling. But the CNN article I actually
actually was really was really good and pointed out something
that I hadn't thought about before. They say military families

(55:13):
rocked by Trump's federal government cuts. We've talked here before
about how much of the federal government is employees are
retired military, and you know, so that's very significant. But
this article looks specifically at there have been all kinds
of federal government programs, including one that was championed by
Trump in his first term, to higher military spouses and

(55:35):
give them work and flexible work and often telework within
the federal government. And you know, the reason is pretty
obvious here. You've got this, you know, this group of
military spouses who are oftentimes having to be moved around
the country based on where their significant other is stationed
at the time and what deployments they're dealing with. Also,
if you know, if your significant other is deployed overseas,

(55:58):
that's going to create childcare issues, et cetera, if you're
having to commute a long way to your job. And
so when the order came down of okay, everybody back
to the office, initially military spouses were not excluded, so,
you know, people for whom they'd been given an ability
to be able to work these jobs and have that
kind of flexibility, of being able to work from home
and you know, be able to work long distances even

(56:20):
when they get moved around, et cetera. They were not excluded.
And then there were some memo that went out that
it's like maybe you are excluded, and it's just been
total chaos and really unclear. And the other piece with
this is, you know, in terms of firing all of
the employees that are on this probationary period, it's important
to understand that that doesn't just apply to people who've

(56:41):
been newly.

Speaker 4 (56:42):
Hired by the federal government.

Speaker 2 (56:44):
If you move positions in you know, between agencies, or
even sometimes if you get a certain promotion, but certainly
if you're you know, moving from Okay, he was stationed
here and now he's stationed somewhere else, and I'm totally switching,
you know, to work at a different agency that's close
to where he lives now to where we live now,
those people would be on probation. So that means that

(57:05):
you would have a disproportionate impact on these military spouses
that I think everybody finds pretty like, oh, it's a
good thing for the federal government to These are people
who are capable to have skills that are useful to
the government. It's not like it's you know, they're not
deserving of the positions, but they require some flexibility and
they're more likely to be in this probationary period. So
it's hit them in particular, really really hard. In addition,

(57:28):
something we could put the next one up on the
screen that Soccer and I were mentioning yesterday is you're
already having big impacts at the national parks. So National
Park Service was already pretty bare bones in terms of
you know, they'd faced staffing cuts and also staffing freezes.
So the workforce has declined by fifteen percent since twenty ten,

(57:49):
but park visitation is way up. It's increased by sixteen percent.
If any of you guys have been to these national
parks in recent years, you've seen like they are quite busy.
People really love and enjoy It's like an afford vacation.
They're incredible, they're beautiful, it's a wonderful experience. And my greatest,
you know, favorite memories are at some of the places
in the National park system. And so you're having already

(58:12):
massive lines. You've had reservations at Gettysburg National Military Park
that were just blanket canceled because they weren't able to
manage the reservation system. You had weights in order to
get into the Grand Canyon National Park were like multiple
hours long because some of the people who just you know,

(58:33):
let people in and give them the map and take
the money and whatever had been let go. So you're
having significant impacts there already. And then the other piece
is you've had a fair amount of what appears to
be self dealing, although you could never say for sure,
but certain certainly the appearance of self dealing coming from
Elon as well put.

Speaker 4 (58:53):
Me five up on the screen.

Speaker 2 (58:55):
So they laid off a bunch of workers at the
auto safety agency that oversees Tesla. They've you know, this
agency had come like Elon had expressed his disgust at
this agency previously prior to being the head or not
the head of DOGE, according to who you believe he's
They've mandated that Tesla and other automakers report crash data

(59:20):
on vehicles, specifically like self driving technology equipped vehicles have
to report this crash data. He didn't like that they've
launched investigations into deadly crashes involving his company's cars. He
didn't like that either you know, so again, can you
say durre Okay, they got fired because elon wan of
them fired and you can't say that, but it certainly
has the appearance of self dealing and very similar with

(59:42):
this next piece as well. It can put this up
on the screen. So employees that had been reviewing Neuralink
also were fired over the weekend as part of a
broader purge, So twenty people in the FDA's Office of
Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices, several of whom specifically worked
on Link. According to two sources, they were all let go.

(01:00:04):
Now after the fact, Shagger, some of these people they're
like scrambling to bring back because they realized that we
really need some of these people, so they're scrambling to
bring them back.

Speaker 4 (01:00:12):
But to your point, I think.

Speaker 2 (01:00:14):
It's I think you're absolutely right about the more that
he appears like the you know, evil, dreaded boss, I think.

Speaker 4 (01:00:19):
That's really bad.

Speaker 2 (01:00:21):
The more people see him less as the visionary and
more as.

Speaker 4 (01:00:24):
The self interested, self.

Speaker 2 (01:00:26):
Dealing billionaire, the worse. And then the more that it
impacts groups that are sympathetic and services that people actually value, the.

Speaker 4 (01:00:34):
More of a political problem. This is.

Speaker 3 (01:00:35):
That was my prediction is if you start to actually
come after stuff that people use and or a beloved
for example, national parks literally most beloved national programs in
the country, and we.

Speaker 4 (01:00:45):
Should expand the national parks system.

Speaker 2 (01:00:48):
In sure, Yeah, because they are sort of overcrowded at
those point because they're so popular.

Speaker 1 (01:00:52):
I know. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:00:52):
Actually, like I said, I went to Zion and during
COVID and it was, oh my god. The reservation system
was a disaster. So if anything, you should make it better. Yeah,
it easier. One of the reasons that I love and
I support them is that it's literally free, or as
close to free as you can get. A lot of
the accommodations around the area are actually very cheap. It's
very easy to take a very cheap vacation there, especially
if you're nearby. You see it all the time. If
you're into camping or it's you know, you can use

(01:01:14):
the reservation. The park people will help you. They have
it all set up.

Speaker 1 (01:01:18):
They really do. It's awesome in terms of the government
support for it.

Speaker 3 (01:01:21):
That is an example again of people who are like, hey,
hold on a second here. I also think that where
it comes down to not only with the military strategy,
but the slap shot nature of it, the more again,
people are fine with the plan. I really believe that,
especially Republicans. Most Republicans hate the government. They hate they
want to see it, gut it and all that, but

(01:01:42):
they want to see it done in such a way.
Not necessarily it doesn't impact them, but it's for a goal.
So if it's just about DEI, it's like, that's actually
not that difficult. You can pretty much even with the
widest DEI definition, you could identify and publish all of
the programs that have that, and you could ask.

Speaker 1 (01:01:59):
Them and or you could fire the employees involved.

Speaker 3 (01:02:01):
The problem with the ten percent layoff or with any
of that and then bringing people back is it just
feels as if it's doing it for the sake of it,
which is fine if you're at Twitter, and honestly, it
may be fine in the long run, right That's it
really could be. It could be one where they all
leave and we don't even notice, which is Elon's kind
of theory of the case. I don't really think that's

(01:02:22):
true in democratic institutions, but I could be completely wrong.
And that's where I currently see, especially the pushback for
families because I keep thinking about the statistic. If four
million people work for the government, that means that there
are eight to ten million people out there who know
somebody or are related to somebody, who are directly related
and are married to that person, not to mention their

(01:02:43):
kids if they're older, or their cousin. I mean, we
could do the tree out and everybody's a couple of
degrees removed from somebody who directly works with us. Here
in Washington, I know dozens of people who are affected.

Speaker 1 (01:02:55):
Also, my commute's gotten worse. Thank you Elon for calling
off back end. It's a painting.

Speaker 3 (01:03:01):
And that's another one where you are we really like,
what is the metric? Are we asking people to come
into work? I think that's fine, But to what end
is it just to clock in and to clock out?
Like what is the theory of what is all happening here?
And you know, the government's not a startup. I've always
said that, And this is the problem with treating it
as such. It's a literal democratic institution. Sometimes things are

(01:03:21):
done stupidly and inefficiently, but in a sense that's only
because people like it that way, or because congressmen or
senators like it that way, and many constituents do as well,
So it's a very complicated dance that I don't think
that currently they are winning, and Trump seems enthralled by
the whole thing. I think Trump and this is where

(01:03:41):
I need to check my own bias, and I always
say this, I think it would be a little too
cute by half to have some great liberal backlash against
Elon Endoge. It seems just a little too on the
nose for what the media wants and what the liberals want,
which by and large their political theories have been wrong
over the last four years outside of abortion. So I
just don't know. Maybe he's correct. I mean, he's a

(01:04:01):
very smart person. For him, the media and the liberals
are against it, so he continues to fight. He could
still have millions of people who rally not to him
per se, but to the Republicans who defend it.

Speaker 4 (01:04:11):
I mean, I could.

Speaker 2 (01:04:12):
There definitely is a massive liberal backlash, that much I
can tell. I mean, I think that it's showing up
at town halls in every state that everywhere they're having
town halls, whether it's a Democrat or Republican who's having them,
people are showing up en mass and so there's no
doubt about that. And certainly in a midterm election when
that enthusiasm is what counts, I think that's going to
be really really determinative and important. So you know, I

(01:04:36):
do think that there will be a massive electoral backlash
to all of this, But you know, we'll see how Lauren,
there's a long time between now and then, etc. But yeah,
you've got the evil boss piece, You've got the incompetent piece.
You know, it's very hard to argue that any of
this is being done based on like merit when it's
just these very blanket across the board not thought having

(01:05:00):
to scramble like, oh shit, we fired the dude who
like keeps our nuclear energy stay, like, we better get
that guy back, And oh no, we fired some people
at the FDA that were like keep a track of
bird flu. That seems kind of important. We better get
those people back as well. And that's where your point
about the government not being a business is a really
really important one for people to understand, because government is

(01:05:23):
not supposed to be, like, its main goal isn't actually
to be quote unquote efficient. And I'll give you a
perfect example. Air traffic controllers, right businesses take all kinds
of risks, especially businesses run by Elon Musk, take all
kinds of risks, including safety risks, betting that the fine
or the consequences will be less than the fallout from

(01:05:44):
cutting those corners and taking those risks. But as a society,
we want to make sure that the planes don't run
into each other. So you don't want to just slapshot
fire a bunch of air traffic controllers and make the
thing more dangerous, even if that did mean it was
quote unquote more efficient. I also got news for you,
Like the federal the amount that we pay to employ

(01:06:06):
the federal garment workforce is also not that large a
part of the budget either. So even if you slashed
like a preposterous amount of this workforce, you're doing very
little in terms of actual cost cutting. And then's the
other piece is like when you zoom out even from
just this, okay, what DOGE is up to and they're
like bullshit, pretending like they found this or that fraudulent program,

(01:06:27):
which they have not actually identified any fraunt thus far whatsoever.
And you consider the broader agenda, which is like, okay, well,
we're trying to cut spending so we can do what
give a giant tax cut to people like Elon Musk
who already pay very little in taxes. Then the agenda
just completely departs from what most Americans want. And Sober's

(01:06:48):
are absolutely right that most people if you ask them like, oh,
should the government be cut?

Speaker 4 (01:06:51):
Should it be made more efficient? Some of the fat
be cut?

Speaker 2 (01:06:54):
And they'd be like, yes, absolutely, But the way you
do that matters, and the impact on people's lives matter.
And and I don't think that this is landing well
with people based on what we're seeing.

Speaker 3 (01:07:04):
It's a good politically, it is a good test for
trump theory of politics. Trump's theory of politics is if
that the media and the liberals are against it, then
he's going to fight against it.

Speaker 1 (01:07:14):
And that has proven very well for him.

Speaker 3 (01:07:16):
It has worked dramatically well actually politically for him specifically
not necessarily the Republican Party.

Speaker 1 (01:07:22):
So how will he continue to.

Speaker 3 (01:07:25):
Fare not only his grip on the party, his ability
to then perhaps transfer some of that in the midterms
or in the future election. Because right now, if you
were to believe a traditional media narrative, you're like, oh,
it's going to be a blowout. But I just have
a sneaking suspicion that the rules might have changed, only
in the sense that because the mainstream media no longer

(01:07:46):
has the same grip on the American culture for its
ability to set narratives, I genuinely question how much of
this is even penetrating, because even when the lib narratives
penetrated during the election didn't hit to the electorate in
the same way. Nice the electorate is huge, right, nobody
can really know. But a lot of the memes that

(01:08:08):
people tried to make that were supposed to be offensive,
turn people off or whatever in the traditional rules of politics,
they didn't work.

Speaker 2 (01:08:14):
That's only the case when Trump is on the ballot.
And Trump is not really supposed to be on the
ballot again.

Speaker 1 (01:08:20):
He has other ideas, want.

Speaker 2 (01:08:22):
He has other ideas, but you know, as of today,
based on the Constitution, he's not supposed to run again.
He's also getting you know, he is getting old too,
But you know, so he's never been able to translate
his particular political guests in this way. He's very much
like Obama, his particular political gifts to midterm elections, special elections,

(01:08:44):
or really anyone else. So yeah, when he's on the ballot,
The polls are understate his support. You know, people want
to give him a chance time and time again. He
comes extraordinarily close in twenty twenty, even with the disastrous
state of the country under his leadership. He obviously wins
in twenty twenty four and is able to secure a
popular vote victory, which is extraordinary. But the midterms before

(01:09:07):
that were a disaster for Republicans, and the twenty eighteen
midterms were disaster for Republicans as well. So you know,
I've never seen him able to translate his political gifts
and talents to anyone else, And you know, I don't
see why that would change when people are already kind
of over the honeymoon period, already turning certainly on Elon,

(01:09:29):
but also his numbers are going down, and people aren't
happy with the state of the economy either,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

The Breakfast Club

Dateline NBC

Decisions, Decisions

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}2/25/25: Trump Demands Ukraine Minerals, Trump Backs Elon Email Purge

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}The Breakfast Club

Dateline NBC

Decisions, Decisions

All Episodes

2/25/25: Trump Demands Ukraine Minerals, Trump Backs Elon Email Purge

The Breakfast Club