Trump "Considering Ground Troops" as Iran Bombs Key Qatar Gas Fields, Israel Hits Iran Energy Sites

Summary

---

The Morning Meeting – Podcast Summary

Date: March 19, 2026
Host: Mark Halperin (A), with guests Kevin Walling (C) and Tricia McLaughlin (B)

---

Overview

This episode of The Morning Meeting dives deep into the escalating conflict in the Middle East, focusing on the latest developments: President Trump’s consideration of deploying U.S. ground troops, Iran’s attacks on key Qatari gas fields, Israel striking Iranian energy infrastructure, and the broad regional and domestic ripple effects. Alongside the primary focus on the war, the panel also addresses the domestic political fallout, congressional maneuvers, global economic impacts, and ongoing D.C. intrigue, all in the familiar, candid tone of a cable news editorial meeting.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Major Escalations in the Iran War

• Three New Escalations ([01:14])
  • Energy Warfare: Israel and Iran both attacking each other's and regional allies’ energy infrastructure, with particularly notable Iranian strikes on Qatari fields and Saudi Arabia.
  • Pentagon Budget Increase: Washington Post reports the Pentagon seeks a $200B initial tranche for the conflict, sparking controversy among "America First" conservatives.
  • Possible U.S. Ground Troops: Reuters and WSJ report "serious consideration" in D.C. of deploying U.S. ground forces in a variety of missions (possibly to secure nuclear sites, free Carg Island, open the Strait).

"Those three escalations... are not positive... How do you escalate to de-escalate?" — Mark ([01:14])

2. Narrative Control & Strategic Concerns

• Political Narrative Tension ([06:55])
  • The administration fights the Iraq war comparison, with military officials stressing objectives and promising no long-term occupation.
  • Critics worry there's no clear endgame unless the Strait of Hormuz reopens.

"This is a big question of narrative control for the administration... not just operationally, but from a PR perspective." — Tricia ([06:55])

3. Allies, Congress, and Domestic Opinion

• Japanese PM Visit ([11:00])

  • Japan is in crisis due to energy shortages and is publicly opposed to military escalation.
  • U.S. allies divided in their willingness to participate.

• Congressional Outlook ([09:03])

  • Strong skepticism about approval for $200B in war spending.

  • "No votes for that. No Democrat will vote for it." — Mark ([09:03])

  • House and Senate hearings ongoing; some nomination votes and legislation in the balance.

• U.S. Public Opinion ([08:10])

  • 68% of Americans oppose ground troops; Republicans are split.
  • The MAGA base remains mostly loyal to Trump, but with cracks appearing among key figures (e.g., Tucker Carlson, Joe Kent).

4. The Escalation Ladder – What Now?

• “Good gets better, bad gets worse” Moment ([08:10])

  • Unclear solutions for de-escalation or strategic breakthrough, especially as the conflict broadens and public/political costs rise.
  • Ground troop deployments seen as a political “tripwire” that could end conservative support.

• Policy Dilemmas

  • If Iran attacks again in Qatar, does Trump have to destroy the field as promised?
  • Domestic imperatives (gas prices, upcoming midterms) may prevent Trump from following through, despite drawing a public red line ([19:33]).

"If Iran hits Qatar energy installations again, he will destroy the oil field... Does he have a choice or must he follow through?" — Mark ([18:35])

• Negotiation vs. Military Action ([15:48])
  • Oman attempts mediation.
  • U.S. frustration over lack of a real negotiating partner.
  • Targeting Iranian leadership and infrastructure continues, but may not deliver decisive change.

5. International Fallout & U.S. Credibility

• Energy Market Impacts ([20:00])

  • Gas/diesel prices rising sharply; airlines hike fares.
  • The U.S. lifts sanctions on Russian oil at sea as a short-term fix, indirectly aiding Putin ([24:44]).

• China & Russia ([23:57], [25:46])

  • China frustrated over canceled Trump-Xi summit; urgently wants the war over.
  • Russia profiting, supporting both Iran and Cuba; potential diplomatic fallout impacting Ukraine negotiations.

6. Domestic Politics & Infighting

• Congressional Nominations & Drama

  • Markwayne Mullin advances as Homeland Security nominee ([39:31]); questions about his temperament after a personal spat with Rand Paul ([42:43]).
  • Democrats threaten AG Pam Bondi with impeachment if she won’t testify under oath in the Epstein investigation ([34:56]).
  • Fed Chair Jerome Powell digs in, refusing to resign until DOJ investigation ends ([37:20]).

• California Governor’s Race ([44:13])

  • Polls show two Republicans in the lead, with Democrats in disarray and at risk of not advancing to the final two.
  • Candidates debated for their ability to consolidate support and campaign finances.

7. Listener Q&A – U.S. Stake in the Strait

• Santa Monica-based finance professional “Holly” asks:
  • Why is reopening the Strait of Hormuz considered a vital U.S. interest, given American energy independence?
  • Why not form a truly international coalition, or restrict oil exports for U.S. benefit instead?
• Panel Response:
  • U.S. must lead due to military capability and credibility.
  • Allies rely on U.S. energy security guarantees, and letting Iran dictate the strait means global instability ([54:52], [56:06]).
  • Economic ripple effects mean U.S. still faces higher prices despite energy independence.

"If we leave under those circumstances and we leave it that [Iran] can close the strait whenever they want... geopolitically, that's just not acceptable." — Mark ([56:06])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the stakes for troop deployments:
  "Getting people on the ground, on target ain't easy. Getting them there ain't easy. And then once they're there, making sure they're not attacked ain't easy." — Mark ([21:52])

• On “Madman Theory” and Trump’s unpredictability:
  "Mad Men theory when it comes to President Trump is you never know what he's going to do and that's been to his strategic advantage." — Tricia ([22:36])

• On oil prices and affordability narrative:
  "Higher gasoline and diesel prices are now costing the US Economy half a billion dollars more every day and rising..." ([20:00])

• On narrative fracture inside the Trump coalition:
  "MAGA's supportive, not of every aspect of it... yet Tucker's against it and Kent's against it and a few other voices." — Mark ([20:35])

• On the strategic challenge:
  "You highlight that piece from the Omanis... Ultimately the solution out of this is some level of negotiation. But the way to move forward on the strait... is to negotiate to some degree." — Kevin ([15:48])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 01:14 — Summary of three new escalations in the Iran war
• 06:55 — Debate over narrative control and strategic endgame
• 08:10 — Public opinion and the “bad gets worse” moment
• 09:03 — Rejection of $200B supplemental in Congress
• 13:27 — Next U.S. steps and administration strategy
• 15:48 — Pathways to negotiation and military strategy
• 20:00 — Economic impacts: gas prices and political fallout
• 23:35 — Market odds of U.S. ground forces entering Iran and end-of-war predictions
• 24:43 — Global implications: China, Russia, and Ukraine
• 29:34 — Tucker, Joe Kent, and narrative fractures within MAGA
• 39:31 — Markwayne Mullin nomination drama
• 44:13 — California’s high-stakes governor race
• 51:18 - 58:49 — In-depth listener Q&A, U.S. responsibility in reopening the Strait, global energy politics

---

Additional Topics

• Vice President’s Vulnerability

  • VP’s relationship with Tucker Carlson scrutinized; questions regarding leaks and division in MAGA leadership ([32:29]).

• Homeland Security Confirmation

  • Markwayne Mullin’s support and opposition in the Senate; personal dynamics influence the narrative ([39:50]).

• Domestic Political Dynamics

  • Threats of impeachment for AG Bondi, Powell’s standoff with the Trump administration over the Fed, and 2028 presidential maneuvering discussed.

---

Conclusion

This episode paints a sobering picture of a fast-escalating Middle East conflict, its uncertain U.S. strategy, high political and economic stakes, and unresolved domestic fractures. The hosts both provide granular details and big-picture context. For those following the intersection of foreign policy, energy markets, and election politics, it’s a must-listen for the day’s “forward-looking snapshot of the news cycle ahead.”

---

Transcript

[A]

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the morning meeting. We have lots to get to and we will in just a moment. Joining us today, Kevin Walling and retiree Tricia McLaughlin. How's retirement, Trisha?

[B]

So far, so good, Mark. Thanks for having me back.

[A]

Okay, thank you for being back on two way, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to run through the daybook and then have a conversation and get to your questions. So please, if you're here on the platform, raise your hand. I've been hit very frequently in the last 12 hours from people who are supporters of President Trump, who are supporters of ending the Iranian regime, who are supportive of the initial plan with Israel to go in, who are very concerned about the state of affairs. Being concerned about the state of affairs in the conflict does not mean that you're against the president necessarily. Doesn't mean you're against the war. Doesn't mean you're against it.

[C]

Did we lose audio for Mark? Trisha, you can't hear him either, right?

[A]

Can you guys. You guys hear me?

[C]

Y. Mark, you're back.

[A]

Okay, one is the battle over, over energy. Israel and, and Iran both hitting energy targets in the region. Huge, huge escalation. Number two, according to the Washington Post, the Pentagon wants to add $2,200,000,000,000 as an initial tranche for this conflict. That's a big escalation. If you're America first and you're thinking about that, you don't want that. And then the third escalation is Reuters and the Wall Street Journal both reporting serious consideration being given to putting boots on the ground in a variety of possible missions. Those three escalations, ladies and gentlemen, are not positive. And, and now there's a lot of concern among supporters of the president, supporters of the war. How do you d. How do you escalate to de. Escalate? Okay, that's we're going to be talking about right now. I'm going to run through the daybook and then our, our two folks will be here to talk about it. And thank you for being here again. Raise your hand if you want in. The president today, right now. Executive time in the Oval Office. Once Again, good morning. Mr. President greets the Japanese Prime Minister at 11. That's closed press. Then the press pool is let in at 11:15 for a bilateral meeting. That'll be a big moment because the president will almost, almost certainly take questions, assuming it stays open. The Japanese prime minister and the president have a good relationship with Japan. Public opinion is very much against the war. The Japanese economy is dealing with a big crisis because of the lack of energy coming in. And the Japanese are amongst the American allies who say no, they don't want to participate in a military operation to reopen the strait. Three o' clock the president participates in a policy meeting. Closed press then 7 o' clock has the prime minister for dinner this evening open to the press pool. I'm not sure how much of the dinner the press pool will get to stay at, but we'll see the president on camera up the schedule holds twice today, at least once at 11:15 answering questions. Don't know what the vice president's doing, but I suspect he'll be participating in those conversations as well with the Japanese. Pentagon briefing occurred a little over an hour ago. No real news in there except that they evaded every question about the operation of significance and it was a lot of happy talk about how well things are going. Even though the military operation tactically is, as best we can tell, going well, they did not address some of the strategic concerns that supporters and critics have. At this hour the intelligence team is back on the Hill. Tulsi Gabbard, Cash Patel, John Radcliffe and others testifying for a second day on the Hill, this time in front of House intelligence committee Homeland Security930 will debate the nomination of Mark Wayne Mullen who will will presumably pass out of committee with the opposition of the chairman but with the support of John Fetterman. Hakeem Jeffries news conference at 10:45. The Senate at noon continues its consideration of the apparently doomed Save America Act. European Council begins a two day meeting in Brussels today. They'll be talking a lot about Iran. Supreme Court is honoring Sandra Day o' Connor today. All right, let's do a quick sponsor and then, and then we'll get to get to start talking through our topics again. If you're here on the platform and want to be in on the conversation, please raise your hand and I will do my best not to mute my own mic at any point remaining in the program. Cozy earth right now. Once again, if you own a pet and you haven't bought a bubble cuddle blanket for your dog or other pet, maybe not a fish, but any other pet, you're probably in violation of local ordinances. Here's our latest pictures. If you're listening to the podcast, Kevin, can you just describe what we're seeing on the screen here?

[C]

I mean where does this dog start and the blanket end? I mean this is the most cuddly image I've seen all morning.

[A]

Almost regardless of what color your dog is, there's a bubble cuddle blanket to match every taste and everything.

[C]

It will match the tone, shape and size.

[A]

Yeah, they won't customize it, but right off the shelf anyway. Go to cozyearth.com promo code morning for 20% off the bubble cuddle blanket. Everything else on the site, towels. There's more pictures. They've got the sheets too. There you can get towel sheets, blankets, pants, all with the remarkable consistency of all the products that come from Cozy Earth. Soft, comfortable. Every detail is intentional so your everyday feels quietly elevated for you and for your dogs. Go to cozyearth.com promo code morning for 20% off everything on the site.

[B]

This is it.

[A]

The world as you know it is over.

[B]

Completely done. It's not about to be over.

[A]

It's over. Some of the scientists who helped build AI are now sounding the alarm. I was selling AI as a great thing for decades and I was wrong.

[B]

I was wrong. There's a longer term existential threat that will arise when we create digital beings that that are more intelligent than ourselves. We have no idea whether we can stay in control.

[A]

While others say that AI will usher in unfathomable abundance, I've always believed that

[B]

it's going to be the most important invention that humanity will ever make.

[C]

This really will be a world of abundance.

[A]

And among these fears and these fantasies, we seek the story of our future. Listen to the last invention on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts. Foreign. Let's just level set here, Tricia. As I said, I've been surprised and taken aback by how much I'm hearing from supporters of the present in the war. Do you agree that right now there's a big strategic question of how he deals with the straight, how he deals with the nuclear material, that right now there's not a clear end for this. Do you agree with that basic concern that some have or not?

[B]

Yeah, I do. And I also think that this is a big question of narrative control for the administration as far as this is this another Iraq war, which is what a lot of the critics are claiming. And so you saw Pete Hegseth up there again today, really reiterating what those objectives are showing that this isn't going to be a protracted war. That's what they're really trying to solve for, not just operationally, but from a PR perspective.

[A]

Yeah. If let's say that the strait were open, it would be a different case, Trish, wouldn't it, that they could simply say we've achieved these objectives and we're going to go out and if the Iranians misbehave, we'll come back in again. But do you agree that it's the binary that you can't get out with the straight closed?

[B]

Oh, absolutely. Especially the domestic question as well as far as oil prices and gas prices. That's not going to be as much of a liability if that strait were open.

[A]

Yeah. Yeah. Kevin, what's your view on whether these, the Pentagon spending request, the, the oil, the energy targeting of energy sites on both sides of the conflict and, and the, the just the reality of, of the, just the whole, the whole situation escalation, the whole thing. Do you agree that this is a, this is a newsy and troubling moment in the war? Not that it can't change, but the snapshot of where we are is troubling.

[C]

Yeah, I mean this is, this is the critical point. And you quote Haley Barber this morning, Mark, in terms of good gets better, bad gets worse. And I think that's at this tipping point right now. Does the bad get worse? With indications at the outset that you talked about that the Pentagon's potentially considering some ground troops, whether it be to secure the uranium stockpiles, Carg island, what have you, 68% Americans don't want to see those ground forces. Republicans are split 50 50. And in that backdrop, you're going to see I assume, Secretary Hegseth, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs go before Congress for that 200 billion supplemental and now Congress is actually going to get involved on that front and that enters a whole brave new world too because now you got 435 folks out there with their own estimations about how this war is going.

[A]

I don't usually like to make predictions, but I will tell you there's no way this Congress is approving $200 billion. There's just no way.

[C]

After record spending for the Pentagon already,

[A]

there's no vote, there's no votes for that. No Democrat will vote for it. Maybe, maybe, maybe Josh gottheimer.

[C]

But, but, but to Trish's point, it's going to be an interesting because the administration is very effective at painting Democrats anti truth. Right. So if they can make that case that this is actually going to hurt American service members, it puts Democrats in a box and the president's really good at doing that.

[A]

Yeah. I just going to quickly run through these three, the headlines on these three escalations. First on Energy 105. The Wall Street Journal correctly says what happened yesterday is a new phase in the war because of Israel's Attack on on an Iranian facility and Iranians counterattack escalating attacks on Gulf energy as assets plunged Iran war into new phase. Strikes targeting infrastructure in Iran, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have put oil and gas facilities at the center of the conflict. The Israeli targeting of facilities linked to Iran's South Pars Field, an extension of Qatar's north field is a dangerous and irresponsible step amid the current military escalation in the region said an advisor to the Qatarian prime minister on social media. So in the run up to the war the Saudis reportedly were like go, go, go. The Gulf states were kind of neutral. The war started. The Gulf states were kind of critical and said let's have peace. But then it was reported.

[C]

Mark, I think we just lost you again.

[A]

Yeah, I just keep it. I keep it. Mic off. Thank you. The Gulf states said no, now you got to finish this because, because Iran's hit us a couple times. So you got to finish it now. The Oman mani foreign minister who was leading the negotiations before the war. Big piece of economist. Let's put that up. Number 109. He says no, no, no, we need peace. Here's, here's what he wrote. It's a very long piece. And he says, he says America's friendship, friends must help extricate it from an unlawful war. The question for friends of America is simple. What can we do to extricate the superpower from this unwanted entanglement? First of all, America's friends have a responsibility to tell the truth that begins with the fact that there are two parties in this war who have nothing to gain from it. And that he says, are Iran and America. Okay, now that's what he says. Energy. Here's the Washington Post headline on the cost of the war. Where is that guys? Is that on my list? Yeah, 1 to 21, please. Washington Post broke the story and there are no comments but nobody's disputed. Pentagon seeks over 200 billion in Iran War supplemental budget requests. Some White House officials don't think it's realistic. That's correct. Good. White House smart White House officials. Then there's the escalation related to ground forces. This is Reuters broke the story. Number 107 please exclusive us ways military reinforcements as Iran war enters possible new phase. Donald Trump is considering deploying thousands of US troops in the Middle east on the ground. The Wall Street Journal has a piece about what those forces might do. Where the Marines might go. 106 maybe take carg. Maybe go on the coastline to deal with freeing up the strait. Maybe go get the nuclear material or just some of the options that are listed there. All of this leads Pierce Morgan and I don't normally quote Piers as a huge authority on much of anything, but here's what Piers said in response to President Trump's post on True Social. Trump is losing control of this war. All right, lastly, to say this, the president said in his True Social post, we didn't know that Iran, Israel was going to strike the South Pars gas field. But now that they've done it and Iran has struck back at Qatar and if Iran strikes Qatar again, we're going to have to destroy the whole field. And both the, both Axios and the Wall Street Journal report, of course, the president knew in advance the Israelis are stupid, but not that stupid. They're not going to go and do this. And here's Barik Ravid, one of the best sourced reporters in both US And Israeli government says in contrast to Trump's statements, Israeli and American officials said that the US Knew in advance about the Israeli attack and even approved it in an attempt to put pressure on Iran after the Iranians responded against Qatar's gas field. Trump changes direction, changes directions of euphemism for just not telling the truth, which happens during times of war.

[C]

But

[A]

what, what are, what are the most likely next steps for the United States? Because the status quo is not great. So what, what are, what are the next steps?

[B]

Well, based on what Pete Hegsess said today at the podium, they're going to continue and we're going to see more firepower today than apparently we did yesterday in the days prior. I mean, I don't use, you know, Piers Morgan really as an authority for, for much of anything besides media. And I think maybe he has a point as far as, or is the administration, is President Trump losing the messaging and the narrative control of this war? There's a good possibility of that. It looks like a lot of the MAGA base is still in support, but we're seeing that fracturing as well as far as support for this war. But as far as from an operational perspective, I think what they need to continue messaging is how every single step they're taking, every action they're taking is advancing towards those objectives that they laid out on day one and how we're not expanding those objectives, that this isn't going to be some protracted Iraq 2.0 and that this is going to be short, sustained and lead to actually our objectives.

[A]

And if that's what it is, it will be a good outcome from the point of view of Lots of people. But, but, but what they said at the briefing this morning. And again, if you're, if you're a student of the Vietnam era and you remember the 5 o' clock follies, this briefing was the 8am follies, 8 o' clock follies. Because they didn't answer any of the hard questions. And you say keep doing, hitting more targets, which is what they said they're going to do. If they continue to assassinate leaders, if they continue to hit military infrastructure that advances the objectives. But it doesn't change. It's not, Kevin, it's not clear that that changes the dynamics. Now, straits still closed. Iran still, we say we disrupted their command and control and degraded their capacity. But they hit Saudi Arabia, for God's sakes. I'm surprised that's not getting more attention. They hit the Saudis, they hit Riyadh. So they still have command and control. They still have the capacity to hit allies in the region. They still have the strait effectively closed. And they still, there's still no uprising. And they've got time on their side because the president can't run this war forever, and they apparently can potentially. So, Kevin, what can the United States do besides more of the same, to try to, to try to change some of the negative dynamics?

[C]

Yeah, it's a great question. And again, Mark, you highlight that piece from the Omanis that were critical in our conversations previously with them in terms of our negotiations. I think ultimately the present, the solution out of this is some level of negotiation. We'll still take on command and control, still take on their missile forces, ballistic missile sites, obviously their nuclear program. But the way to move forward on the strait, and again, we're weeks still away from a game plan for actual naval escorts through that strait is to negotiate to some degree. And I think you've seen the president frustrated and some divergence with the Israelis where they're effectively taking out the key leadership. Obviously, the intelligence chief was killed yesterday in a strike. They took out their national security chief the day before, and we still haven't seen the ayatollah or heard from him since that initial statement. So I think the president is frustrated because at his core he wants to make a deal on this stuff, but there's no one on the other side of the table to do that. And the Omanis are stepping forward, kind of being that power broker again, as we saw in these negotiations. And maybe there's a path forward there where they can, they have obviously relationships there. But again, the targeting of the energy infrastructure, the Qataris the fact that this is going to have lasting effects not just in the short term, but they had the largest liquid natural gas facility and that's crippled. That's a years long play. That's not just a short term play. And that the Iranians are effectively taking these energy positions out, which is what is going to ultimately drive us to the table.

[A]

I think Trisha, last week, or maybe it was the week before Kushner and Witkoff were supposed to go see Netanyahu face to face. If that happened, they kept it a secret. The president says he didn't know about the strike. Obviously there's lots of, I say dirty dealings, secret dealings between the President Netanyahu. Is there any tension, do you think over what's occurred in the last 24 hours with the president saying he didn't authorize or know about that strike or do you think the US And Israel are fine and add on to that we will Israel hit more energy assets or not?

[B]

Well, there's true frustration at least from the President. I don't think that he's going to be shy about sharing that. He hasn't been shy about criticizing Netanyahu in the past and I think that he could do that again in the future. I think that the real question, at least in the immediate term, is there more dominoes that fall other of these Gulf countries that come out and are critical, it looks like the playbook that's going to be is really to blame Israel, not the US don't piss off Trump and really say you're getting bad advice, you're and Israel is going around you, we're going without your consent. That seems to be what the playbook could be. If there are more of these Gulf countries that come out and criticize what

[A]

happens, I ask you both and if

[C]

they endure more strikes to judge this point.

[A]

Right. So the president was clear yesterday. If, if, if you know the Qatar has such dirty hands, pre war dirty hands, but now the president's defending them and saying if Iran hits Qatar energy installations again, he will destroy the oil field. So does he have to do it now? If Qatar's hit is the president, has he drawn a red line and that whether it's in response to an Israeli attack or not, is there any doubt the president now has to destroy because if he destroys that field, it risks the Iranians escalating more. But it also sets back world oil supply quite a bit. The Chinese would be hurt by that and other people who get oil from Iran. So I say again, given what the President Said on Truth Social last night, if the Iranians hit any more energy installations in Qatar, does he have a choice or does he, must he follow through?

[B]

From my perspective, if there was the political and domestic issue at play, then yes. But the issue is we have midterms coming up. The White House really wants to be talking about affordability right now. They want to be talking about lowering grocery prices, that we had very low gas prices. So I, I think that there, if there wasn't this issue at home then potentially. But I, I don't think at this point it's a red line.

[C]

The bad gets worse.

[A]

Yeah, the bet, the get the gas buddy guy. Do you guys follow him on Twitter? The gas buddy guy? Here's what he just tweeted. Higher gasoline and diesel prices are now costing the US Economy half a billion dollars more every day and rising versus three weeks ago, a staggering rise in near record setting.

[C]

And of course news reports about airlines now upping their, their travel costs right around spring break and travel and stuff like that. Costs on the rise with the airlines. So this is, to Trisha's point, not a great message right now on affordability. Unfortunately.

[A]

The AP just confirmed the Washington Post story. The Pentagon wants $200 billion. You know, Karl Rove's column this morning makes clear the polls all show MAGA is still for whatever the president's for. MAGA's supportive, not of every aspect of it. They're still for it and, and yet Tucker's against it and Kent's against it and a few other other voices, prominent voices in Maga. Here's a couple poly markets to look at. Will US forces enter Iran by April 30th? Number 117 Again, I really do think this would be a bright line for so many people in maga. If you're talking about what could be a tripwire that would cause MAGA public opinion to change. And you hear that here on this platform, U.S. forces enter Iran by April 30th. So that's.

[C]

And that's ground forces, Mark.

[A]

Ground. Ground forces six, six weeks away, 62% chance of that. Trish, do you think that it's that high?

[B]

I'm not buying it. No. I cannot picture the president on the ground unless, you know, last final straw.

[C]

Yeah, Kevin, I think, I mean, I think it's a shorter term play. I think it's actually happening. We've been talking about this amphibious, you know, enforcements coming in, 2,000, 3,000 marines. I think it's going to be very limited. Carg island, maybe the nuclear component as we talked about earlier, Mark. But I do think it's going to happen.

[A]

So as I understand it and I could, I know you two are disagreeing. I can, I could make the argument either way. Getting people on the ground, on target ain't easy. Getting them there ain't easy. And then once they're there, making sure they're not attacked is ain't easy.

[C]

These are hardened positions too that the

[A]

Iranians have and same with, the same with the coast. And we're far away from anybody going in. You know, maybe special ops. But no, no, are no marines are going in to get the nuclear material anytime soon. So. Trish, I tend to agree with you. I just think it's a non starter. But, but the problem is the President keeps it on the table and the Iranians know what it costs. You know, if they put people on the ground and one is killed is political catastrophe along with the loss of life.

[B]

I think it's smart for him to keep it on the table. I mean, Mad Men theory when it comes to President Trump is you never know what he's going to do and that's been to his strategic advantage. I mean, but as far as putting these men and women on the ground, you know, we're still talking, of course, as we should be, about the 13 lives lost Afghanistan after that botched withdrawal. And I don't think, of course, the loss of life itself, the loss of American troops, but the political cost.

[A]

Yeah, I am. I wonder why the poly market wagers. I try not to think of their psychology because it's so difficult. But I wonder why so many of them think they're going to be American forces on the ground. That's very high, I'm guessing. Yeah. Here's another one. 118 Polymarket. Let's polymarket this question of will the President end the war or announce an end to the war by April 30th. So again, that's a month and a half away, 53% chance that it's over by April 30th. That seems, I don't know, that seems about right to me. Do you guys think that's higher, Higher or lower than it should be? Kevin?

[C]

I think it's about right. And again, you know, we talked about the other day about the President pushing back the China visit. He's obviously going to want to go to China when this is complete or some semblance of completion. And I think that's what they've previewed the next four or five weeks. It's going to get pushed back.

[A]

Yeah. Trisha, does that seem higher or low to you?

[B]

I think that sounds about right. I pray that we're out by April 30th.

[A]

Yeah. This is one pie market that I think we all agree. They've hit it right on the head. It's 53%. They've got it exactly right. All right, Wall Street Journal story about China again. We've from the beginning of the conflict watched China and Russia. They've been relatively quiet, you know, in public, at the UN et cetera. But here's the headline from the journal. 123. The Chinese are freaked out by the summit being canceled. China hoped Trump summit would cement its superpower status. Now Xi has to wait. The President's postponement of a planned meeting signals that the US Not Beijing, still sets the global agenda. So I think it's true that the Chinese, I wouldn't say they're losers from this, but it's not great for China. China wants the war over and they want the summit on because that's, that's what she wants. Okay.

[C]

And they want cheap oil from Iran.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now Russia is a different story. One of the steps the administration has taken to try to deal with price is taking the sanctions off Russian oil that's at sea for a month. That's rewarding Putin. You know, again, it's only a month. Scott Besants defended as a short term move. It's been reported now by several news organizations that Russia is aiding the Ukraine, the Iranians in a variety of ways. It's been reported this morning, I think, by the ft, that Russia is also trying to now help Cuba on its last legs by helping them with aid, energy aid and other aid. Kevin, we're trying to make a deal between Putin, who's, who's opposing us at every turn, as always, and Zelensky, who's one of the few American allies willing to help us with our effort against Iran. Does Russia's behavior vis a vis Iran do anything to impact the negotiations for the Ukraine Russia peace deal?

[C]

I think it could. I think this could finally really piss off the President. And I think he's been trying to be diplomatic to give space to Putin, who I don't think is ever interested in a deal. We've talked about this for months now on the morning meeting and across our programs. But I do think that the element of them providing tactical assistance to the Iranians targeting our troops right now, while at the same time to your point, Zelenskyy is providing anti drone support to us and the technology is necessary, while also at the same time, and this has gone underreported, the Ukrainians are taking much more land back from the Russians as part of this, and they've been on the offensive. And again, you have the Europeans also concerned that the war in Iran is a distraction to the Ukrainians. They're doing the work of the world right now, supporting us in Iran and obviously taking land back, their own land back from Russia. So Zelensky is our champion and will continue to be, and we need to uplift that. You saw Rick Scott out there, Republican from Florida, saying Russia is the enemy, Putin is the enemy. Thank God for Zelensky.

[A]

Tricia, do you agree this could change the president's point of view about. About the balance of power between Ukraine and Russia?

[B]

I think Kevin makes great points, but I also think that the president's analysis is he doesn't want to be fighting war on both fronts. And I think Vladimir Putin sees that as well and sees that as a potential weakness. But, I mean, of course, that's only going to embolden him to either provide that actual functional support and intelligence as well as diplomatic support.

[A]

All right, one more thing on the war, and then we'll talk about.

[C]

Mark, let's not forget Putin is a creature of the Cold War and, you know, our support of, you know, the Afghans during their incursion at the last throes of the Soviet Union. Putin is salivating at the fact that he can somehow make this war continue on and hurt us, which is a distraction, obviously, for what's going on in Ukraine and Europe.

[A]

Two more things. Thank you for that. Two more things on the war. First of all, will the president embarrass his friend, the new Japanese prime minister, today, or will he let her off the hook? What do you guess, Trisha?

[B]

It's. It's President Trump. I don't think. I think that there's a. There's a good possibility.

[A]

Good possibility. He lets her off the hook.

[B]

No.

[A]

Embarrasses.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Okay. Kevin, do you take. She's embarrassed or off the hook?

[C]

I think she's off the hook. They've got a great relationship. They, you know, they, they both love Shinzo. I don't think he does that. And again, Japan is a very delicate position post World War II, that it's very hard for them to engage when it's not in their own national, national interest when it comes to deploying the military. Hopefully he understands that.

[A]

Well, well, the Constitution's, as you know, beyond national interest. They have to be threatened.

[C]

And, and yeah, exactly. Right. It's like the highest bar possible.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

So I, I think Trish, I think I agree with Kevin. He's going to let her off the hook. But you're right, anything could happen. We'll see. The president's a bit of a sexist. He's more likely to let a woman off the hook. That's just. All right. Last thing on the war, Joe Kent's in the, you know, did his thing with Tucker yesterday, two hours. He's talking to Candace today. And now it's been reported that he was under investigation as a leaker by the Justice Department even before he quit. We talked this week about since the Ken think broke, about whether this is a sustaining story for real people or just an inside the Beltway insider media story. Kevin, given the two developments, what he said to Tucker and the alleged investigation, are you revising and extending, do you think the Kent story has legs or it's pretty much not a genuine story?

[C]

Yeah, I don't know. I'm really actually interested to hear, Tricia because I think as a Democrat, no one really knows who Joe Kent is. You know, I think he ran for Congress a few times, lost. Obviously he's a darling of the right. But Trisha, I'm more interested in your your opinion. You know, does this have sea legs on the right and fuel that narrative in terms of the fracturing of MAGA on this?

[B]

I think it personally does, Joe. Ken is very popular in the Tucker circles and I mean, I felt like it was a little bit cheap that he immediately goes out, goes straight to the media. I think if you disagree with the president and you feel that you privately express that and then can't actually execute on what the president has decided, then you should leave. I think that is a good decision. But I think to go out and write this long scathing letter about how the Israel lobby is actually controlling the president and controlling the administration's positions on foreign policy, I think is pretty cheap, especially when the president has given you that opportunity and that position. But you know, I'm not in the room. I don't know if there was actually leaking going on. I don't also, you know, he said a lot on on Tucker last night as far as he alluded to the fact that Israel or our adversaries may have been involved in the killing of Charlie Kirk. Those are great and grave claims to make. He also said that the investigation that his counterterrorism center wanted to conduct was basically thwarted. Another grave claim to Make. So I think that this does have legs, Kevin, and I think that will continue. We'll see some fracturing of the base on this issue.

[A]

I can take one of the things

[C]

I was just going to say too. Do you think it's also now that we know that there is an investigation, obviously the administration, you know, the president said he's a leaker and stuff like that. Is this almost also an act of self preservation trying to get out ahead? Everyone's talking about this letter and the, you know, the accusations and things like that. Almost self preservation now to get out ahead of the narrative saying, oh no, no, I might, I'm not guilty of this and now I'm being persecuted.

[B]

It sure seems like just as far as Caroline Levitt's statement was very strong against this Taylor Buttowich, who of course was a previous deputy chief of staff for the president. He came out saying that he's a prolific leaguer and that he was cut out of these highly classified briefings, didn't have a seat at the table with the President. This might, he might see this is his exit. He's able to maintain his anti war credibility and we'll see if he goes on to run for something else or become a podcast host or a frequent guest of Tucker's.

[A]

My two favorite adjectives to describe accused leakers are prodigious and promiscuous. I like those two. I continue to believe the vice president is really imperiled, not just if he wants to run for president, but just his, his whole constellation of relationships. He talked, I believe, unbidden about Joe Kent yesterday in Michigan. Weird thing to talk about on the campaign trail and it still really hasn't been. And he said he's downplayed how well he knew Joe Kent. And yet it still hasn't really been explained why. Monday, on the eve of Kent's resignation, he was meeting at the Vice president's residence to talk about his potential resignation

[C]

with, with, with Director Gabbard, I think too.

[A]

Right. With Tulsi Gabbard. So I've said for a long time and I'm still doing my reporting on this. I haven't had a chance to write it up yet. The prospects of his being the nominee are really being squeezed. I still think he's easily the front runner in 28, but they're really being squeezed by all this stuff. And his failure to denounce Tucker is rubbing a lot of people the wrong way. Tucker son works for the vice president. They're very good friends. I don't think he'd be vice president if it weren't for Tucker. So there's a lot going on in that relationship. But I'm telling you, there are a lot of people in the party, not just the establishment, who really want him to clarify more what he thinks about Kent and Tucker and the whole thing.

[C]

All right, Mark, one question for you. In terms of reporting, do you think that serves the fact that the president is so pivoting to Marco, you saw it with the Taoiseach where Marco was answering questions in the Oval, the prime minister and not really the vice president. Is that a reflection too of the president saying, I'm going to elevate Marco a little bit now because I'm a little ticked to JD Or I mean,

[A]

no, I think he's elevating Tucker, Marco because he likes performance and Marco's performance has been so widely acclaimed and you know, he wants there to be excitement and activity and competition because that's what he likes. But I don't think his, I don't think the extent he's leaned very favorably towards Marco and he has in a lot of high profile circumstances. I don't believe that has to do with the Tucker stuff. I believe that has to do with others. Other, other reasons. I'll have more to say about that soon.

[C]

Let's talk about who's getting those, we just got to know who's getting those shoes, those dress shoes. I think that's the first indication that's all that matters, who the president is supporting right now.

[A]

Does Trish, does Florsheim make women's shoes?

[B]

Oh, now that I'm aware of, no. Yeah, I don't see any female count members. No. Tulsi.

[A]

Kind of. Kind of unfair. All right. Pam Bondi went up on the Hill yesterday with Todd Blanche and they briefed the House committee not under oath on, on Epstein as there's been a bipartisan vote to subpoena her. The chairman seems to be tilting pro Bondi in this fight. The Democrats main reaction to the briefing was it wasn't good enough and she needs to do it under oath. We could go a lot of directions on this, but I'll ask it this way.

[C]

And with cameras, too.

[A]

Not just with camera, but yeah, here's the, here's the headline from Axios. Enraged Democrats threaten Bondi with impeachment Contempt after outrageous briefing. I do like the paradoxical meta funhouse question of whether Pam Bondi's Justice Department would prosecute her for contempt of Congress.

[C]

Right.

[A]

Will she testify under oath, yes or no, Trisha?

[B]

I think that she will. She obviously in that gaggle was not, didn't say really one way or the other. She just said that she would follow the law. But I did think it was interesting. I mean, even CNN's reporters were saying that this was a lot of theatrics from Democrats in that closed door meeting, that they weren't actually asking substantive questions, but they were really just complaining. And yet, you know, Bondi and Blanche went out there and then it really did seem like it was a race to the press who could control the narrative. But I do think politically it's not good for the American people. But politically it is good for Democrats to purport that there is some sort of COVID up going on and they want to continue that narrative.

[A]

Yeah. Kevin, will she testify under oath?

[C]

I do. I spent a lot of time with the AG before she was in that position on Fox debating. I think she relishes this kind of back and forth and I think she, she often performs well. And again for that audience of one, which is the president.

[A]

All right. Chairman Powell yesterday said for the first time something contrary to what the Trump administration believed. They thought he'd leave when his term as chair was up because he could stay on for another couple years keeping the president from filling his seat as very few former chairs, I think only one former chair did with have an unexpired term to be on the Fed, but their term is chair is up. He said yesterday he's going to stay on unless the investigation that's going on at the Justice Department is done. Thom Tillis says he won't allow Kevin Warsh to be confirmed until that investigation is dumped. Done. Here's the Wall Street Journal headline. Trump wants Powell out. Powell is digging in. The Fed chair state says he will stay on the board until the Justice Department probe ends and maybe longer. Kevin, your other friend from Fox, Judge Shanine Janine Pirro, the U.S. attorney says she's not dropping the case. She's going to appeal a recent ruling that blocked them from certain information they wanted from the Fed. The president wants Warsh confirmed. He wants Powell to leave the Fed. Why wouldn't the investigation be dropped?

[C]

Kevin, that's a great question. And again, I think more, more heat is going to be on my old friend Judge Jeanine on this. I'm also surprised that obviously we're two months out that that Tim Scott, my own home state senator, chair of the Banking Committee, hasn't scheduled anything yet. I think that's a pressure point right to, you know, this guy's super Compelling. Kevin?

[A]

I think they haven't submitted the paperwork yet. I think that.

[C]

Okay, so that's the delay then. Yeah. Because again, I think that that's also going to be another pressure point is when he testifies and I think that's going to, he's going to make the case effectively and I'm sure that's going to happen the next couple of weeks. But I think judge is off the reservation a little bit here.

[A]

Yeah. Trish, I can't understand. I, I think they were holding out the investigation to pressure Powell to leave, to say until you agree to leave. And, and maybe they'll wait and then drop it. But, but isn't, isn't, isn't the only solution here and an easy solution. It's not a, it's not a great investigation. Let's be honest. It shouldn't she just announce there's we're done and, and Warsh gets confirmed and Pal leaves. Isn't that the way they should do it? Or do they think there's some risk that if they drop it, Powell double cross them and stay?

[B]

Well, I think that this is an audience of one question as well. What does the President want? Yeah, this is obviously an investigation that it seems like there's some personal animus there. But the other piece of this for Powell himself is this his legacy. This is. I'm not going to take this lying down. I'm going to stick it. Whatever he does next, this is something he's going to carry with him. So I think that he's probably smart to say he's not going to leave until the investigation concludes. Includes.

[A]

Right. But how's it end?

[B]

Well, I think that that is a question for the President. I think Kevin's friend Judge Janine will be smart to consult with the President before making any major decisions on it.

[A]

Right. All right. I just think I, I just wouldn't make any sense. To me it's like there's, there's a.

[C]

To your point, it's having the opposite effect. You know, they want him gone and.

[A]

All right, Mark Wayne Mullen's vote, it looks like he'll be confirmed is Fetterman said on the record he's going to vote for the confirmation of Mark Wayne Mullen. Does anybody know?

[C]

I know he said he's going to vote on the floor and I assume that also means he's going to vote in committee.

[A]

All right, so he'll have the votes to be confirmed. Trisha, what we learned yesterday about Mark Wayne Mullen, that speaks to his capacity to do what you know well is an extremely difficult job. Massive agency, lots of different, you know, sub departments and massive department, lots of different sub agencies. What did we learn about his capacity to do the job yesterday?

[B]

I thought he was forceful, but he was also very measured in his approach. I thought I was bummed on how Rand Paul handled the opening and handled his line of questioning. I felt like it was petty politics and just the perfect example of how Republicans can't seem to get over out of their own dang way. I can speak personally. Homeland Security has not had a lot of good headlines in the last few months and we could really use a fresh start. I think what could have been the headlines there was Mark Wayne Mullen's discussion of President Trump and how much he helped him and his son and his family and his testament to his family and kind of this, this new chapter being open for Homeland Security, how he's going to be a great leader for ICE and CBP, but also the 23 other component agencies that he's going to have to lead and how he has, you know, the executive ability to carry out this job. And I think instead so many of the headlines we're talking about the personal petty squabble between Rand Paul and Mark Wayne Mullen.

[A]

Do you think the media will give him if he is confirmed? It looks like he will be doing. The media will give him a fresh start. As you know better than anyone, the coverage of the department has been relentlessly negative for months. Do you think if he's confirmed that, that he's got a chance to get, you know, somewhat positive or neutral coverage or No?

[B]

I think so. I think in the first month of the Trump administration, I started on January 20th and I would say until probably mid February we were given a fair amount of neutral coverage. And then from there it started to become an all out battle.

[A]

Yeah, Kevin, he's pretty popular personally with a lot of Democrats in the Senate. Do you think he'll get on final passage more than three Democratic votes?

[C]

I think so. It's interesting. I went back and looked up Secretary Noem got 59 votes in favor of. I wonder, Tricia, Mark, do you think over. Under does. Does Mark we get more or less. Fewer, less. Fewer viewers in 59. Okay.

[B]

I think I'll get the animus is there. And I mean, yeah, despite shut down

[C]

collegiality, despite collegiality between the senators, you know, Marco got 99 0, 990 on his appointment.

[B]

I think these senators are going to also view this as a vote for ICE or for cbp.

[A]

Exactly.

[B]

They don't want to have on their record.

[A]

Yeah, exactly right. That's, I think, the big dynamic of why I don't think, I don't know they'll get any votes besides Fetterman amongst the Democrats. And I think Rand Paul is becoming the first senator either either ever or in a long time to vote against a fellow senator nominated by the president of his own party. And Trisha, I'll only say, I can guarantee you've never had a cracked rib, have you?

[B]

I haven't had a cracked rib.

[A]

Yeah, I can.

[B]

What a horrible story he told. And look, Mark, Wayne Mullen shouldn't have said that.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

But gosh, I mean really just, it just rubbed me the wrong way. That's how we're going to start. This Department of Homeland Security has been through so much crap. It's politically have been very tumultuous for Republicans and we're just going to give ourselves another black eye.

[C]

I will say that's why, that's why that, that interview you had, Mark, with Chairman Paul was so interesting a week ago where he's like, buckle up, tune in.

[A]

I will say, and I said this last night and I say this respectfully to Trisha, if you've had a cracked rib, you can understand why he started that way. And I don't think it was personal and I don't think it was gimmicky or, or unsubstantive. I think he believes, as anyone who's had a cracked rib would, that someone who would mock someone with cracked ribs, fractured ribs would, would, would they question whether they had the temperament to lead anything or anyone, let alone hundreds of thousands of employees in the national security of America. It just, it's, it speaks to temperament for Senator Paul and for anyone else who's had a broken rib.

[C]

All right, lastly, and he spoke to the larger narrative around political violence too, talking about Gabby Gifford, talking about the attack on the baseball field and Steve Scalise.

[A]

Yep, yep. All right, lastly, hold on. Senator Mullen advances out of Committee 8 to 7. Rand Paul votes no and Fetterman votes yes. So he goes to the floor with a favorable vote last.

[C]

Pretty quick. That was at 9:30. Wow. Yeah, that was a quick turnaround.

[A]

Chairman, Chairman Paul, he moves things along. Lastly, California Democrats are freaking out. The latest poll in the governor's race shows once again the Democrats are in real danger of not making getting a candidate in the final two of the way the California races work. The final two, regardless, the top two, regardless of party in the primary Go on to the general election. And right now in the latest poll from igs, very similar to other polls we've seen, the top two candidates are Steve Hilton, a Republican, Sheriff Bianco, a Republican and the Democrats. Again, this order is pretty similar to what we've seen in other polls. Swalwell, Porter, Steyer, Becerra, Villaragosa. How do you pronounce the mayor's name? Man? Yeah, they're all, they're all under very big undecided, but they're all flailing. And what I'm hearing from Democrats is our field's not great. Our field's not great. There's no one people are excited about, no one that people see as, you know, sort of breaking away from the pack. So Kevin, how endangered are Democrats here in March to not having a candidate in the finals at this point?

[C]

Fairly endangered. Right. And that field, to your point, has been pretty, pretty relatively, you know, stay at the static in terms of that polling work. 68 days out there, 60 days out today from ballots dropping. That's both an eternity in politics in a very short amount of time in politics in terms of changing that narrative. And man is out there now that the San Jose mayor, he just did the Daily show again. He got in this race a little later. You know, I'm hopeful that he, you know, will get more traction and attention. He's got a lot of support from the tech bros out there, but we'll see what happens in 60 days.

[A]

Trisha, if any of the Democrats were to break away from the pack, who would it be? Who's got the potential to make the best chance to make the final two at this point?

[B]

Oh, maybe Styer. I mean there's got to be some sort of consolidation at this point. I'm shocked that there hasn't been already. When I saw that we were going to be discussing this, Mark, I thought, oh no, don't bring attention to this because it's too good to be true. Let's stick with our as we are. But I know that this, this is in June. And so I think there's going to be consolidation. I mean, whether it be Swallow or Porter, I can't, I can't see them both sticking in it.

[C]

And let's not forget it was Democrats that pushed for this top two past the post thing, that he might get

[A]

screwed by the dangerous dynamic. To me, for Democrats, besides where we are in the status quo and all the polling is they're all weak and they're all so vulnerable to opposition research. And so at some Point, the Democrats are going to start hitting each other to try to drive down the Democrats because they don't have enough money to drive down the Republicans too. And they have to assume that if they can rise up, they'll make the final two. So once you start seeing negative Democrat on Democratic action, and we've seen some already, the Democrats are trying to drive Swalwell, the putative Democratic front runner, out of the race for residency. I think it's going to be very brutal. I think you're going to see money spent to kill Democrats.

[C]

And to Trish Point, Stier has that money to do that.

[A]

Correct.

[C]

And he will spend it.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

When it's too late. When do you guys think it's too late for this for them to not consolidate or someone to drop out?

[A]

I mean, that's a good question. Probably the last couple weeks. But you know, well, let's see who raises enough money to actually be on statewide TV at the end. Right. Steyer will have that. But it's a lot to be on statewide TV as you all know. So I'll be curious to see if people just drop out because they don't have money. But, but I think even with consolidation, as long as there's four of them in, you could still see the two Republicans as the top two.

[C]

And they really haven't been spending. I don't think they've been spending Hilton or the sheriff.

[A]

No. No. Trish, go ahead.

[B]

One more that point to when are ballots printed? When are people still on the ballot? When is that removal?

[A]

Yeah, yeah, good question. We'll look into that. It's a good one.

[C]

I know they go out in 60 days.

[A]

Yep. Quick word from a sponsor and then to your questions. Please raise your hand if you want in on the conversation. And if you're starting something new, a business, online business, podcast, anything, and you want to get your idea out there and get a chance to make money off of it, consider using shopify shopify.com mark for $1 a month as a trial offer, you can use the platform used by people all over the country. 10% of e commerce is done over Shopify. That's a lot. And Shopify easy to use. A lot of ready to use templates, AI powered tools, 24 hour customer service. It's time to turn your what ifs into hate that sound. Dollars with Shopify Shopify right now. Sign up. Go to shopify.com, you'll sign up. They'll give you a $1 per month trial to see if you can make it work. For you, the way it's worked for so many others to start and grow your business, everything's under one roof. Inventory, payments, analytics, marketing, all under one roof. So right now, do yourself a favor. Go to shopify.com mark and make a bunch of money.

[D]

I started with one shop. No college degree, no big investors. It was just a willingness to work. Over time, that one shop turned into a multi billion dollar business called Crash Champions. All the lessons I learned along the way came from the grind. And that's what my show podcrash is all about. We have real conversations with people who've built things the hard way. We talk to founders, athletes, and blue collar leaders who kept going when things got tough. You'll hear stories of grit, leadership and growth. Plus real world lessons you can take back to your team and your life tomorrow.

[A]

When you get momentum, you step on the gas. That's how you get separation from everybody else.

[C]

I was at Harvard Law School as law, blah, blah.

[A]

I looked up, let me tell you something, there's kids in my neighborhood, neighborhood putting in sheetrock that is smarter than you.

[C]

AI is going to disrupt a lot of stuff. It is never going to disrupt physical

[A]

blue collar trait skill.

[C]

And the guy just looked at me and he said, it's bloody impossible. So I asked him this question. I said, it's impossible.

[D]

Unless that's Podcrash with me, Matt ebert. Watch on YouTube and listen wherever you get your podcasts.

[A]

All right, time for your questions for Trish and for Kevin. Please raise your hand, tell us where you are and what's on your mind for the group. Holly Olson, first time raising her hand. Great role model for all those who've never raised their hand. Holly, unmute. Step one. Tell us where you come. Holly, tell us where you are. Holly.

[B]

Thank you.

[E]

I'm in Santa Monica, California.

[A]

Santa Monica, beautiful place. One of the most beautiful places in the world. Welcome in. Tell us what's on your mind for Trisha and for Kevin. And thank you for being part of two ways.

[E]

I work in financial markets. I actually use this program to sort of COVID my political side in terms of the knowledge I need to manage our portfolio for all the pension funds and foundations we manage money for.

[C]

Can we use that for a commercial? Holly?

[A]

I was going to say that's golden. Holly, you're in our next promo reel. Thank you.

[C]

Yeah, right here.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

So for us, for me, the question we're kind of grappling with and don't understand politically, because on the financial side, I will explain to you that we are generally Energy independent. We actually export refined oil based product, so gasoline and so forth. We actually are exporters. Natural gas, we're massive exporters. And so I understand the global security aspect of being an Iran, but I think this focus on opening up the Strait is really not our problem. In fact, there's a lot of research going on around right now where if you look at Brent crude, which is the sort of non US prices of oil per barrel versus wti, which is the US exported price or the domestic price per barrel, the spread, the difference between the two is the widest it's been in years since wti. We were not able to export it in the past, but now we can. So when you think about it, all the government, I mean the president has to do or the administration has to do is ban exports again like we did 40 years ago. We hadn't been able to, we hadn't been able to export oil until actually a couple decades ago, I think. So I don't understand why it's our problem to open up the Strait of Hormuz. Because Iran is controlling who goes through and who doesn't. Right?

[A]

Right.

[E]

Oil headed for China is allowed to go, but oil headed for our allies are not allowed to go. None of it's coming here, very little of it coming here. Fertilizer. We have our own fertilizer.

[A]

Right. So Holly, I'll say a couple of things and then turn it over to Trisha and Kevin. First of all, the reason it's closed now and hurting not just China but Japan and other Asian allies is because the United States and Israel. So if we, if we don't open it, it's not clear how we'll open. Richard Haass, former head of the Council on Foreign Relations, has a really interesting idea today which is to form an international coalition to say to the Iranians, nothing gets through unless everything gets through through, and to basically blockade the Iranian, you know, the ones that are given permission. Here's, here's his from his substack. The Strait of Hormuza must be open for all or closed to all. That's a, it's a kind of an elegant solution, the first time I've heard that. But there's, there's the matter of American credibility and there's also the question of if Iran can close it at any time and disrupt the world economy. Even if, though it doesn't directly affect the United States, that gives them an asymmetrical power that can't stand as a matter of credibility and can't stand as a matter of America's responsibility to our allies and the world economy. So that'd be my explanation. Hold on to Holly one second. Let Tricia and Kevin weigh in and then hear from you again.

[B]

Tricia Holly, you clearly have a real expertise and really know your stuff, so I almost hesitate to answer, but I think a lot of people in the United States feel like you do, that this is not our problem, that this is not of our current concern, and we should be focused on domestic affairs. To that end, though, the counterpoint would be that, you know, there is a finite amount of oil, and even if this oil isn't reaching us directly, it impacts the global market, and that's going to ultimately downstream impact us and will impact costs.

[C]

KEVIN and I'd only add to that, and I was going to flag that. RICHARD Hospice, too. In terms of all through or none through. You also have starting, you know, 20 days in, some folks on the right, especially talking about the need to just stop sending our resources overseas right now and hold that back domestically. Obviously, we've talked about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and things like that. So I think that energy might be going forward if we continue to see gas now over $4 and things like that.

[A]

HOLLY, what are we missing?

[E]

So I guess what I'm asking is we had a whole decade or so. I think the Europeans actually shut down one of their most productive natural gas fields. In Netherlands, I think Angela Merkel shut down a lot of nuclear. The Green Party, I can't really understand why they would do that, but they shut down nuclear facilities in Germany when they're right next door to France. Who gets a majority of their energy from nuclear? It's not an environmental thing. But my question is, why is it our responsibility to keep the Hormuz open? It should be the world's responsibility.

[A]

It is, but we started it, we caused it to be closed, we broke it and we bought it, and no one else can open it. And also the other thing is, it's a matter of American credibility. You're thinking in terms of economics, and in terms of the economics, you're right. We don't benefit from it being open as much as lots of other people who have a greater economic interest. But we have, we have the greatest geopolitical, both interest and responsibility now to open it, because we it's pretty clear at this point, barring some dramatic change, that Iran, the mission will not be completely done, which is to say there'll be an Iranian government that's repressive and has aspirations to terrorize the neighborhood if if we leave under those circumstances and we leave it that they can close the strait whenever they want geopolitically, that's just not. It's just not acceptable.

[E]

Okay, how about the reverse?

[B]

Can.

[E]

Will this give enough political cover for all of the other countries to form a coalition to, to keep the Australian hormones open and separate itself from the security aspect of it?

[A]

Will that have.

[E]

Are, are you asking the nuclear weapons.

[B]

Great question.

[A]

Yeah. Trish, thoughts on that?

[B]

Oh, that's. I mean I think that that's a great question. I don't know. As far as separating the two, I think that that's going to be incredibly difficult. Just give intentions there. But I mean you might want to give a strategic advice to some of these Gulf countries.

[E]

J.P. morgan is giving a lot of advice. J.P. morgan and Goldman Sachs are going at it. So I could send Mark some research.

[A]

Yeah, no, I get. I appreciate that. Although both of them are nice enough to send me all their research. Kevin?

[C]

No, all great points, Holly. I would just reinforce what Mark said. Only we can do this, right in terms of the military aspect of it. No other country has the resources to do this in terms of the personnel and the technology. And obviously we've Talked about these 5000 pound bunker blasters that we're using right now on these fortified locations around the coast and things like that. But we're the only ones that can do it.

[A]

Certainly I will say this so amazed that the fact that Saudi was hit is not getting more attention and we haven't as far as I can tell, seen a reaction from them. They have a military. They're one of these countries, except from the Houthis, like the Chinese. They have a big military. They never use it. Really. Right. When we talk about where is peacekeeping in Gaza, why not the Saudis? Well, why shouldn't the Saudis help open the strait? They don't like Iran, but there's no talk of that. At least that I've heard. But I'll be curious to see if there is a coalition, whether the Saudis are involved because anything adverse the interest of the Iranians they should be for. But as I said, I never hear them discussed and they've got the best

[C]

weapons in the world. Because there are.

[A]

Exactly. And they're well trained in theory. But let's see them. Let's see them use it. Holly, how'd you find two way?

[E]

Oh, it was before the election. I was just looking for some unbiased coverage and I think. Oh, I know what it was. It was when you, Mark, broke the story on President Biden resigning.

[A]

Okay.

[E]

That's my attention. I think you're the best. You're the best reporter out there.

[A]

So that's very amazing. My mom agrees. Please come back regularly. We love having you on. Thank you, Trish. Thank you. Thank you for coming on. How is your retirement going? For real? How are things?

[B]

I did a little skiing and things are good. Yeah.

[A]

Yeah. And can you forecast what you'll be up to, or is that still to be determined?

[B]

I won't. Tbd.

[A]

Okay. You know who needs your help?

[C]

She looks, she looks tan, ready and rested. I will say hashtag, she's running. Hashtag running.

[A]

I'll tell you something. I'll tell you who needs your help is your old pal Vivek. Vivek Ramaswamy. Vivek, as in cake. The vague is not running away with the governor's race in Ohio.

[B]

No. We're back and forth from Ohio. So I'm from Cincinnati and we're back and forth there. But I think Vivek is definitely going to pull it off. They're starting to really pour in money there. As far as it's all about TV in Ohio. It's a huge state. Amy Acton, she's kind of the Fauci of Ohio. So I think that they pull it off by four to five points. John Houston versus Jared Brown, though, for Senate. Really a race to watch.

[A]

It is indeed a race to watch. I'm going to be doing some reporting on that soon on NEXT up. Let me tell you about what's coming up on NEXT up. Later today, Ro Khanna will be my guest. James Bennett, former New York Times op editor and now the Economist. And then I've got two extraordinary political strategists to talk about everything. Vin Weber, former congressman from Minnesota. And then Kevin Walling will be my guest on NEXT up. So all that will drop later today on two way tonight. This evening, special episode, sorry, this afternoon, three o', clock. Pre taping tomorrow's episode Today, join me for one of our periodic or say, sporadic conversations about 2028 with Nomi Kunz, Alex Castellanos and Alex eisenstadt of Axios. 4 o', clock, the group chat, Emma Jo Morris, Nina Turner, Robbie Suave, Michael LaRosa join them at 4 o' clock on their new YouTube channel, 5 o', clock, regular edition of Two Way Tonight, Ashley Etienne and Christian Davidson join me. And then tomorrow, final episode of the week on this program in 23 hours, we lose Trish and we swap in Larry, Kevin and Larry Tomorrow, 9am Eastern time I'm going to jump over right now. I'm going to be late. I got to get there on Sirius XM for the second hour of the morning meeting. Thank you, Trish. Thank you, Kevin. We'll see you both soon. Have a great day, everybody. I'll see you at 3 o' clock and 5 o' clock and on next up, thanks, everybody.