JD Vance | All-In Summit 2024

Summary

Podcast Summary: All-In Summit 2024 Featuring J.D. Vance

Podcast Information:

• Title: All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg
• Host/Author: All-In Podcast, LLC
• Description: Industry veterans, degenerate gamblers & besties Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks & David Friedberg cover all things economic, tech, political, social & poker.
• Episode: J.D. Vance | All-In Summit 2024

---

Introduction and Guest Introduction [00:00 - 01:13]

David Friedberg opens the discussion by welcoming listeners to the All-In Summit recorded in Los Angeles. He briefly mentions upcoming content and encourages subscriptions to their YouTube channel and following on social media.

Jason Calacanis humorously remarks on the unexpected security present during the event, indicating the high-profile nature of the guest, J.D. Vance.

J.D. Vance, the vice presidential candidate, joins the conversation, exchanging pleasantries with the hosts and expressing gratitude for the invitation.

---

J.D. Vance: A Unique Political Figure [01:14 - 03:26]

David Sacks praises J.D. Vance for embodying perceived contradictions that make him an appealing vice presidential candidate:

1. Patriotism and Wisdom: Vance's evolution from a gung-ho Marine Corps enlistee in the early 2000s to someone who recognized the mistakes of the Iraq War highlights his patriotism and ability to learn and adapt.

2. Tech Savvy and Hometown Roots: His background in the tech industry and venture capital juxtaposed with his Appalachian origins ensures he understands both innovation-driven economies and the struggles of less privileged communities.

Notable Quote:

“He represents those people” – David Sacks [02:30]

---

Economic Innovation and Government Regulation [03:27 - 05:04]

J.D. Vance delves into the connection between his upbringing in poverty and the stagnant areas of the American economy. He emphasizes that real innovation extends beyond software to sectors like transportation, logistics, and energy. Vance argues that lack of technological advancement fuels economic stagnation, leading to societal and political instability.

Notable Quote:

“Unless our economy is actually technologically innovative, then the stagnant economy is fundamentally like the worst thing.” – J.D. Vance [04:45]

---

Media Perception and Political Evolution [05:04 - 09:04]

Chamath Palihapitiya reflects on the initial non-Trump affiliations of the hosts and Vance, highlighting how media filters shaped their perceptions. He praises the personal interactions that led to a more nuanced understanding of political figures, particularly Donald Trump.

J.D. Vance recounts his change of perspective regarding Trump, attributing it to recognizing media fabrications and evaluating economic policies positively. He credits Trump's administration for periods of wage growth and reduced government dependency.

Notable Quotes:

“Donald Trump remembers exactly what I said about him.” – J.D. Vance [06:00]
“The policies actually work.” – J.D. Vance [06:10]

---

Election Integrity and Certification [09:00 - 11:29]

Jason Calacanis challenges Vance on the topic of the 2020 election certification, probing whether he would have supported Vice President Mike Pence in not certifying the results.

J.D. Vance clarifies his stance, arguing that while he acknowledges irregularities in the 2020 election, he believes the solution lies in broader electoral reforms rather than unilateral actions by Pence. Vance emphasizes the importance of fostering a rational debate on legal ballots and the overall integrity of the election system.

Notable Quote:

“We would have had a big debate [...] about how to better have a rational election system.” – J.D. Vance [10:21]

---

Government Spending and Efficiency [12:03 - 17:28]

David Friedberg raises concerns about government spending, the national debt, and the inefficiency of government as a capital allocator. He cites the need to "right-size" government to promote economic growth and innovation.

J.D. Vance concurs, advocating for a reduction in government size and improved efficiency. He highlights the significant costs associated with illegal immigration, estimating between $100 billion to $600 billion annually. Vance proposes reallocating funds to prioritize American citizens and reducing fraud in social programs.

Notable Quotes:

“Give or take 25 million illegal aliens [...] we spend on illegal aliens every single year.” – J.D. Vance [14:43]
“We have to make things more efficient, to hold things accountable.” – J.D. Vance [14:50]

---

Defending Against Big Tech and Regulatory Policies [23:00 - 24:42]

Jason Calacanis questions Vance on merger and acquisition (M&A) policies, particularly regarding anti-trust sentiments led by figures like Lina Khan.

J.D. Vance acknowledges the threats posed by Big Tech to free speech and economic control but argues for a nuanced approach to M&A. He differentiates between monopolistic acquisitions and smaller-scale mergers essential for industry growth and innovation.

Notable Quote:

“You need the singles and doubles [...] to buy smaller companies.” – J.D. Vance [24:10]
“Big Tech really is a threat.” – J.D. Vance [24:30]

---

Immigration and Border Security [25:56 - 35:37]

Jason Calacanis pivots the discussion to immigration, questioning why comprehensive reform is weaponized by both parties despite widespread public support for a talent-based immigration system.

J.D. Vance outlines the complexities of immigration reform, stressing that addressing the influx of 25 million illegal aliens is paramount before implementing merit-based systems. He criticizes Kamala Harris's border policies for undermining the social contract by prioritizing illegal immigrants over American citizens.

Vance proposes a multi-step approach:

1. Deportation of Criminal Migrants: Focus on removing individuals who have committed violent crimes.
2. Taxing Remittances: Discourage financial ties that encourage illegal immigration.
3. Legislative Reforms: Close the border effectively to prevent further illegal entries.

Notable Quote:

“You have to stop the millions of people flowing across the southern border every single year.” – J.D. Vance [29:28]
“She's placed the interests of illegal aliens above American citizens.” – J.D. Vance [29:50]

---

National Security and Changing Migration Patterns [35:11 - 36:51]

Chamath Palihapitiya addresses the shift in migration origins, noting an increase in migrants from East and South Asia rather than traditional Central American sources.

J.D. Vance attributes this trend to the "open door" policies, emphasizing that unfettered borders allow individuals from diverse regions, including national security threats like military-age males from Iran, to enter the country.

He shares an anecdote about a border patrol agent who struggled with mislabeled migrant profiles, highlighting systemic failures in discerning and handling diverse migration patterns.

Notable Quote:

“This is what Kamala Harris has done [...] a massive gap in our national security.” – J.D. Vance [35:35]

---

U.S.-China Relations and Economic Interdependency [36:51 - 42:35]

David Friedberg raises a critical question about the U.S.'s economic dependence on China, specifically addressing the balance between peaceful trade relations and the growing rhetoric of a cold war.

J.D. Vance responds by advocating for reshoring American manufacturing and expanding domestic energy production to reduce dependency. He critiques the asymmetric capital flows between the U.S. and China, where American capital fuels Chinese production, weakening the U.S. consumer base.

Vance calls for a balanced approach:

• Energy Independence: To support both manufacturing and emerging technologies like AI.
• Trade Balance: Maintain essential trade without allowing China to dominate key economic sectors.
• Self-Reliance: Reestablish native manufacturing capabilities to foster a resilient economy.

Notable Quote:

“The relationship is fundamentally that the Chinese have figured out they can create a massively powerful producer of society while America becomes a weaker, weaker consumerist society.” – J.D. Vance [41:15]

---

Economic Growth and Regulatory Reform [39:59 - 41:15]

Chamath Palihapitiya brings the discussion back to economic growth, prompting Vance to explain how reducing regulatory burdens can spur additional growth.

J.D. Vance emphasizes the need to deregulate heavily regulated sectors such as energy, transportation, and home construction. He believes that easing these restrictions can unlock significant economic growth, potentially adding 150 to 300 basis points annually.

Vance remains optimistic about technological innovations in crypto, blockchain, Web3, and AI, suggesting that deregulation will facilitate their development and integration into the economy.

Notable Quote:

“Massively reducing the amount of regulatory burden in the real economy.” – J.D. Vance [40:15]

---

Closing Remarks and Final Thoughts [43:06 - 46:12]

As the conversation winds down, Jason Calacanis commends J.D. Vance for his thoughtful and measured approach to complex issues. He highlights Vance's balanced strategy as a counterbalance to Donald Trump’s more aggressive rhetoric.

Chamath Palihapitiya delivers an inspirational note, emphasizing that Vance's presence on the podcast serves as a beacon for those who strive to overcome systemic barriers.

J.D. Vance concludes by defending President Trump’s attention to public policy details and encourages listeners to engage with authentic sources to understand Trump's commitment to economic growth and national prosperity.

Notable Quotes:

“You are not supposed to be here. And that is really inspiring to other people who were not supposed to be here.” – Chamath Palihapitiya [44:36]
“She [Trump] cares more about the details of public policy than almost anyone I've ever met in public life.” – J.D. Vance [45:20]

---

Key Takeaways

1. Balanced Economic Vision: Vance advocates for a merger of technological innovation with reduced government regulation to spur economic growth.
2. Immigration Reform: He emphasizes the necessity of addressing illegal immigration to restore the social contract and enable a merit-based system.
3. National Security: Tightening border security is crucial, especially against non-traditional threats from diverse regions.
4. U.S.-China Relations: Vance calls for reshoring manufacturing and energy independence to mitigate economic dependency on China.
5. Political Realignment: Highlighting a shift where middle-class voters align more with Republican values due to disenfranchisement by neoliberal policies.

---

This episode of the All-In Summit provided an in-depth exploration of J.D. Vance's political perspectives, focusing on economic reform, immigration, national security, and international trade. Vance's pragmatic approach complements traditional Republican views, offering a nuanced strategy aimed at revitalizing American prosperity and addressing systemic challenges.

Transcript

[Friedberg]

Hey, everybody, Friedberg here. What you're about to hear is a discussion from our all in summit record in LA. On September 9th, we're going to publish some of the best conversations once a week. If you want to see all the talks, subscribe to our YouTube [e-mail] llin and follow us on X at theallinpod. This speaker's not on the program.

[Jason]

Not on the program. But I did notice there was a little bit of security here today. A little extra security.

[Friedberg]

This is your Sax red meat moment.

[J.D. Vance]

Yes. Okay.

[Jason]

All right, here we go. Little red meat for Sax. Please welcome me in joining vice presidential candidate Janie Vance. We'll let your winners ride Rain Man David Sack.

[David Sacks]

And it said we open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.

[J.D. Vance]

Love you, Wesley.

[Friedberg]

Queen of Quinoa.

[Jason]

I'm going all the inn.

[J.D. Vance]

Hey, guys. Warrior. Thank you. All right. Good to see you. What's up, Anthony? How you doing? Shabbat. Long time.

[Jason]

All right, see you.

[David Sacks]

See you.

[J.D. Vance]

Hey, guys.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Welcome.

[Friedberg]

So Zach is going to introduce you.

[J.D. Vance]

Welcome to the lion's den.

[Friedberg]

Who's here with us, Zach?

[David Sacks]

Well, do we. Do we actually need a big introduction here? But I'll give a few.

[J.D. Vance]

Those of you who are really bad at context clues. I'm J.D. vance. I'm running for vice president.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

And normally he's beside his wife Usha, but now you get.

[J.D. Vance]

That's right. She's at like the tar pits or whatever.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yeah.

[J.D. Vance]

Oh, yeah. We brought her three kids out here, so she wanted to take and see some fossil stuff so they'll have fun.

[David Sacks]

I'll say a couple of things about JD because he's a friend, I think what I think really made me want to support JD for Senate and also for the VP position is that I think he represents two, you could almost say contradictions. Back in 2003 when JD graduated from high school, this was after the Twin Towers had come down and we had gotten involved in the Iraq war. He was gung ho to go fight America's enemies. And he enlisted in the Marine Corps and went off to serve in the Middle East. Eventually he came to realize that that war was a mistake. And I thought that that really represents one of the traits that we really want in a vice president or someone next to the president, which is that he had the patriotism and the courage to go serve America, but also the wisdom to realize when America shouldn't get involved in a war. So I want to just. The other, like I said, almost contradiction that JD represents is that he had worked in the tech industry, he had been a venture capitalist, he had been in rooms like this. And he understands what it takes to make America a more innovative place. At the same time, he comes from a part of the Midwest, Appalachia, that's a very poor part of the country and did not grow up in a privileged environment at all. And he still remembers those people and he represents those people. And I think his ability to understand both parts of the country makes him, I'd say, a pretty unique political figure. So with that, let me stop and do you want to react to any of that?

[J.D. Vance]

Well, you know, first of all, thanks all for having me. I've been a big fan of the POD for a while, I think my first appearance, so it's good to be with you. The only thing I'll say to that, David, is I do think there is a deep connection between the poverty that I saw growing up and the fact that our entire economy is just less innovative than we pretend that it is. And I know Peter Thiel and Tyler Callan and others folks have talked about this, but if you look at the real innovation of the American economy, it's been in the world of software. If you look at where the economy has been most stagnant, it's been in basically the heavily regulated parts of the economy, which is where 90% of the people that I represent in the Senate and 80% of the people that I hope to represent as their vice president actually make their living, run their business and go to work every single day. And I think that when I think about tech, one of the things I'd like us to do is broaden the aperture a little bit and think about innovation not just in software, but innovation in transportation and logistics and innovation in energy and the whole suite of things. Because unless our economy is actually technologically innovative, then the stagnant economy is fundamentally like the worst thing. And I think a lot of actually America's pathologies right now stem from the fact that we feel like we live in a very zero sum country, because in some ways we do. Right when the economy is growing 4, 5, 6% a year, then Democrats can kind of get what they want, Republicans can kind of get what they want, and it all makes sense. If the economy is growing between 0 and 1% a year, then I think it makes the whole society and our political system a much, much more insane. And I think that's kind of a subtext of what's been going on in this country for the last 30 years.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Let me start by going back a little bit, I think three of us initially would have been described sort of like, you know, non Trump people.

[J.D. Vance]

Yeah.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

And in different ways and shapes and form. We were all vocal about it because of what was presented to us through the filter of the media. And we've all gone through an evolution in large part by meeting the person. And this is the first time actually where a presidential candidate I've known, and I've kind of known a vice presidential candidate in this case as well, get, you know, they try to corner you and paint you in a certain way. Can you just talk about what you realized and the person that you got to know and what it says about what we need to do so that we don't get manipulated?

[J.D. Vance]

Yeah. So first of all, when Biden was running against Trump, one of the things the media tried to do is to say, well, you know, you have these two guys who are a little bit older than average and both of them clearly aren't fully with it. And I would hear the media talk about Biden like this and then talk about Trump like this, and it's like, guys, Donald Trump remembers exactly what I said about him nine and a half years ago to the minute, to the day, to the exact line like, trust me, his memory is 100% there, even if it would be more in my interest if it wasn't. And what changed? For me, two things. One chamath you just sort of hit on this is a lot of the things the press said about Donald Trump and says about Donald Trump are just straight up fabrications. And so if you think the press is biased, that's one thing. But if you think the press is fundamentally trying to tell you the truth, even if it's in a biased way, and then you realize that, like, Donald Trump never called white supremacists very fine people after Charlottesville. A total fabrication of the American media. It's like, okay, what other things am I hearing about Donald Trump that are actually not true? Right. The second thing is, you know, we talked about this a little bit last night. But look, if you go back to the date of my or the year of my birth, which is 1984, there's this chart that's really interesting, and it tracks corporate profits, the wages of workers and the size of government. And for pretty much my entire life, the wages of workers were stagnant. Corporate profits were going up and the size of government was going up. And there was a four year period where the wages of workers outpaced the size of government corporate profits. It's the four years that Donald Trump was president. And I think that we have to give some credit where it's due. The policies actually work. And if you go into the presidency saying, I don't think Donald Trump's gonna be a good president, and then, lo and behold, he's the best president, at least in a generation, it's like, okay, time to change my mind. Admit to myself, but also to all the people who listen to me, I was wrong about Donald Trump. He was a hell of a good president. And of course, I'm running as his running mate because I think he'll do it again.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Let's flip it around now. What does it say about him that he. I mean, how's that process of saying, jd, you said this. Yes, I did. I changed my mind. But then he has to change his mind. So that says something. So talk us about that.

[J.D. Vance]

You know, I think the president. One thing I'll say about him is, again, the media perception of Donald Trump is that he's like this deeply aggrieved guy who holds really terrible grudges. The actual reality of Donald Trump is that, yeah, he remembers what you said about him because it's like part of the inputs that he takes as he tries to evaluate a human being. But most importantly, he's asking, like, what can you do now? How can you help the country now? How can you help me as I try to help the country now? And I think for whatever complicated set of factors, he decided that I was the guy who could help him the most. But no, I mean, it is interesting, the perception of him as this guy who holds grudges. He selected a guy who was very much a critic of his back in 2015 as his running mate. Clearly, something doesn't make sense. And I think that what doesn't make sense is this idea that Trump is more motivated by grievance than he is by the public interest. He's actually much more motivated by the public interest. That's the truth. That's awesome.

[Jason]

Thanks for coming. Of course you're going to replace Mike Pence.

[J.D. Vance]

I hope so.

[Jason]

Yeah.

[J.D. Vance]

It's going to be a close election.

[Jason]

But if you do, Mike Pence, your new boss. Trump is a little upset at Mike Pence because Mike Pence refused to overturn the election results. And if you were in that same position, what would you do? Would you have overturned the election results?

[J.D. Vance]

Well, I think it's. Let me take issue with the premise a little bit, Jason, because I don't think the argument was Mike Pence could overturn the election results? I think the argument was that Mike Pence could have done more. Whether you agree or disagree, Mike Pence could have done more to sort of surface some of his problems in the election.

[Jason]

Would you not certify the election? Would you have not certified the election?

[J.D. Vance]

Well, I think that what I would have done. I mean, look, I happen to think that there were issues back in 2020, particularly in Pennsylvania. Even some of the courts that refused to throw out certified ballots did say that there were ballots that were cast in an illegal way. They just refused to actually decertify the election results in Pennsylvania. Do I think that we could have had a much more rational conversation about how to ensure that only legal ballots are cast? Yes. And do I think that Mike Pence could have played a better role? Yes. But again, the two premises that I take issue, one is one, Pence was not asked to overturn the election. He couldn't have. But two, the reason he was asked.

[Jason]

To not certify it.

[J.D. Vance]

Sure.

[Jason]

So would you have certified. I'll ask you for the third Again.

[J.D. Vance]

I would have asked the. To submit alternative slates of electors and let the country have the debate about what actually matters and what kind of an election that we have.

[Jason]

You wouldn't have certified?

[J.D. Vance]

To be clear, I would have asked the states to submit alternative slates. I think that's, that's, that's what I would have done. Again, I've said that publicly many times. But again, Jason, the important part is we would have had a big debate, and it doesn't necessarily mean the results would have been any different, but we at least would have had the debate in Pennsylvania and Georgia about how to better have a rational election system where legal ballots are cast. And again, look, I have no personal problem with Mike Pence. I've never really talked to him. But I think that the idea that the reason Mike Pence isn't on board with Donald Trump is over the election of 2020, that's the other thing I want to take issue with, Jason, because I think in reality that if Donald Trump wanted to start a nuclear war with Russia, Mike Pence would be at the front of the line endorsing him right now. And fundamentally, the reason the old guard of the Republican Party hates Donald Trump, it's not because of January 6, 2021, whatever your views on it, it's because Don doesn't think that we should start stupid wars in foreign countries, and that's why they all hate him.

[David Sacks]

Ryan, can I. I have a follow up on that.

[Jason]

Let me Continue my line of questioning, then I'll give it to you because I want to hear JD since he's here. I've heard yours many times.

[David Sacks]

So how many follow ups are you going to have about January 6th? We spend 28 minutes talking about.

[J.D. Vance]

I want to hear David, especially if he gets me out of answering tough questions.

[David Sacks]

So I think you've had like three follow ups on J.C. first of all, Freiberg, you never got a chance to ask your question.

[Friedberg]

I want to talk about policy.

[J.D. Vance]

Let's talk about January 6th for the next 45 minutes. I'm sure it's the most important thing going on in the country right now.

[Friedberg]

Can we talk about policy for a minute?

[J.D. Vance]

That'd be great. Okay, I'd love that.

[Friedberg]

I'll just reflect back on your comment about government growth compared to wage growth compared to corporate profits. There's only so much capital. It gets sucked up somewhere. There's competing interests that suck it up. The government is a competing interest that sucks up capital. Fundamentally, the government has been successful in sucking up capital. And ultimately the government has been proven time and again to be the least efficient way to grow the economy of allocating capital allocators or labor. And Trump has made this commentary that Elon, who's going to be here later today, should come in and help right size the government. You've now, you've now spent a few years as a senator. This is my most distressing issue of all the panic attacks I have that Jason teases me about. It's government spending, the debt level, and ultimately you reach a tipping point. I believe in democracies where the government is spending most, more people are dependent on the government than are not. And that ultimately leads to a very bad outcome for democracy. That's how I feel. And so based on what you've seen as a senator now for the last few years, and based on the commentary that Elon, where would you go in, you know, cut. Where, where's the most kind of efficiency gaining opportunity that we can kind of execute against without needing to go and negotiate with Congress? What's the opportunity ahead for the executive branch? Yeah, to right size government to make things more efficient, to hold things accountable, to improve the way that the government is functioning, which I think ultimately leads to better economic growth and opportunity for innovation because capital flows to the right places.

[J.D. Vance]

So I agree with you. And let me just say, let me say two things and I'll try to answer briefly because I know there are a lot of topics that we can get through. So. So number one, is one of the things that our government should do. Obviously, I think it should be doing less than it currently does. But what it does, I want it to do well. And most importantly, I want the critical social welfare functions of our government to go to the people who actually deserve to be here. So as a United States Senator, I have asked multiple staff members, I've asked officials in various government departments, if you take the. Give or take 25 million illegal aliens that are here in this country right now, how much money do we spend on illegal aliens every single year in this country? And I've gotten estimates that range between $100 billion a year to $600 billion a year. And where does that money come from? Well, it comes from healthcare benefits. Even though illegal aliens aren't entitled to Section 8 housing, their children are entitled to Section 8 housing. There's also a lot of Social Security fraud, a lot of Medicare fraud. So one thing that we could save a lot of money on is actually focusing our national interest on American citizens, people who deserve to be here. We'd save a lot of money that way.

[Friedberg]

That'd be a huge $7.3 trillion budget. What do you estimate that impact to be?

[J.D. Vance]

Well, again, and I'm trying to do.

[Friedberg]

That scene in the movie, Dave, where they go in and they just line. They're like, nope, nope. Or like, Malay did pull everything off the board.

[J.D. Vance]

If you call it a $1.7 trillion deficit. Right. Again, it's between $100 billion to $600 billion, depending on how you cut the numbers. Now, the other thing about that, just to answer your question about efficiency, is I think the government procurement process, especially in military equipment, is really broken. If you go back to Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex, I mean, I was a seed investor in Anduril. I imagine you guys have some Anduril people here today. Great.

[Friedberg]

We had Palmer Lucky here two years ago.

[J.D. Vance]

Great company.

[Friedberg]

Yeah, great job, Jacob.

[J.D. Vance]

One of the things that that company, as I haven't talked to the guys about the details of their business in the last few years, but one of the things that they founded the company on was the idea that the procurement process was broken. And that is definitely true in the. We do way too much cost plus procurement and way too little actual spurring of innovation. And what it ends up meaning is that our equipment isn't as good as it should be and we end up spending a lot more money than we should be. I actually do. You could cut the American defense budget and make our country stronger, but you would have to make the procurement process much more efficient. Now, that's a big thing to tackle, but that's what we're in this business.

[Friedberg]

You have to pass legislation to do that.

[J.D. Vance]

I don't know that you have to pass legislation, but you really, as a president and vice president, you have to be willing to take on some very powerful defense contractors. And that's something that I know President Trump and I very much want to do.

[Friedberg]

And how would you like your role as vice president to be cast differentially from how other vice presidents have operated? What would your role as an individual be just speaking about?

[J.D. Vance]

I want to do all of the good things and none of the bad things. That's my goal as vice president.

[Friedberg]

That's so the ribbon cuttings of the new federal.

[J.D. Vance]

I mean, look, I mean, obviously joking, but the reality is that I want to be a second set of eyes and ears for the president's agenda. Right. One of the things that was true, and he will tell you this, the first time he was. He was President of the United States, is there were people in government, there were people in his own administration that he was a newcomer to politics. He didn't fully trust everybody who was around him. We want to build a team who's actually aligned on the agenda because agree or disagree with Donald Trump on a specific policy issue, assuming the American people make him the next president, and I think that they will, that is the next president, and his policy determinations should dictate the executive administration of government. If they don't, we don't have a real democracy. And by the way, just not to WADE Back into January 6th territory, like, what is a bigger threat, threat to American democracy? Is it that we had a big fight about some of the. Some of the certification in January 6th, and of course, you had some rioters at the Capitol. Or is it that, for example, the Joint Chiefs of Staff didn't obey the President of the United States on troop redeployments in Syria, which actually happened during Trump's administration. Like, if we're gonna talk about threats to democracy, we need the government to be responsive to the American people's elected president. If you don't have that, you don't.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Have a real democracy much. A lot of this, if you design it in one way, has to go through Congress, which, as we know, is sclerotic and basically nothing can happen. And then the other path is for you guys to go ham a little bit and say, okay, what can we do with executive order? Have you had a chance to discuss, if you Win repositioning the focus as basically that what is the totality of everything that we can do from the White House, from the Oval, and then getting all of these. And the other thing that we should talk about at some point is like, it's like an Avengers movie. And now at this point, you, Bobby Kennedy, Elon Trump. So.

[J.D. Vance]

But I don't.

[David Sacks]

The Justice League.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

The Justice League.

[J.D. Vance]

I don't. I don't know which character in that Justice League I am.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

But the point is, like, you know, have you had that discussion about, like, all right, folks, let's not wait for Congress and get a plan ready starting day one. Of all the stuff that can happen through eos, or how are you thinking about this?

[J.D. Vance]

Well, at a high level, certainly, you know, I'm one of the co chairs of the transition team. There are a few others of us who are working on it. You just sort of think about, I mean, look, the way the founders set up our government. Whether you like it or not, there are certain things, especially when it comes to budget and appropriations, you just have to go through Congress, right? You fundamentally have to. Now, I do think that Congress is willing to work with us at least, you know, the first couple of years of an administration, you can largely get the budgetary and appropriations things that you need, but there's a lot that you can do through eo. And by the way, in a lot of ways, I think the enlargement of the president at the expense of Congress is a bad thing. But fundamentally, there is a lot that happens in our government purely through executive orders, through eos. And yes, we're thinking very deliberatively about all the things that you could do through EOS on day one or in the early parts of the administration. And again, not to make this too partisan, but one of the ways that that Biden and Harris opened up the American southern border was through executive orders, right? It was an executive order that submitted deportations, an executive order that ended the remain in Mexico policy. So you can screw up a lot through eos. You can also fix a lot through eos, which is certainly something that we're focused on.

[David Sacks]

Let me go in a different direction. Just in the last couple of days, Dick Cheney endorsed Kamala Harris for president. And that endorsement was warmly embraced by Kamala Harris and the Democrats.

[J.D. Vance]

The same people called him a war criminal, like three years ago.

[David Sacks]

Yeah, well, yeah, I'm old enough to remember back in 2008, Obama first beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary because he had opposed the Iraq war and she had supported it and then he got elected President of the United States and the whole country seemed to recognize that the Iraq war had been a disaster. It destabilized the Middle East. I don't need to go through all the litanies of horribles that happened from it, but there seems to be a widespread recognition. And like you're saying Dick Cheney was kind of demonized as this like the Darth Vader Prince of Darkness type figure, which I think basically was Right. I mean, he was the principal architect of the Iraq war.

[J.D. Vance]

Now I find myself agreeing with everything the Democrats said in 2008 about.

[David Sacks]

Right.

[J.D. Vance]

Total coincidence.

[David Sacks]

On a separate track, a few weeks ago we had Bobby Kennedy endorse Donald Trump. So you now have a dynamic where the Bush Republicans are now Harris Democrats and the Kennedy Democrats are now Trump Republicans. Clearly something big is happening in our politics here. Can you explain this realignment? How do you see it?

[J.D. Vance]

Yeah, I mean, look, one way to think about it is that we traded Dick Cheney for Bobby Kennedy and that's an upgrade I'll take every single day. Look, I mean, one way of understanding is you have to ask yourself who has benefited and who is harmed from the last 30 years of the bipartisan consensus in this country. Right. So you want to talk about a manufacturing policy that I think promoted the offshoring of millions of good American manufacturing jobs. And in the process, by the way, it made us less self reliant as a country that really benefited people like Dick Cheney and Kamala Harris and their donors. It didn't benefit the people that I serve in the state of Ohio. Okay. If you ask yourself who actually went off and fought these ridiculous wars, it was very often working in middle class kids in communities like mine. It wasn't the family of our current leadership class, by and large, though of course there are exceptions. And you go through each of these issues and what you find is increasingly Republicans are the party of working in middle class people. You know, Bobby Kennedy has talked about this a lot and I think he puts it better than I ever could. But that, you know, you go back even 30 years ago and approximately 80% of the counties that represent, sorry, 80% of the wealth in American counties went in places that voted Republican and about 20% of the wealth went to places that voted Democrat. Now it's 70% of the wealth goes for Democrats and about 30% of the wealth goes for Republicans. And you saw this in a big way. I mean, just one illustration is I believe that in 2012 Wall street, which I think Wall street fundamentally has been the main beneficiary of globalization, of a lot of the policies that I pushed back against and criticized over 30 years. Wall street went 3 to 1 for Romney over Obama in 2012. I believe they went 4 to 1 for Clinton over Trump in 2016 and then like 9 to 1 for Biden over Trump in 2020. So there is a massive shift in who makes up these parties.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Wealthy people direct their money to Democrats is what increase.

[J.D. Vance]

Increasingly wealthy people direct their money to Democrats working in middle class people direct their money to Republicans.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Why do you think that is, Jake?

[J.D. Vance]

I again, because I think their policies have benefited. Look, the uniparty, the Kamala Harris's and Dick Cheney's, their parties have benefited a certain group of people, those people are increasingly Democrats. Donald Trump has been pushing back against that consensus and his party and his policies I think benefit the majority of the country. So increasingly, I think the working middle class heart of the country is going for Republicans. Like another, another spin on this. Because I know we're focused on tech in this conference is Big Tech has become increasingly pro Democrat. Little Tech has become increasingly pro Republican. Right. So if you're an upstart, if you're in crypto, if you're, if you're like a small AI company, I think you're much more likely to be pro Republican. If you're a monopolist in Big Tech, I mean look at Facebook, Google, how they're, how they're, how they're putting their resources. It's much, much more pro Democrat. So there are a lot of different spins on it. But fundamentally I think the people who've benefited from the American decline are becoming Democrats. The people who have suffered from it and are pushing back against it are Republicans.

[Jason]

I have a follow up question on that, J.D. which is you were a venture capitalist for a period and Lina Khan has essentially taken M and A off the table. You well know that if we can't get those singles and doubles in the industry, it kind of freezes the industry. And we have a problem with returns which then is creating a secondary order problem where we can't get LPs to put more money into funds because we're not getting those returns. What's the proper way to look at M and A? Because you're, you want to break up Big Tech, from what I understand. And you have a major problem with big tech. You mentioned little tech. What's the proper M and A architecture, you know, to, to balance those two goals there?

[J.D. Vance]

Yeah. So this is obviously very complicated and I, Jason, you probably understand this better than I do. But as somebody, by the way, who's defended Lena Khan against some of her critics from the right, I think what Lina Khan fundamentally gets correct is that big tech really is a threat. It's a threat to free speech, it's increasing oligarchic, it controls too much of what we're allowed to say, and also it controls a lot of the ways in which capital gets invested in these various ecosystems. But where I think linacon goes wrong is that you're exactly right. Like you need the singles and doubles. You need sometimes a medium sized company to buy a smaller company for $300 million. Right. That liquidates founders, that gives the venture fund some money to go back into the system. And I think that, you know, I don't know her super well, but my basic read on Lena is that she is so anti monopoly as sort of a baseline bias, and that becomes anti merger and acquisition as a baseline bias. That Google buying YouTube is a much, much different thing from a $2 billion market cap healthcare company buying a $500 million market cap healthcare company. And I think that we have to sort of draw a very big distinction between little tech and big tech. And look, I'm going to keep on making that argument both in public and private to Lena and hopefully she comes around to our view a little bit because I do think some of her ideas on big tech are right.

[Jason]

I think a good place for us to pivot would be the border. And just talking about this issue more from first principles. When President Trump came on the podcast, we talked about, hey, maybe really talented people, we should recruit them to our country and give them green cards. But very quickly, your group walk that back a bit. It's such a political hot potato and it doesn't seem to me that it needs to be. But you've spent a lot of time in government. Now why can't politicians just do what 80% of the country wants, which is allow very talented people into the country, close the border and make it like a more point based system like Canada, Australia and everybody else. Like, why is this so weaponized by both of your parties?

[J.D. Vance]

Well, I think the reason why it's so difficult right now, and I mean, look, generally I agree that, okay, we're gonna let some immigrants in. We want them to be high talent, high quality people. You don't wanna let a large number of illegal aliens in. Obviously that, you know, that, that is, that's President Trump's view. But I think that the reason why it's so broken down right now is because you have 25 million illegal aliens in this country, and you, like, you can't fix what I would call the minor or sort of less important immigration question until you fix the real problem. And part of that goes back, by the way, to the way in which the system got broken in the first place. So Ronald Reagan, of course, great governor of California and a great president. But Reagan did, in 1986, a massive amnesty program where in some ways, he was trying to do exactly what you're talking about. Fix the problem of people who are already here, make sure that our immigration system is more pro skill, but also close down the border. And what happened is we got all the amnesty, but we didn't get the closing down of the border. And so in order to do anything, I think, meaningful on immigration policy, meaning legal immigration policy, you've got to close down the border and establish some basic order. And to go back to first principles here, I think that people who are generally, I mean, look, this is, I'm sure, a very diverse crowd, and I'm sure there are a lot of immigrants in this crowd, legal immigrants, hopefully. I'm married to the daughter. I'm married to the daughter of legal immigrants to this country. And I, of course, love not just my wife, but the whole extended. I do think they brought. A lot of three of us are legal immigrants. Yeah. But here's the thing. When you allow 25 million people into this country, it breaks down the entire social compact, right? So think about this, okay? You're down on your luck. You lost your job. You get unemployment insurance. You're really down on your luck. You need food assistance from the federal government. I believe, as a conservative, that part of being in the same American family, whether your family's been here for a generation or 10 generations, is that we support people who are down on the luck. We don't want to cradle the grave welfare state, but we want to support people. We don't want kids who are dying because of starvation, because of no fault of their own. We want to promote some basic fairness, and we want to help people out when times get tough. But you can't do that if you extend that generosity to tens of millions of people who can't even be here in the first place. And I think that what Kamala Harris has done at the border, it's not just bad economically, it's not just bad for public safety. She has eroded the very foundation of the social contract in this country. And we talk about division in our politics, and Kamala has this ridiculous slogan we're not going back. The reason why politics is so divided is because she has turned American citizens against one another while she's placed the interests of illegal aliens above American citizens. You want to turn the page and get back to common American citizenship? Stop putting illegal aliens to the front of the line of American citizens.

[Friedberg]

Is the motivation. Do you believe the motivation is endless empathy? Or is it as simple as we want new Democratic voters? Or is there a kind of not publicly spoken about economic argument about bringing wages down, having economic growth, having new buyers in the economy, that there's some benefit despite the 100 to 600 billion?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

And I'll add another one. Guilt.

[J.D. Vance]

Yeah, it's.

[Friedberg]

Yeah, the endless empathy aspect. Yeah, yeah.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I mean, empathy is different than guilt.

[J.D. Vance]

It's all of these things, right? I mean. So let me tell you a brief story. And this goes back to my changing my mind on Donald Trump. I was probably 2017, 2018, I was at a business conference, and I happened to be seated next to one of the largest hotel chain CEOs in America. And my wife was there. And we talk about this as the monopoly story, because the guy is just going off. Maybe he'd had too much to drink. He's going off about how Donald Trump's immigration policies had forced him to raise the wages of his workers. And I was like, oh, that's an interesting fact. Like, explain more about this, sir, please. I want to understand. And he said, well, because we can hire a lot of immigrants, and frankly, we can hire a lot of illegal immigrants under the table, and we can't do that because there are fewer illegal immigrants, so we have to pay our American citizen workers more money. And I'm like, oh, shit, that sounds pretty good, actually. Isn't that, like, what we want is for people to be earning higher wages for doing a good job? So there's definitely an economic piece of it. But I also think, I mean, look, this is chilled out a little bit, partially because we're in election year. If Kamala Harris won, I think it would come back with a vengeance. But think about all these, like, ridiculous land acknowledgements, right, where people say, well, you know, I want to acknowledge that this belonged to, like, this tribe before I was here. And if you genuinely think that you have to acknowledge a Native American tribe from 300 years ago, then one attitude that comes along with this is, why can I control it all? Who comes into the country? Right? I have no right. There's this basic. I think this is the empathy, it's the guilt. It's sort of all these things, but.

[Friedberg]

All structural norms degrade. Exactly.

[J.D. Vance]

I have no right to say who comes into my community. And I think, again, it's deranged. But I think that's part of it. I think the economic piece of it is part of it. It's certainly a vote argument. I mean, Democrats will say this, of course. Republicans are accused of racism for just repeating what Democrats have said. When somebody like Chuck Schumer says, well, you know, we're going to have an emerging Democratic majority because we're going to have all these new immigrants and all the old Americans, well, they're going to vote for Republicans, but we're going to replace them with a bunch of new people who vote for Democrats. It's like, that's pretty sick. But again, if you call it out, you're somehow a racist, even though Chuck Schumer is himself calling it out as if it were a good thing.

[Friedberg]

I just want to ask on a different topic now. Thank you for talking about the border.

[Jason]

I just have one final on this topic.

[Friedberg]

Okay, go ahead.

[Jason]

Which is your plan is to deport tens of millions of these people. Tell us how that will happen, practically. How are you going to take millions of people, put them in cuffs, drag them out while people have their cell phones out recording this, or is that just Trump being Trump?

[J.D. Vance]

Well, Jason, it's. I like it.

[Friedberg]

You like the balance in the podcast?

[J.D. Vance]

Yeah, I do. I do. Though.

[Jason]

In fairness, JD Told me. JD Told me, ask the hard questions, please. I want to address them head on.

[Friedberg]

I did say nothing's offline.

[J.D. Vance]

I think Jason should be on the left and David should be on my right.

[Friedberg]

If I do this appropriately, where am I?

[J.D. Vance]

He's been pulling me to the right.

[Friedberg]

I'll go to the audience.

[David Sacks]

It's funny, he didn't have any of these hard questions for Reid Hoffman. I don't know why.

[Jason]

Sax.

[J.D. Vance]

Jason, wait.

[Jason]

Do you want me to leave the left and go to the right?

[J.D. Vance]

Jason, I'm on the left right now.

[Jason]

But I could go right.

[J.D. Vance]

Okay. Yeah, I guess it depends on perspective. It's my perspective here.

[David Sacks]

It's good debate.

[J.D. Vance]

But, you know, Jason, if the VC thing doesn't work out, you'd make a great panelist at cnn. So. By the way, I love this, and I genuinely think this is what a person who wants to be your vice president should actually do is answer some type of questions.

[Jason]

I do give you credit for that. You will face the hard question. So back to the question.

[J.D. Vance]

Let me answer the question.

[Jason]

Tell me about dragging millions of people out of the country.

[J.D. Vance]

Jason, here. Here's why I find this question a little off, and I will answer it. But it's like somebody who comes to me and I'm, like, eating my lunch and they say, look, that sandwich is ten times the size of your mouth. How are you possibly going to eat that whole sandwich? And it's like, well, I'm going to take a first bite, and then I'm going to take a second bite, and then I'm going to take a third bite. And eventually the problem is going to be, look, you start out with a million people who are what we call criminal migrants, people who have committed violent crimes in some form or another. Get them out of our country. Yes. Handcuff those people and force them out of the country. But you also do other things simultaneously. First of all, you stop the bleeding. Right. You undo Kamala Harris policies that open the southern border in the first place. I've got a piece of legislation in the United States Senate that we've got a lot of colleagues who have signed up for it, which would tax remittances. Right. Because we know a lot of people are earning money and then sending it back to Central America or wherever they came from. If you end that practice, then you have a lot of people who go back willingly. I think you ought to make it harder for people to hire illegal laborers as opposed to American citizens. You tick through these things. And I do think that, you know, that's the sandwich approach to this, is you try to take it one step at a time. But the most important thing, and I think the deportations focus, again, it is important because we're eventually we are going to deport people. But the most important thing is to stop the bleeding. You've got to stop the millions of people flowing across the southern border every single year. It happened because of Kamala Harris's policies. It's going to stop when Donald Trump is president.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Let me ask a national security question.

[Jason]

Yeah.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

There's a lot of videos. Elon's gone down there, Bobby Kennedy's gone down there. You've gone down there.

[J.D. Vance]

Sure.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

And the interdictions are not necessarily coming from countries in Central and South America anymore. They're coming from places in, you know, near. Around. Near Asia and a lot of places that you wouldn't normally think people coming from Middle east, et cetera. From a national security perspective, what do we think is happening?

[J.D. Vance]

Yeah.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Why is that happening?

[J.D. Vance]

Yeah. So. Well, part of the reason it's happening is, right.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

It's not Hondurans necessarily. It's Iranians.

[J.D. Vance]

It's Iranians. It's people from, you know, all over Asia, Africa, Europe. I mean, look, if you look at this, that is the open door, right? So if you want to come to this country, that is the open door. And God knows why some of them want to be here. I mean, you know, given what's going on in the Middle East, I do worry about military age males from Iran coming into this country through the American southern border. But, you know, I actually asked a border patrol agent about this on one of my visits, and, you know, great guy was actually kind of heartbroken because he signed up to protect his country, and he's a relatively recent immigrant. I could tell that by his accent. This guy's, like, very nervous and very heartbroken about the fact that he can't do his job. And he told me this story, and I feel like an idiot in hindsight because he's like, we have a guy who came in here. I asked the guy, like, why do you think this guy's Iranian? And he said, well, because he came through. And he said that he was Mexican. And I was like, well, couldn't he have been Mexican? And he said, well, he didn't speak Spanish. Like, oh, that's a tell. You know, yeah, Mexico, legal alien, doesn't speak Spanish. That's. That's probably a pretty significant tell. But it's. It's happening because this is what Kamala Harris has done. She's created this massive gap in our national security, and people are taking advantage of it. It's really not that surprising. J.D.

[Friedberg]

Let me just ask you one more foreign policy question on China. So there's a balancing act with China, but the rhetoric is, that's our enemy. There's going to be a cold war. The structural relationship that the United States has with China is a very kind of codependent relationship. They buy our bonds. I guess they're selling them off. Now we buy a lot of product from them. It allows us to go into a Walmart and get $40 scooters for our kids or $20 scooters for our kids. The technology industry is deeply dependent on a supply chain coming from China. There is a great commercial interdependency with China. They have historically been a very important partner to the United States and our economic prosperity. And I know the argument about hollowing out the middle class and so on because of moving everything offshore to China, but how do we rip that band aid off and not cause massive problems with inflation? How do we not drive the cost of everything up by tariffing things that are coming in from China. What's the way forward with China? Is it necessarily a deeply kind of divisive cold war, or is there a path here that allows us to maintain a balanced trading relationship and a peaceful transition with China as they continue to build up their capabilities economically and with energy, which I think is one of the biggest drivers for their success.

[J.D. Vance]

So there's a lot there and let me try to take a few pieces of it because I know we're relatively short on time. So, number one is the energy piece of it's very important. Part of the way that you reshore American manufacturing is that you open up American energy. It matters for crypto, it matters for AI. You've got to open up American energy or you're never going to have. Whether it's the next generation of manufactured goods or the past generations, you've got to open up American energy. That's number one. Number two is, look, I don't want to go to war with China. I think it would be hugely destructive. But I do think that we have to reshore more American manufacturing. And one of the weird things about China, if you think about past eras of developing nations, right, so go back to like when the UK was the most advanced economy in the world and America was a developing nation. Well, one of the things that happened is that like, capital was flowing from the UK into the United States, right? From the developed into the developing nation. What's really weird about China is that it's like Americans borrow money from Chinese peasants to then buy the things the Chinese peasants are making for us, right? So it's not just the goods flow that's jacked up, it's the capital flows that are jacked up. And I really think that the next, you know, Donald Trump is going to be the next president of the United States. And this is something we're going to have to figure out, is that you need to balance both the capital and the goods flows. Okay? I'm not saying we're going to have absolutely no trade with China, but right now the relationship is fundamentally that the Chinese have figured out they can create a massively powerful producer of society while America becomes a weaker, weaker consumerist society. That is the broken nature of the relationship. And I think rebalancing is the right way to think about it, but we have got to do it. And I think we're way, way behind.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

The maybe final question. But you said something which I thought was incredibly well said, so I just want to repeat it. When U.S. growth is 1 and 2%. Everybody's fighting.

[J.D. Vance]

Exactly.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

But when U.S. growth is 4 to 5%, everybody prospers.

[J.D. Vance]

Yeah.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Can you walk us through just how you think about how we get that extra 2 or 300 basis points of growth and where you need to have less regulation so that you can have more entrepreneurship or more regulation to kind of constrain folks? How do you think?

[Friedberg]

And less regulation for that energy sector?

[J.D. Vance]

Yeah, I mean, I really do think that we have to recogn that we have massively overregulated the real world. Right. Over regulated transportation, over regulated energy, over regulated home construction. I don't know that it's. I don't know how easy it is to get another 300 bips of growth, but I think you get a lot more growth, whether it's 300 or 150, just by massively reducing the amount of regulatory burden in the real economy. And again, I'm an optimist. I'm fundamentally an optimist on both, you know, crypto, blockchain, Web3 stuff, but also on AI. And, you know, the way out of this may very well be to radically open up the way the technological innovation drives things in the United States. And just on this point about China, I don't know how much time we have, but I'll try to be quick about this. One of the things that Bob likes.

[Friedberg]

To talk about, uni.

[J.D. Vance]

Okay.

[Jason]

It's more about you.

[J.D. Vance]

All right. Well, I'm a politician, so buckle in. We're going to be here for three.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Hours, ladies and gentlemen.

[J.D. Vance]

But one of the real conceits of the 30 years of globalization that I think was really, really deranged in hindsight, very wrong. Bob Lighthizer, who is Trump's trade representative, talks a lot about this is we had this conceit that we could separate the manufacture of things from the design of things. Right. So if you get an iPhone right now and you get it out of the box, you will see that it says designed in Cupertino, California. Of course, the implication is that it's manufactured in Shenzhen or wherever they're manufacturing iPhones these days. The idea that the iPhone is designed in Cupertino is increasingly no longer even true. Right. It's something that we lie to ourselves about because the people who are doing all the manufacturing of the hardware of the iPhone are getting much better at design and innovation. And part of the reason why I care so much about this manufacturing thing is whether it's antibiotics, for example, why hasn't America invented an antibiotic in 30 years it probably has something to do with the manufacture of antibiotics, is done almost entirely in very low cost manufacturing areas. You can go through a whole host of goods like this, but if you want to build a high tech, high dynamic growth economy, you have to have some native manufacturing and some self reliance. And so these two things are very related. And I think it's a big part of getting back to 4 or 5% growth is accepting that, yes, yes, we're gonna have trade, but we can't let everybody make all of our stuff.

[Jason]

Sachs, final question for you.

[David Sacks]

Yeah, well, I want to wrap this up because I think we're basically out of time by just observing that both Donald Trump and J.D. vance have been on this podcast. And it's not because I'm a crazy right winger. It's because we invited them.

[Jason]

Not just because.

[David Sacks]

Not just because. It's because we invited them and they accepted. We have similarly invited Kamala Harris and Tim Waltz to.

[Jason]

And by before that, but.

[David Sacks]

And by before that he forgot. So we're. We're still waiting.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

He said yes.

[Jason]

He lost the zoom link.

[David Sacks]

So we want to re.

[Jason]

Are you supposed to be on this call?

[David Sacks]

Yeah, we want to re. Extend the invitation.

[Jason]

Yes.

[David Sacks]

To be very clear, Kamala Harris and Tim Walts, you're welcome to come on the podcast anytime. And the format will be similar.

[Jason]

Yeah. And I just want to say, J.D. i think your answers were fantastic here today, and I really do appreciate you coming on and answering these questions very thoughtfully. And you know, from my perspective, when I heard that you were announced as the vp, I thought, well, this is great. A young person who's got a lot of experience in venture capital and building things in the world, and somebody who comes from humble beginnings, like the four of us, and believes that a meritocracy where people work hard and get reward for it. So you check all my boxes in that way, and I really think I feel much better. You know, I have my issues with your boss, but when you talk about, you know, the bite size, you know, steps to it, you know, I think one framework to look at your relationship with Trump is he says things, you know, at the top of the. At the highest vibration, we're going to defort 20 million people. And then you have a very practical approach. 60% tariffs, makes no sense. But hey, we've got to rebalance this. And so I really do like your measured approach to this. And I think that you're a great counterbalance and I think we understand why he picked you.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I want to say one thing.

[J.D. Vance]

Thanks.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

And this is not really related to anything except that you are not supposed to be here.

[J.D. Vance]

That's exactly right. Yeah.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

And that is really inspiring to other people who were not supposed to be here. Thank you.

[Jason]

Yeah.

[J.D. Vance]

I appreciate it.

[Jason]

And if you haven't read JD's book, I read your book long before all of this.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Incredible.

[Jason]

And I just want to say your book was so inspiring. And I have recommended it long before today to, you know, literally hundreds of people. It's a fantastic read.

[J.D. Vance]

If you haven't read it well. And by the way, available wherever books are sold. You're like Jake out.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Exactly.

[J.D. Vance]

Do you have an affiliate link 529 account for the kids. JD bands. Just two things. First of all, Jason, I appreciate what you said, but I also just want to defend my running mate here because I think that, again, the media doesn't often tell you the truth about Donald Trump. Donald Trump cares more about the details of public policy than almost anyone I've ever met in public life. That's actually real. He thinks about how this stuff affects the real economy and real Americans. So if you're on the fence, whether you like what I said or dislike what I said, I just encourage you. Listen to what he actually says, because I think that you'll become a believer that he can make the country great again, as he promises. But separate from that, I just want to say this is such an important conversation, and you guys hold and host important conversations every single day. We should do more of it as a country. But I'm glad to participate today. God bless everyone. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Jd. Vince.

[David Sacks]

That's great.