D (3:54)

Well, I think the most urgent question is what's the plan? It appears now there isn't any. The president, I think, quite surprisingly it looked from the reaction on Marco Rubio's face during that press conference at Mar A Lago, said we're going to run the country, but we don't know what that means and we don't know through what means who they're going to be working with. Ironically, what they've done so far is re legitimize the the current regime and that really sort of undercuts the rationale for the change. Instead of going to the fellow that rightfully won the election last year, they've reinstalled the vice president who is part of Maduro's regime. So right now we don't see what the plan is. I should mention, by the way, you're talking about consultation with Congress. It's been reported today that the president didn't consult with Congress before this action, but he did inform the oil companies before this action, which is, you know, I don't know quite how to react to that. But we're the people's representatives and we should be informed about the kind of action that's now taking place.

A (5:05)

Right. There's been a report that the president had told top oil executives that something big was coming. Not the specifics perhaps, but but to get ready for something big in the region. You have called Nicolas Maduro a bad guy who deserved justice, but also said that doing the right thing only matters if it's done the right way. What is the single biggest line that you are concerned with right now that the US May have crossed and what checks do you have as a member of Congress to make sure that that doesn't happen?

D (5:40)

Well, I think the biggest problem there are two major geopolitical problems. The first is this is a sort of re establishment of spheres of influence, geopolitics going back 100 or 200 or 300 years where basically the president has said we can do whatever we want in the American continent. He's talking about Mexico, he's talking about Colombia, of course, has taken action in Venezuela, threatening Greenland. So the problem with that is, Diana, that that's a hall pass for Xi Jinping and for Putin to do what they want in their, quote, sphere of influence. I don't know how we say to Xi Jinping, no, you can't go into Taiwan, which is a lot closer to China than Venezuela is to the US or to Putin. No, you have to stay away from the Baltics and leave Ukraine when we've essentially opened that door. It's a very, very serious geopolitical problem. The second major problem is as I've been doing this work now for a dozen years or so, I've come to realize that America's asymmetric advantage in the world is allies. We have allies. China has customers. Russia only has people that they have their thumb on. But the allies, the alliances that we have around the world, not only in Europe but in Asia, are what give us the power around the world to influence events and to defend our interests by sort of systematically poking the eye of our allies, now Denmark, but also they go out of their way to poke our European allies whenever possible. That undermines American national security. And that's what really worries me. And if you read the so called national security document that was issued about a month ago by the administration, it talks about the Western Hemisphere, which is not a major problem. And yes, drugs are a problem. I fully support efforts against drug trafficking. But our major rivals in the world are Russia and China. Let's be serious. It's not Venezuela, it's not current Colombia. We need to deal with a drug problem. But in a geopolitical sense, we're, as my mother used to say, we're straining at gnats and swallowing camels here.

A (8:01)

Well, as we heard last night on our network, top Trump adviser Stephen Miller introduced and said effectively what you just described and owned it, saying that this is going to be now the Donroe Doctrine, not the Monroe Doctrine, but the Donroe Doctrine, which essentially suggests that because the US Is the world's leading superpower, it can effectively do what it wants, especially in its own hemisphere. And also was asked about Greenland, which he said inevitably should be part of the United States. Here's what he said, though, about the logic behind what he views is the correct policy for the U.S. going forward.

B (8:42)

The United States is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere. We're a superpower. And under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower. It is absurd that we would allow a nation in our own backyard to become the supplier of resources to our adversaries, but not to us to hoard weapons from our adversaries to be able to be positioned as, as an asset against the United States rather than on behalf of the United States.

A (9:13)

So let me pick up on one of two points made there. The first is US Control over our own hemisphere here, which he called absurd, that that wasn't the case until now. And he's suggesting that with control over Venezuela, a stabilized Venezuela with the current regime, minus Nicolas Maduro, who was the head of the regime, the if that regime will work for the foreseeable future alongside US Policies and initiatives, they can stay in place, perhaps later then can have elections. There are some that are suggesting that that is a better path going forward than focusing on bringing in someone like Maria Machado from the opposition immediately because there may be some disjointedness between her government and that of the military there. What is your take on that logic?

D (10:09)

Well, the first thing I want to say is what this action has done is converted us from being a world power to be a regional power. It's reduced American power and influence around the world by focusing on the narrow issues involved in this hemisphere. Let me talk about Greenland for a minute. We've had a military base, an air force base, now a space force base in Greenland for 75 years, since 1951. In the President last night on Air Force One, I saw the quote, he said we need Greenland for national security. I am utterly convinced and certain that Denmark and the people of Greenland would be very receptive and cooperative to working with us on national security issues, whether it's an additional base, whether it's a port facility or whatever is needed to defend the, the national security of North America and the world generally. So that really isn't the issue. It's sort of similar to Venezuela. This was all this talk about drugs and the repressive nature of the regime. But if you listen to that press conference at Mar a Lago in the last two or three days, it's become more and more clear this is really about Venezuelan oil. And that's what the president keeps talking about and keeps talking about. And is that a proper are we going to be in the business of invading and taking over other countries in order to deal with their natural resources? And I know there are questions about the oil industry in Venezuela and expropriation in 1976 and all of those kinds of things, but I think we need to be very clear about what the goals are here. And as I said at the beginning, I just want to hear what the plan is that they've decapitated the Leadership of Venezuela. They've installed the vice president who is part of the Maduro regime. They've said, well, maybe elections someday. But again, I'm still trying to figure out what it is a what are our goals? What's our plan for achieving them? And my worry is, as I mentioned, Diana, that this really undercuts our authority and our ability to influence world events across the globe. This is a narrowing of American influence as opposed to any kind of broadening influence. I should have said all, by the way, what the military did was amazing and they're incredibly competent and I'm not taking anything away from that whatsoever. It's just a question of what happens next. And it's become pretty clear in the last three years, days, nobody knows.

A (12:42)

Would the status quo then, in your opinion, and not removing Maduro been more optimal for the United States?

D (12:49)

Well, I don't know. The question is, does it make any difference? Is Maduro's vice president and leaving all of the armed forces and the secret police and everybody that he had in place, does that improve the lot of the Venezuelan people? People, does that change the circumstances? But the issue is, I mean, Maduro's a bad guy, as I said, and he was illegitimate. He overran their democratic process. He definitely was involved in drugs. But even that is not a very credible argument since a month and a half ago, this president pardoned the former president of Honduras who was convicted in American court of being a major drug smuggler. So it's hard to say that drugs are bad with Maduro, but it was okay with Hernandez. There's no overall strategy or rationale for the policy that we've undertaken. And as I said, I think it really undermines American security rather than enhances it.

A (13:50)

Let me finally end by asking you about something that happened much closer to home and the halls behind you there five years ago today. That was the storming of the Capitol on January 6th. Five years ago. Trump, as we know, has granted amnesty to the nearly 1600 people who were implicated in the riot. Just earlier today, he was criticizing the investigation into the riot, into the prosecution of those who had stormed the Capitol and continues to say that he won election. Just talk about your perspective and your concerns that there continue to be diverging narratives here on what happened that day. Really a rewriting of history for a large section of the country when we all saw with our own eyes exactly what happened.

D (14:40)

Well, that was what I was just going to say. This is the old saying of who you're going to believe, me or your own lion eyes. I mean, I was here. We all know what happened. You saw it. We all saw it on the screens of America and of the world. And also we had police officers who were injured and attacked. And the idea of pardoning people who violently attack police officers, I just, I don't understand that. I think that kind of violence is never justified. And by pardoning the people, what you're really saying is if you commit violence on my behalf, you're going to be okay. That's not law and order where I come from.

A (15:22)

Senator Angus King, thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate it today.

D (15:27)

Thank you, Diana.

A (15:29)

Well, for all the uncertainty surrounding Venezuela's future, the Trump administration is projecting total confidence, grounded in force, though, not diplomacy. Here's White House aide Stephen Miller speaking to CNN yesterday.

B (15:43)

We live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else, but we live in a world in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time.

A (16:07)

So what does this assertive claim of US Power across the Western Hemisphere really mean for not just Venezuela, but also now Greenland? Joining me now is former National Security Council Senior director for the Western Hemisphere, Juan Gonzalez. Juan, welcome to the program. First, just your reaction to what we heard from Stephen Miller.

E (16:26)

Well, I mean, I think the removal of Maduro closed one chapter, but it's opened a much more dangerous one. I think this actually risks implicating the United States in a much more drawn out military conflict that the voters that supported Donald Trump do not want. And I think particularly in the Western Hemisphere, if you're using power, you're, you know, I think you can, you can point guns at your friends for only so long before they start pointing guns back. So I think this is an approach that's going to alienate and marginalize the United States, not just in the Western Hemisphere, but in the broader international community more broadly. It actually puts China in a role where they are the protectors of an international system. They just called the UN Security Council meeting to criticize what the administration is doing. So this is America First. Is America alone in this regard?

A (17:14)

Well, we've seen Russia and China criticize and speak against some U.S. actions. We actually haven't seen them physically respond. And the question is, will they? Is this a deterrent or is this a green light for China or Russia to act similarly in their own regions? That is yet to be determined. I do want to speak about Your piece in Foreign affairs calling the ouster of Nicolas Maduro Maduro the end of the beginning. You say many Americans see Maduro's removal as a clean victory. What is the single biggest illusion you think about how this played out and what has unfolded in the first 48 hours since his ouster? What are some of the concerns you have?

E (18:01)

Certainly. Well, we're already seeing it play out. The scenario underway right now is Dulcie Rodriguez, the vice president, is now the acting president. The military remains intact. The security services remain intact. The criminal and patriotic network remain intact. And so it's not regime change, it's autocratic change. But that handoff is already unraveling. We've seen a spike in violence, intensified crackdown. There's still roughly 800 political prisoners in the country. Arrest, intimidation are increasing. And I think that tells you everything you need to know about how fragile and how coercive this arrangement really is. So, I mean, I think fundamentally, stability without legitimacy doesn't hold. There was also an election in July of 2024 where there was a legitimately elected president, Mundo Gonzalez. And Secretary Rubio on Face the Nation called that election illegitimate. So I think it's unclear here what the administration's approach is. There's no plan. It started out as democracy promotion, then it was drugs, and now it's about oil. I think it's been unclear, and the administration's been lying to the American people and to Congress about it.

A (19:06)

Well, there are some parallels that some are making out of concern that this could once again look like an Iraq 2.0 sort of the mission accomplished when the result is anything but that. And those who make that argument sort of miss what the US has done thus far by saying, you know what, instead of bringing in the opposition immediately and calling for elections immediately, let's work on stabilizing the situation. And by working with some of these more pragmatic as they're being described, like Delsey Rodriguez, officials who will, maybe it's because of strength and pressure from the United States, agree to follow US Policy and at least temporarily stabilize the situation before then elections are held. This was, I believe, from some reporting, the suggestion and advice from the CIA. Is that not, in your view, perhaps an indication of some lessons learned and some actual planning that went into this operation?

E (20:19)

Yeah, certainly there have been a lot of references to this administration learning the mistakes of de Ba', Athification, where they dismantled the whole kind of infrastructure around Saddam Hussein. But, you know, at the same time, this effort to try to manage and run the country, as Secretary Rubio is from the outside, is not, is not going to age well. And we're seeing that in terms of the chaos inside of the country. But I think we need to be clear with ourselves, you know, particularly if you look at the President's own worlds, that this is all about oil. I think this is where the mercantilism that I referred to in my article in Foreign affairs becomes more dangerous. You know, when you, when the control over revenues becomes the central prize, it creates enormous incentives for corruption, not just inside of Venezuela, but fundamentally in the United States, particularly with this President's tendency to self deal on this. I point out briefly when you approve licenses for companies to operate, individual licenses are private. So I don't think it'd be really important for this administration to be transparent about which licenses it's approving. And it's a question of how many of them are going to be Mar a Lago donors. I think that's something that Congress needs to have incredible overview oversight over what this administration is doing. But I think to what Stephen Miller said, I think the Dunrow doctrine, the idea that engagement is optional and unilateral is sufficient. That approach, I think is something that leaves the Western Hemisphere with no agency and it tells basically countries that decisions will be made for you and not with you. And I think right now the democracies along the Western Hemisphere are scared, frankly, not just of instability in Venezuela, but of course what it means to the United States to start acting unilaterally whenever it doesn't like the outcome. I think that's very concerning. And I think there's a chance maybe that Marco Rubio pulls this off. But I think history tells us, and we're seeing this play out right now, that this is going to go horribly sideways. And the question is, are we going to put boots on the ground? Because it'll take, I don't know, 30 to 50,000 US Marines to actually control the situation in the country. And that's not what this President was elected to do.

A (22:24)

Yeah. And it's still unknown whether that will ultimately be the case, that the President has threatened that that could happen. But thus far there are no US Troops on the ground in Venezuela, but we know we have a large naval presence still around the country. You were instrumental in Venezuela U. S Venezuela policy under the Biden administration. And on the one hand, he did take a hard line on Venezuela, at least rhetorically and tweeting as President, I will stand with the Venezuelan democracy that's speaking against Maduro on the Other hand, senior officials traveled to Venezuela and met with Maduro and his government specifically over concerns of oil prices. Looking back, were there mistakes made in your administration in perhaps neglecting the Western Hemisphere and this specific issue in keeping Maduro in place?

E (23:20)

Well, the Biden administration took a very different approach to Venezuela. So we invested in a democratic outcome. The reason that there were elections, the democratic moment that led to the election of Edmundo Gonzalez was something that the United States helped facilitate. We worked through election sanctions relief tied to conditions and international legitimacy, and we treated Venezuelans as legitimate political actors. That approach was slow and it was fragile and incomplete, but it was grounded on the idea that legitimacy matters. I think where Biden tried to shape the outcomes, Trump is owning what is happening right now in Venezuela. And you need to meet with your adversaries. The president has met with Putin. He's met with the leader of North Korea as well. You need to have these conversations to negotiate an outcome. And I think, understandably, the democratic process takes time, but it is the sustainable approach. And that's what history tells us, that when the United States comes in and invades a country, particularly in the Western Hemisphere. But we've seen a lot of examples this century, in the last, the outcome is generally not good.

A (24:23)

Yeah, I think the concern and some of the criticism around the Biden administration engaging in talks with Maduro is that that seemed to be out of a place of concern and panic and weakness with oil prices now looming after Russia invaded Ukraine instead of out of a position of strength. That is some of the criticism I do want to ask you about additional criticism that you personally received after your last appearance on this program. In November, the Human Rights foundation publicly accused you of a conflict of interest. They claim that you stand to benefit financially from the continuance of the current Venezuelan regime due to links to bondholders who have financial interest in keeping the regime in place. How do you respond to those accusations?

E (25:13)

Yeah, I mean, yeah, I mean, first, I'll say just on your last point is United States was able to secure the release of all the Americans that were detained inside of the country. I think that on its own is one of the reasons to actually negotiate with this, to bring Americans home. And that's the number one responsibility that the president had. We're not going to make any apologies for that. On the second is, look, I don't lobby, I don't represent foreign governments. And my position has always been consistent from the time I was in the administration to now, which is we need to support a democratic outcome in the country and that the Venezuelans really should be the ones that determine their future and they should have agency. I'm not getting paid by people to say this. These are my opinions and they'll continue to be my opinions. They're not for sale.

A (25:55)

Juan Gonzalez, thank you so much. I urge everyone to read your piece in Foreign affairs. It is a very thoughtful one and obviously very timely as well. Thank you for the time and do stay with cnn. We'll be right back after the. Now to Ukraine, where Russian strikes killed two people on Monday. The strikes forced nighttime evacuations into freezing temperatures and they came a day before leaders from the coalition of the willings, Ukraine's key allies, met in Paris. They're discussing security guarantees for Kyiv as part of a renewed push to end Russia's war against Ukraine. For more on this, we're joined by Alexander Nebreshko, a member of the Ukrainian Parliament and head of its Foreign Affairs Committee. Alexandra, it's good to see you. So what specifically does Ukraine need to see in the riding here to be confident that any sort of security guarantees will in fact hold if this war, which hopefully comes to an end soon, if, God forbid, there is another attempt at re invading or perhaps even better, that it serves as a deterrent from that happening ever again?

C (27:08)

Thank you for having me. You're absolutely right. This is a key point and the key subject matter for discussion right now within the framework of the coalition of the willing, what can deter Putin if he decides, and I'm unfortunately, we're all sure that he will definitely try to attack Ukraine in the future because he cannot be trusted. Absolutely, on the basis of all our previous experience, we are absolutely certain that sooner or later, even if we have some kind of agreement or peace plan, he will try to attack Ukraine again. And the key question is how to deter him. What measures should be taken? And in our situation, the best security guarantee remains the same, which is NATO membership for Ukraine because Putin, he doesn't dare to attack NATO members. If we are talking about alternatives of of course, this is the matter to be discussed. And again, there might be some kind of measures having cumulative, so to speak, effect to deter Putin. But again, the key question remains the same, what can stop him from attacking Ukraine? And at the present time we don't have clear cut answer to this difficult but important question.

A (28:24)

Can that question be answered without the United States actively participating in guaranteeing security?

F (28:30)

Yes.

C (28:33)

I believe that the United States might be a sufficient deterrent because this is the country which Putin is afraid of as a dictator and that's why participation of the United States will contribute highly, would enhance our chances of survival, and it will be a deterrent, reliable deterrent. This is exactly what we need. From another perspective, from another angle, participation of the United States gives excellent example for the European countries to follow. It encourages them to be more active in terms of supporting Ukraine and providing reliable security guarantees.

A (29:16)

In addition to security guarantees, President Zelensky has said that Ukraine is 90% there in terms of this deal put together by the United States and amended by Ukraine. But the 10% not only concerns security guarantees, but territorial control as well. Ukraine constantly says that there's nothing they can do on this issue because they are constitutionally bound not to give up territory, especially territory that they still remain in control of. Do you see any potential for amending that in hopes of getting to a deal?

C (30:00)

President Zelensky has mentioned that now we have 10% to finish the deal. But he also said that this 10% is everything. These are key issues, including what is known as territorial issue. Of course, we should always keep in mind that Ukraine is the victim of the aggression and we cannot agree to any territorial concessions whatsoever. We cannot sacrifice our territories, our people, for lots of reasons, for constitutional, legal reasons, for reasons of international law. Politically, it's impossible. Morally, it's impossible. And right now I don't see any kind of alternative to that. I don't see any format which would allow to solve this issue. I strongly believe that we shouldn't make any territorial concessions because it will only encourage not only Russia as an aggressive state, but also potential aggressors, because they should be punished, not rewarded with territorial concessions.

A (31:04)

That is your view, and that is the view of most Ukrainians. But practically speaking, do you think at the end of the day that that view can hold?

C (31:17)

I cannot imagine whether it's at all possible in practical terms, because the previous suggestions with regard to demilitarized zone, or so called free economic zone, to me they don't sound something which can be implemented in practice. I cannot imagine, for example, what will happen to the cities which are right now successfully defended by Ukrainian army in the Donetsk region. What will happen to these cities, to the people living in these cities, under which control, under which jurisdiction they will be. That's why for me, it's even from a practical, pragmatic perspective, it's just impossible.

A (31:59)

The US capture of Nicolas Maduro has triggered outrage in Moscow, Russia, accusing Washington of imperialism without irony there. I'm wondering whether this weakens Russia's stance in these negotiations. Negotiations. Does the US show that it has strength and perhaps views that as a deterrent for Russia to not only continue its war, but perhaps finally agree to end it. Or do you think that this stands to benefit Russia by saying, if the president of the United States is going into other sovereign countries, I can continue to do the same?

C (32:42)

Putin has lost his ally. Maduro was a dictator who had been helping Putin to wage war against Ukraine in different ways. But he was very helpful. And it's a great news for Ukraine, it's a great news for democracy for people in Venezuela that Madura was toppled. But now we are at the dangerous crossroads. And now we have to make a choice to continue to stand for democracy, for rule of law, including international relations, or to divide the world into spheres of influence. And it might be very dangerous path to take. But I hope that President Trump will take the right path. He will support democratic elections. He will give a chance to people in Venezuela to decide their fate at the democratic elections. I'm a member of caucus in Ukraine and parliament Free Venezuela. We support democratic forces in Venezuela bravely fighting against dictatorship. And for me, from my perspective, it gives a chance for people in Venezuela to choose democracy and to build a free democratic society. And they need support in this. But at the same time, I'm professor of international law. I strongly believe that America should give example, should set example of complying with, supporting, respecting international law, the UN Charter and its principles.

A (34:08)

Yeah. Language specifically, as you outlined, supporting democracy in Venezuela is not something we've heard from the president yet since that raid to take Maduro and his wife on Saturday here to the United States. We'll see if he changes and focuses on that in the future. I do want to end by asking you about what Vladimir Putin also has as a top goal, and that is the division of the west and of the Western Alliance, NATO specifically. Now, with President Trump saying, and his administration saying that their next target perhaps could be Greenland, Denmark, their leadership saying if that's the case, that is the end of NATO as we know it. How concerning is that for Ukraine?

C (34:54)

Denmark is one of our closest friends and supporters. We're tremendously grateful to people of Denmark, their government in parliament for helping Ukraine. They're helping a lot and they value very highly international law. They respect territorial integrity of Ukraine. They're NATO member. So I believe that we should allow Putin to sow discord and to undermine transatlantic solidarity. Because when we're talking about democracy, it's also about rule of law. It's also about international law. And I strongly believe that we should respect territorial integrity of Denmark. And I'm absolutely sure that President Trump will also respect territorial integrity of Denmark.

A (35:38)

Alexander Morezko, appreciate you joining us today. Thank you.

F (35:43)

Thank you.

A (35:44)

And we'll be right back after this short break.

G (35:52)

Welcome to our ugly home. Reddit is back for a historically hideous season. It's our 100th ugly house. This place is mayhem. That is impressive. And if these walls could talk. Do you cry a lot?

F (36:07)

I do.

G (36:09)

They'd have a lot to say. What in God's name is this pit?

D (36:14)

Don't get too close.

G (36:15)

You've seen the show. I'm scared of that. Ugliest house in America. All new Wednesday at 8 on HGTV.

A (36:22)

The engagement that broke the Internet. A Taylor Swift wedding is a pinnacle moment of celebrity culture. Could it have a dollar ripple effect on the wedding industry? I do. The Taylor and Travis era now streaming on the CNN app. Well, a lot can change in five years. And many people watching the January 6th insurrection on this day in 2021 might not have predicted Donald Trump's re election when he returned to office last January, Trump pardoned groups of supporters who stormed the Capitol after he lost the 2020 election. While the president has made no official mention of the anniversary today, some protesters marched to the US Capitol to commemorate Ashley Babbitt and four others who died in the rioting. Pardoning the insurrectionists is just one of many actions Trump has taken since returning to office that critics call an attempt to reduce January 6th to an afterthought in American history. Philosophy professor and author of How Fascism Works, Jason Stanley says the U.S. supreme Court court has played an outsized role in those efforts. And he joins Hari Srinivasan to discuss why.

F (37:32)

Bianna, thanks. Jason Stanley, welcome back to the program. You are joining us on January 6th. It's the fifth anniversary of the January 6th insurrection. You served as an expert advisor to the January 6th committee. And about a year after you wrote that America was entering, quote, a legal phase of fascism, warning that the insurrection was being followed by legal and legislative mechanisms like rewriting election laws and restricting voting rights. Here we are now, five years later. Has your opinion changed?

G (38:04)

No. And I think the Supreme Court ruling that has given the president essentially, well, carte blanche over so called official acts makes the situation we face even more dire as we've seen in this past year.

F (38:20)

I want to get to the legality of the Supreme Courts in a second, but let's talk about Venezuela right now. Does the does the end justify the means? Because there are people that are rejoicing In Venezuela and outside who? Even the Nobel Prize winner, Maria Corina Machado. She celebrated this operation. She said in a statement. As of today, Nicolas Maduro faces international justice for the atrocious crimes committed against the Venezuelan people and against citizens of many other nations. In light of his refusal to accept a negotiated solution, the government of the United States has fulfilled its promise to uphold the rule of law. I mean, is there justification in the eyes of the administration saying this was a despicable human being and he should not have been in power? We tried to negotiate an end to it, but didn't work out?

G (39:12)

Well, what would you think if another country kidnapped President Trump, saying that he has done all these illegal things? He's not very popular, he's despotic. Obviously, that would be a violation of international law. Obviously, Maduro is horrific. Obviously, Venezuela has faced terrible things under his rule and under the prior rule of Chavez. However, none of that is an excuse, just as it would not be Trump's misrule. Trump's open illegality would not be any kind of excuse for to take out Trump. Similarly, Trump isn't suggesting at all that Putin should be taken out in any possible way. And Putin has destroyed his own country, killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens in a pointless war, killed thousands of Ukrainians. There are plenty of death spots. But what's the difference here? The difference here is that that Trump can. There's oil in Venezuela, and Trump can benefit those who support him. Trump can benefit companies. Look, this connection between oligarchical interests and autocrats is well known from history and the current moment. If you support the oligarchs, if you support the autocrat, he will enrich you. So that's what we're seeing now. Presumably, there are oil companies, oil executives who are going to profit from this, as well as people close to the president. So the motivation here is clear. It's nothing to do with democracy or the betterment of the Venezuelan people. Also. So Trump has used this to say he's going to target other countries. Colombia. Colombia has a leftist president. He said that he's now threatening Colombia. There's no sign that Colombia is collapsing in any way. And now he's saying he's going to target Greenland, and Greenland obviously is not. Denmark has not subjected Greenland to any kind of autocratic rule.

F (41:45)

So, you know, you have documented and pointed out that there is a global shift towards the right. And I wonder what the actions of the United States in the past week, in the past year, what they do to other authoritarians, other Despots, other dictators around the world.

G (42:03)

Well, Trump is clearly signaling to Putin and Xi that they can do whatever they want in their local areas. And, of course, his Ukraine policy has immensely favored Vladimir Putin. And now these actions are a signal to Putin that there is no international order left, that every authoritarian leader, every dictator can exert power over neighboring countries or any countries they wish to profit from. Trump is signaling that there is nothing the United States would do. In fact, the United States is taking the lead on just these kinds of actions.

F (42:50)

The response from most people when they hear you, and as you draw these parallels and these comparisons, they're going to say, look, it's not fair to compare the United States to a place like Hungary or wherever we have these institutions that are checks and balances on the White House. So let's first, let's talk a little bit about the Supreme Courts. What layer of confidence do you have that the Supreme Court is going to be able to be any sort of a check on a rise in executive power?

G (43:25)

None. Because the Supreme Court seems fully committed to keeping this far right machine in power. So even well after Trump, we can expect the supermajority, the conservative super majority, many of whom were appointed by presidents who are not elected by the popular vote, we can expect this conservative super majority to legislate in such a way that keeps the machine behind Trump in power. We've seen that with the use of the shadow docket. The shadow docket, they have ruled again and again and again and again for the Trump administration. This Supreme Court was a block on the Biden administration. They halted the Biden administration's policies across the board. One of the most notable examples would be the attempt to forgive student loans. So the disparity between their relationship to the Trump regime and their relationship to the Biden administration is notable. That disparity shows that this is simply a partisan. Partisan really undersells what we're seeing here. This is the Supreme Court that's gonna block anything any Democratic administration is going to do. They blocked so much of what the Biden administration was trying to do, and they're going to use the shadow docket. There's going to use various methods to simply overrule lower courts, decisions that find problems with what the Trump administration is doing. And they're just going to keep handing this administration what they want, and they'll keep on doing that for whoever is in power as long as they are part of this far right machine. So that's a problem that's going to extend well past Trump this was part.

F (45:37)

Of the reason when we spoke last time about why you had personally chosen to move to Toronto, move to a university there, because you felt like the views that you expressed could be targeted.

G (45:52)

Yeah, I mean, I'm of two minds about that. I mean, I think my move to Toronto will make sense if what I can build here, along with others at the Munk School at the University of Toronto, can help US democracy. If it can be a place where people can come and we can bring people who are free to speak and free to strategize about how we can get out of this situation, and a liaison with other people from countries like Ukraine, Russia, Brazil, who have faced or who have faced or do face similar situations, then the move will be positive. I think, you know, it goes. I don't think that this regime has been successful in targeting. I mean, I think they have too many targets now. Right? I mean, I think they're brutally targeting noncitizens. So many people in the United States are now wondering whether they're a target. And I think what we've seen is a normalization of that. When I go to the United States now, what I see is this very crazy situation being normalized, and people are like, see, you could have stayed. And I think I could have stayed without a doubt at this point. But this situation where you constantly have. You're like, wow, legally, they could target this huge swath of people, and that might include me, or definitely could include me, because I'm definitely calling the Trump administration fascists. But they can't target everyone, and there's a lot of incompetence here. So does that mean you're safe? Does it mean you're not safe? Who knows? And I think people in the United States are learning to live with that situation. And so you see this incredible normalization, which is kind of remarkable to me. There's a term that's emerging, sane washing, that I think you find the media doing. That is related, but different concept than normalization. Sane washing is sort of representing what this administration is doing, the extreme actions they're taking as sane, trying to find some rationale for them. The normalization seems to me something sort of more in the air. When I go to the United States, people are more careful about what they say. People are. Are sort of accepting the craziness of the situation. And the situation does seem crazy from the outside. So I go back and forth about my decision. I mean, my decision had multiple elements. It's been very hard. It's really hard. At the age of 56. To uproot yourself from your home, to separate yourself from all of your friends, to start anew in a completely new place. That has been much harder than I accepted. And I meant my decision less to be a decision about myself and more to be an expression of a political statement about the United States. And I think it was a political statement about an effective political statement about the United States. It did express to the world, okay, when. When people leave, that is concerning. Probably more effective than any other political statement I've made.

F (49:34)

You know, we've also witnessed the sort of dismantling of certain agencies, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for example. Or even just in the last couple of weeks, we had Donald Trump add his name to the Kennedy center building. And, you know, when you're talking about normalization, I guess, do you see this sort of. Whether it's collusion, marriage, cooperation between state and corporate interests getting any better? Because it seems like if it has essentially four years, at least two years plus two more to flesh itself out, that we might be at a point of no return.

G (50:17)

I don't. We are at a point of no return. There is no return from.

C (50:21)

And Right.

G (50:21)

The merging of state and corporate interests is, of course, a signature sign of fascism. But we are at a point of no return. What are we gonna return to? I mean, how would you reimpose. I mean, any future president can become. Make billions of dollars. Now what are you gonna say? You're gonna say suddenly the rules apply again? You know, the future of the United States is very, very unclear. The reputation of the United States is in tatters. America is very unpopular. America will never stand for democracy again. America stands for cruelty and white supremacy right now in the world. America, inside America, the banks. You know, Jamie Dimon, it was reported today, has made over 700, has something like $700 million in compensation. The billionaire people are just gobbling up the money, the profits. And we have this classical structure of throwing cultural meat to poor men, and then just the corporations and the oligarchs gobbling up the money. How do you return from this level of corruption? I don't see how you can return from it. The question is just how we build something new. There's gotta be something new that is built. Mamdani in New York is kind of possibly sketching that. It's gotta be something that stands up to this merging of state and corporate interests, but it's gotta be something new. There is no return. There has to be. Some future politician will have to sketch a. A new vision for America and really some kind of new country.

F (52:15)

Professor Jason Stanley from the University of Toronto, thanks so much for joining us.

G (52:19)

Thank you.

A (52:21)

And finally, as many Ukrainians continue to live the strain of war, some are finding reprieve in braving tough conditions of a different kind. The ice cold stripping down in the snow. These Kyiv residents are marking Orthodox, Orthodox epiphany by plunging into a frozen lake. It's a ritual symbolizing spiritual cleansing and renewal. And indeed, many participants came out feeling rejuvenated with one saying, quote, after dipping in icy water, I feel less pain. And yes, it does give hope. I want the war to be finally over. Word said as the war is approaching its fourth year now. All right. That is it for us for today. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can always catch us online on our website and all over social media. Thanks so much for watching and goodbye from New York.