Rep. Adam Smith on the War Congress Didn’t Approve

Summary

---

American Power – Episode Summary

Podcast: American Power
Episode: Rep. Adam Smith on the War Congress Didn’t Approve
Date: May 13, 2026
Hosts: Nat Towsen, Chad Scott, Mr. Global (Matt Randolph)
Guest: Rep. Adam Smith (Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee)

---

Overview

This episode dives into questions of U.S. war powers, executive authority, the evolving U.S.-Iran conflict, energy policy under stress, economic anxiety, and decision-making in a precariously shifting geopolitical world. The hosts are joined by Congressman Adam Smith, a long-serving voice on U.S. defense and foreign affairs, for a direct and at times blunt discussion of Congress’s role in war making, domestic policy malaise, and the limits of America’s political and economic systems.

---

Key Themes and Discussion Points

1. The War Powers Resolution and U.S. Conflict with Iran

• Congress sidelined: Smith outlines the constitutional struggle over war powers—Congress’s theoretical authority to declare war vs. the President’s practical control over U.S. forces.
  • Smith: "This is a 200 plus year battle between the executive and congressional branch... the President has exercised his power as commander in chief in a way that Congress has been very, very hard pressed to stop." (03:12)
• Congress’s practical tools: Public opinion, funding cutoffs, and formal disapproval are noted as the only real levers Congress holds. But Smith bemoans these as increasingly ineffective under the current administration:
  • "This president seems somewhat immune to [public opinion]. And the Republican Party seems somewhat immune to public opinion right now. So that isn't working as well, but that's what we can do." (05:53)

---

2. Sanctions, the Role of Diplomacy, and Lessons from Iran

• Sanctions vs. war: Smith contrasts the power to levy sanctions with the authority to initiate war. He defends his vote against limiting presidential sanction authority as an effort to keep diplomatic flexibility.
  • "I've long been of the opinion, and this war, I think, is proving me correct, that... diplomacy in negotiations is the better option than war." (07:43)
• Executive latitude: He acknowledges wanting to “preserve the President’s decision space” to avoid what he calls “the catastrophe that is the current conflict in the Middle East.”

---

3. Energy Policy, Gas Prices & The Gas Tax Debate

• Oil markets are global: Smith dismisses the idea of U.S. energy independence.
  • "It is a global marketplace, okay? We produce more oil than we consume right now... but it's a global market." (10:18)
• Only real independence: Reduce the role of oil in the economy by investing in alternatives—nuclear, wind, solar, and future fusion.
• Gas tax 'holiday': Both Smith and Mr. Global oppose the move, seeing it as a gimmick that does little for struggling Americans and may simply boost oil company profits.
  • "I hate the idea of getting rid of the gas tax with an absolutely abiding passion." (14:51)
• Root of U.S. energy dysfunction: Policy is reactive and lacks systemic change; prosperity came at immense environmental cost. "You can't run a country that way," Smith says of trying to please everyone with handouts while refusing to raise revenue. (13:11)

---

4. Affordability Crisis & the Political Economy

• Core American costs soaring: Housing, healthcare, education, and energy are now far less affordable than in Smith’s upbringing, squeezing the middle class and undermining opportunity.
  • "That’s the problem. How do we rework that math so that a middle class existence is possible again?" (18:24)
• Free stuff & giveaways: Smith is wary of politicians promising “something for nothing” on both sides. He blames both left and right for unsustainable “all rights, no responsibilities” politics (16:40-17:14).
• Tax and redistribution: Smith is clear that higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations are part of the solution. He criticizes stock buybacks and concentrated wealth as symptoms of a rotting system.
  • “Capitalism in America has become so concentrated in who benefits from it that it's rotting us to our core.” (21:50)

---

5. US-China Relations & the Trump-Xi Summit

• Hopes: Detente, not confrontation—economic interdependence makes decoupling unrealistic. Smith wants "some way to peacefully coexist with people we disagree with."
  • "China is a big major economic player in the world, and that's not changing. We need to figure out how to manage our relationship in a way that is less confrontational." (25:45)
• Fears: Trump is erratic and transactional; Smith fears personal deals may undercut U.S. interests, especially over tech transfer (e.g., “3 nanometer chip technology”) vs. symbolic gains (Trump family enrichment).
  • "We've got a president of the United States with the attention span of a gnat, so who the hell knows what's going to happen?" (25:45)

---

6. Energy Transition & Utilities

• EVs as unsung heroes: Mr. Global observes that 62 million new EVs since 2022 have offset demand, keeping oil prices lower than expected, despite Middle East turmoil. Smith agrees: “Your point about EV is awesome. I will absolutely steal that going forward.” (32:18)
• Structural flaws: U.S. utilities are profit-motivated and discourage efficiency. Smith calls for regulation and incentives to reduce usage and promote alternatives:
  • “The biggest problem with utilities right now is they disincentivize reducing consumption and using alternatives... I would put incentives in place to get people to use less power.” (33:43)

---

7. Comparing Obama vs. Trump on Troop Withdrawals from Europe

• Context matters: Obama’s drawdown was pre-Ukraine invasion and part of a strategic shift toward Asia. Trump’s are cast as erratic and retaliatory.
  • “Trump does it for the pettiest of reasons on a whim like that, without thinking through it. That's the problem... When Obama did it, it was part of an overall thought out strategy.” (35:19)

---

8. A Note of Optimism: Workforce Development

• Smith ends by expressing genuine optimism about expanded training, apprenticeships, and coordination between schools, unions, and businesses to produce “good paying jobs and help our economy.”
  • "I'm seeing a massive increase in apprenticeships... That has significantly improved just in the last five or six years. I continue to be very optimistic about that." (36:57)

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• On Congressional Power and War:

  • Smith: "The bottom line... is yes, the president has a lot more power than we do. We have to be persistent and creative to try to contain and control his use of the military." (05:53)

• On Biden’s Iran Policy:

  • Smith: "He stepped out into the street and the truck kept coming. And now he's standing there like, now what do I do? ... He has weakened our position by giving Iran basically the freedom to seize control of the Strait of Hormuz." (09:58)

• On Gas Tax Politics:

  • Smith: "I hate the idea of getting rid of the gas tax with an absolutely abiding passion. Is, Is. Is the short answer to your question." (14:51)

• On Systemic Economic Frustration:

  • Smith: “We have stubbornly insisted on not [changing policy]. So you’re absolutely right about that.” (13:11)
  • “So much of the wealth that we have generated in the last 50 years has gone to a very, very few people.” (21:50)

• On the Future of U.S.-China Relations:

  • Smith: "I'm not a decoupler. I'm a de-risker." (29:26)
  • "As long as we can keep Kushner and Witkoff the hell out of China and let our actual diplomatic team do their goddamn jobs, then I have a little bit of optimism." (28:50)

• On Utility Reform:

  • Smith: "Part of being an American is it is your God given right to waste whatever you want to waste. That's why we came to America, by God, wide open spaces. You know, we'll go grab a chunk of land and do what we want on it. Only not in the 21st century." (33:46)

---

Important Timestamps

• 02:09–06:25: The war powers fight, congressional limits, and practical consequences.
• 09:13–15:00: Discussion on the Iran war’s energy effects, gas tax "holiday," and global oil dynamics.
• 18:24–22:26: Affordability crisis—housing, education, wages—and critiques of both right and left’s political giveaways.
• 25:45–29:15: US-China summit: hopes for détente, risks of presidential unpredictability.
• 32:18–34:22: EV market shock absorber, utility structure, and the need for efficiency incentives.
• 35:19: Obama vs. Trump troop drawdowns in Europe—different context and intent.
• 36:57: Smith's optimism about workforce development and job training.

---

Episode Tone & Final Thoughts

The episode is candid, substantive, and direct—Smith repeatedly gives unvarnished takes, at times calling strategies “really stupid,” critiquing his own party’s weaknesses, and calling out both left and right for pandering and short-term thinking. The hosts engage deeply with Smith’s answers, often pushing back or seeking clarification, with particular emphasis on the inadequacy of surface-level fixes to deep economic problems.

The discussion is rigorous but maintains humor and accessibility, particularly in host banter and the opening/closing segments.

---

Summary prepared for listeners who want the substance behind America's evolving power struggles—on the battlefield, in Congress, and at the pump.

Transcript

[A]

Foreign.

[B]

Hi, I'm Nat Towson. You're listening to American Power. I'm your host, speechwriter, comedian, other kinds of writer, and most notably, of course, podcast host of I am joined as always by our panel of experts, our policy and military expert, Chad Scott. Chad, how's it going?

[A]

It's going well. Super. Glad excited for this conversation.

[B]

Me, too. And our energy expert, renewable oil, the entire energy sector. You know him as Mr. Global. I'm here with Mr. Matt Randolph.

[C]

Hey, Matt, how are you?

[B]

I'm doing great and I'm very excited because we do have a special guest today, and I want to jump right into that conversation so we can get into the meat of it. Today we are joined by Congressman Adam Smith. He's a ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee and one of the longest serving voices in Congress on national security, military readiness and US Foreign policy. And Congressman Smith previously served as chairman of the committee and has spent decades overseeing the Department of Defense, U.S. military operations, weapons procurement, force readiness, and America's broader strategic posture in the world. He's been deeply involved in debates surrounding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the current situation in the Middle East, China, support for Ukraine, Russia. There's so much we're excited to talk to him about, including the current conflict with Iran. And he represents Washington's 9th congressional district, is widely regarded as one of the key congressional figures in shaping democratic defense and national security policy. Please welcome to American Power, Congressman Adam Smith.

[D]

Well, thank you, Nat. Appreciate the opportunity.

[B]

Of course. Congressman, we're really excited to talk to you today. And we want to talk about initially about the we're currently pertaining to Iran. I think it's what's on people's minds right now. So I'm going to want to start with that. And we are well past the May 1 deadline for the War Powers Resolution. And I actually wanted to ask Chad, did you want to jump in and ask a more specific question about that? Because that's where I'd like to start the discussion today.

[A]

Yeah. So as Nat was alluding to, Congressman, sir, the when it comes to Iran, we we're past that, that May 1st deadline war powers resolution, the 60 days where a president is supposed to end unauthorized hostilities unless Congress authorizes them. The president seems to be getting around this by saying the ceasefire is in place. But let's be honest, I feel it like it really only exists on paper. We all somewhat know that a blockade is broadly seen as an act of War. The US conducted further strikes on May 7, but the administration said, quote, Unquote, that was below the threshold of hostilities, which I don't know how much more hostile you can get than striking the enemy. But given the President's stance on Iran, do you believe Congress still has a meaningful decision making role here, or has his presidency effectively taken over that Article 1 war power from Congress? And practically speaking, what can Congress do now? Do they pass new authorizations, forced to withdraw, restrict funding, or are you guys in Congress just left trying to catch up after the President has already committed US Forces?

[D]

Yeah, there's two separate conversations here. One is the policy around the Iran war itself, which is deep, deeply troubling, and I know we'll get into that a little bit. We talk about that piece of it. The only problem with the analysis that you have is it sort of takes us down a procedural path, which is fine. I think it's, I think it is really important who has the power to commit forces, how do you handle that? But right now, in the short term, the more important part is we are stuck in a bad place in Iran. Never should have got in there in the first place. So how do we get out of it? But with that said, I will walk down the procedural role. And yes, this is a 200 plus year battle between the executive and the congressional branch. The founding fathers made the President the commander in chief of our armed forces, which empowers him to use those armed forces as he sees fit, and then very vaguely gave Congress the power to declare war. They do not define what war is or anything about it. And historically, the President has exercised his power as commander in chief in a way that Congress has been very, very hard pressed to stop. So as a practical matter, yes, the, the President and all presidents have had this power and they've used it in a variety of different ways. Gosh. President Clinton, you know, started hostilities against Serbia and Kosovo without congressional approval. That ended before 60 days. But Congress actually voted on it and we voted it down. It was a tie vote, but it didn't pass and he went ahead anyway. You know, Barack Obama initiated hostilities against Libya and asked for congressional approval. Sorry. He notified Congress that this was happening after 60 days. He said hostilities had ceased. So there was never a vote in Congress, even though hostilities had not ceased after 60 days. So, yes, as a practical matter, the President's natural executive authority, he's one person who has to make one decision. We're 535. We have to figure out some way to agree that gives the executive greater power. Now, I think the courts have expanded that power in a very Unwise, unconstitutional way in a series of rulings. But just as a natural matter, one person, executive branch, controlling all that, is going to have more power than a body of 535 people. Now, what we can do and what we've been voting on is to disapprove the war is basically say, no, you have to stop this war until you get congressional approval. So we can do that. Now, thus far, no Republicans are sorry, a couple of Republicans have voted for those things haven't passed. So the other thing we can do is cut off money, something that was done to help in the Vietnam conflict. So we can do those two things. Right now the biggest role that Congress plays in all this is to drive public opinion, because most presidents, the current one seems to be an exception to this rule. But most presidents do respond to public opinion. And if a war is widely unpopular and Congress is part of driving home that message, that will cause the president to recalculate. This president seems somewhat immune to that. And the Republican Party seems somewhat immune to public opinion right now. So that isn't working as well, but that's what we can do. But the bottom line, answer your question is yes, the president has a lot more power than we do. We have to be persistent and creative to try to contain and control his use of the military.

[A]

Well, thank you, sir. So now I know you me and you were talking offline and you had a really great question that pertained to this that came.

[B]

Yeah, I was curious because voted on a 2023 bill about sanctions in Iran and limiting the president's power to add or remove sanctions. You voted against that. I'm curious if you could talk about the motivation behind that vote and whether you regret it or whether you feel how you feel it factors into the current crisis.

[D]

Well, the sanctions are different than war.

[B]

Yes, I'm well aware. I'm curious how you feel that it connects.

[D]

Entirely different conversation. Look, I want to give the executive branch power to do foreign policy. And certainly sanctions have historically been something that the president has had a fair amount of control over. So I see it as an entirely different conversation. And look, I am not unmindful of the challenge that Iran presents now. I think the maximum pressure campaign of using sanctions was actually working before we stupidly stumbled into this war.

[A]

Iran was a player in that Hamas negotiations. And what I believe was taking place was President Biden was negotiating a release of hostages, while at the same time we were trying to get kind of rein in the powers, Republicans trying to rein in their powers of the president.

[D]

Sure. I didn't want to tie the President's hands to negotiate. I've long been of the opinion, and this war, I think, is proving me correct, that as difficult as the Iranian problem is, and as problematic as they are, that diplomacy in negotiations is the better option than war. So, yes, I wanted to preserve the President's decision space, to make those decisions, to confront the Iranian challenge without stumbling into the catastrophe that is the current conflict in the Middle East.

[B]

Actually want to kick it over to Mr. Global for a second and talk to you a little bit about the energy sector. Matt, is there a. Is there a question that you'd like to lead with here? I have a few thoughts myself.

[C]

Sure. Yeah. Today, the President announced that he wants this gas tax holiday. This was something that came up in 22. And one thing I noticed immediately was that a lot of the folks that were against this in 2022 are suddenly big fans of it. I heard Mike Lee come out today, and. And he suddenly wants to get rid of the federal gas tax permanently in 2022. He's. He. He called it every name in the book. I was just curious because I opposed it in 22. And now, honestly, it's. Yeah. And honestly, it's one of those things that I don't think it's the end of the world if it passes. Like, it's not something I'm passionate about. I just believe in letting the markets do what they will. And I think this sort of extends things that don't need to be extended. But I just wanted to get your thoughts on the gas tax and how you look at that and how you feel about it, honestly.

[D]

Sure. There are several different layers here. Let me try to walk through this quickly. I think it is important to frame the conflict in Iran. And essentially, you know, the President has said all manner of different things, but putting apart what he said, and you can see what happened, it's very clear that when he started this war, he was convinced that a 3, 4, 5 week bombing campaign could essentially break the Iranian regime, either hopefully overthrow it, or put them to the point where they would capitulate to whatever we want. That's what the President thought. That was really stupid. Okay. And anyone looking at the military reality of who Iran is and what an air campaign can and cannot accomplish would have very quickly concluded that. But he did that.

[B]

That's a pretty popular conclusion on this podcast as well.

[D]

Just so you know, he stepped out into the street and the truck kept coming. And now he's standing there like, now what do I do? And that's where the blockade come from. Well, we'll leverage them that way. I won't walk down that road. But that is unlikely to be successful as well. So he has weakened our position by giving Iran basically the freedom to seize control of the Strait of Hormuz. Because Iran can argue to the world, hey, we're doing it because we got an existential threat coming at us. If they tried to do this without us attacking, then the rest of the world would have been far more sympathetic to our position. Now we're kind of screwed, all right? And we need to negotiate the best settlement we can negotiate. I don't know what Trump's going to do. He doesn't know he's going to do. It's bad point. Now, how does this affect energy? Two pieces to this one. There's long been this myth that somehow we can become energy independent, that we can drill enough and produce enough oil and whatever else, coal, so that we're no longer dependent upon the globe. Well, and Mr. Global, I'm guessing from your name that you understand this. It is a global marketplace, okay? We produce more oil than we consume right now. Now, by the way, I will point out that we also produce more oil than we consume under the Biden administration, all right? This notion that he was shutting down, you know, fossil fuels is ridiculous, but it's a global market. So if the price goes up, I mean, our oil companies are making a lot of money right now. So if you happen to live around where around that, good for you. But if you happen to have to buy the product, you're screwed. So the only way that we're going to reduce our dependency on Middle east oil, which has been something we've been talking about ever since the first oil crisis in the mid-70s. The only way to do that is to reduce our dependency on oil itself, okay? And to give ourselves alternatives. You know, the only way you have an alternative is if when you come driving up to the gas station and gas is $7.50 a gallon, you have the option of plug it in your vehicle or getting another source of power. And that gets us into a long conversation about developing those other sources of power. Nuclear, very important. But even wind, solar, geothermal, fusion is coming. I'm optimistic about fusion, believe it or not. So making massive investments and giving ourselves options. Look, I don't blame the 20th century for what they did. We had a clear energy policy throughout the 20th century. Cheap oil, that was the policy, and that drove a lot of the politics. They got us involved in the Middle east and elsewhere, a whole bunch of other places. But here's the thing. It worked. You know, we, we, we grow the, grew the most prosperous economy the world has ever seen, and we had a affordable energy. But that's not going to work now. So let's come up with a different energy policy on the gas tax. This drives.

[B]

Work with enormous environmental costs too, I feel like we should point out. Right. Like it's not. That wasn't sustainable at all ever.

[D]

Right.

[B]

But it worked economically, you're saying.

[D]

In our defense, when the whole thing started, we really didn't see that coming. Okay. You know, we, we didn't make the conscious choice to go ahead and burn everything down. It was like, well, you got to use energy and then the planet, 9 billion people.

[B]

It's true that we didn't know about carbon emissions as much in 1890 as we do. Yes.

[D]

Yeah. And that's kind of my point is once we learned that it was time to develop a different policy and it's

[B]

just been a few decades since then. Yeah.

[D]

Oh, gosh, yes. Oh, heavens, yes. This was 30 years ago, 40 years ago, maybe. And we have stubbornly insisted on not doing that. So you're absolutely right about that. As far as the gas tax is concerned, look, our debt has just reached over 100% of GDP and the. We are living in something for nothing. All rights, no responsibilities, politics. And it's one of the things that I, I've been doing this for a long time. I'm not sure how much longer I'm going to be able to do it. Because if my job is simply to give people something for nothing, promise them whatever they want to hear, you know, that's. You can't run a country that way. You know, I mean, it was, he was Trump. Not only is he trying to increase the defense budget by 50%, he did $4 trillion for the tax cuts. And then no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on anything, no revenue. Okay. Taxes are the price you pay for civilization, as the cliche goes. And now we want to get rid of the gas tax. So what? So we can just officially bankrupt the country once and for all. You know, and here's the other thing about the gas tax, and I'm, I'm not certain about this, but oil companies price their product by and large at what they think people are going to pay. I don't know what the federal gas tax is. I suppose I should, but it's probably 20, 25 cents, something like that. You get rid of it. How Much of that savings is really going to go to consumers and how much that oil company is going to say, look, we got them used to paying six dollars and a quarter for gas. Let's just keep them paying six dollars and a quarter for gas.

[B]

And if the holiday ends, are prices likely to actually decrease in response, or do we think that they will just keep them at the level that the consumers are already willing to pay?

[D]

I hate the idea of getting rid of the gas tax with an absolutely abiding passion. Is, Is. Is the short answer to your question.

[B]

That's pretty unequivocal, even though I'm glad

[C]

you said that, because to me, it will only increase demand. You need demand destruction in that market. You like. The cure for high prices is, is the high prices. People buy less. That, that brings up the supply, it lowers the price. In addition to that, I think it's largely psychological, and it's also meant to improve polling numbers. One way I framed this to my, to my followers last week was, you know, you're going to save 10 bucks a month on gas. If the government sent you a check once a month for $10 to help you pay for gas, would you be excited about that or would that actually make you angry? Because it's such a pittance. And I think when you think about it in those terms, people are like, yeah, that would, like, I probably wouldn't even cash it. Like, I'd probably throw it away. I'd be so angry. So I'm, I'm with you. I, I do oppose the gas tax. I, I think it does. Really?

[D]

Yes. Yeah.

[C]

The suspension.

[B]

We think we should have a gas tax benefit.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

That's your thought?

[C]

Yeah, I, I oppose the suspension as well, and I did in 2022 also.

[B]

I'm only nitpicking for clarity, but. So, Congressman, is this just another example of the classic Republican strategy of, like, fighting sticker shock versus actual systemic shock change? Like, like the, the idea is essentially you're saying, you know, you need taxes, taxes at the price of a free society. I totally agree. This is just another example of, oh, the cost that you're paying out at the pump or the, you know, people aren't doing the major calculation of how much taxes are actually improving. You know, where that money is going. But you can see when you're spending money, is it just relying on people misunderstanding costs at that very, very basic level?

[D]

Well, I think it's simpler than that. And it's not just the Republican Party. You know, it's just promising people money. You know, and that's something I worry about, you know, right and left. It's like, yeah, I know the easiest way to get someone's vote is to give money. Okay. You know, but at the end of the day, you wind up in debt up to your eyeballs and not having made any good decisions. And I see this on the left and on the right, we Democrats promise free health care, free childcare, free education, free transportation, free housing. That really doesn't work past a certain point.

[C]

Point,

[D]

you're right.

[B]

So I don't think the promise has really paid off. I don't think we have anything that you just listed. Like, I, I, I, I hear what you're saying, but it hasn't failed yet. We haven't tried any of, I mean, you know, maybe some municipal levels, but there's not, I mean, Massachusetts has health care, you know, but yeah, these are not like failures of implementation. What's that?

[D]

Yeah, I mean, they, they have a healthcare system that, you know, that makes sense. So yes, promising free stuff to people is a cheap way to get votes. But you know, now the debt is, well, depending on, you calculated that the publicly owned debt is at like, I think $32 trillion a year. Sorry, $32 trillion total. We don't, we just don't have a lot of space to promise any more free stuff. And yet we keep doing it.

[B]

Do you think perhaps that the optics, just purely optics. Right, because you're talking about giving people money, promising free stuff is very easy to be happy about. Right. Do you think that, that perhaps reframing the focus on affordability rather than free or kickbacks or things like that is a way that we can move forward? Because I think a lot of Americans very obviously are feeling crushed right now

[D]

and yeah, please don't misunderstand me. Right. The issue of costs is 100 problem and it's, and it's somewhat easy to explain this. And I, I know this, I, I grew up in a blue collar family. My father was a baggage handler at United Airlines. Modest lower middle class, but I know what the basis were of the opportunity that I was able to have. And there's really four big costs and then there's the wages part of the equation on the other side. But housing, healthcare, education, energy. When you go back to when I was born in 1965 and raised out in city of Seatac, what my family had to pay for those four things throughout, you know, my growing up, you know, which I guess extends through my law degree when I was 25, it is less than 10% of what it is now when you, I mean, education staggering. That the tuition that I paid for the seven years of education that I got, I, I added it up the other day. I paid like $32,000 total for seven years of education, including the law degree from the University of Washington. And I graduated in 1990. That same number to go to those same schools that I went to now is pushing $500,000. Okay. The house my father bought for $15,000 in 1971, very small, very old, now is going for four or $500,000. All right, so that's the crotch. That's the problem. How do we rework that math so that a middle class existence is possible again? And there are challenges to this. That's why I say just promising people free stuff is not a solution. Because, I mean, we are in a more competitive globe than now than we were when I was growing up. And we still had the after effects of the post World War II advantage that we had. We weren't competing with China or India or Taiwan for that matter, or South Korea or in these other countries. Now we are. So we're not going to be able to provide as much, but we can provide more. Gets. The other piece of it is core, is the fair distribution of wealth. I mean, so much of the wealth that we've generated in the last 50 years has gone to a very, very few people. You know, in terms of billions of dollars, wages should be higher, benefits should be higher. Yeah, we should do more for health care. I'm not saying we shouldn't do more for healthcare. We just shouldn't promise people that it's going to be free. This is not free. Someone's gonna have to pay something somewhere.

[B]

So you're saying we should tax the wealthy so that we can afford to have universal healthcare?

[D]

Well, actually, what I would like to do, yes, I mean, I certainly think we should change the tax structure in this country so that the wealthy pay more 100% or at all. The other thing that we need to do is. Yeah, in some cases, I mean, the way they've set it up, structure, they're not paying anything. In some instances, it's just absolutely appalling. The other thing, however, is corporations. Really interesting. I was out in the Bay Area over the weekend, I sat down with OpenAI and I didn't understand exactly what OpenAI was when they were, when they were founded. They were founded as a non profit, but then they moved into a sort of medium category and I know they're having a big ugly lawsuit about that right now that I don't fully understand. But, but they were basically, they were not, I don't know, they weren't a C corp. They were some other type of corp. And in that corporation, they had an obligation to the community and to their workers that most normal corporations don't have. Okay, so things like stock buybacks, where companies take their profits and instead of pouring them back into their workers or their communities, they pour them back into their shareholders. All right, if we could change that. That's not just the tax structure. That's changing how corporations use their profits so that they're not just rewarding the investors, but they're rewarding everybody. We need to comprehensively change this system because capitalism in America has become so concentrated in who benefits from it that it's rotting us to our core. That whole thing needs to be changed, but it's not going to be changed by just saying, here's free housing and no taxes, by the way.

[B]

I mean, I think so often that's sort of why I was talking about the strategy of like sticker shock prevention of, oh, you don't want to pay your taxes. Of course that money goes to all the services you use. We all understand this, but I do think you're right in diagnosing that so many Americans are so squeezed that any amount of affordability or any amount of kickback, not kickbacks, but you know, any, any amount of discount refund can override your ideology. Because as, you know, as, as it gets harder and harder to have, as you were describing, a middle class existence,

[D]

you're going to grab at that. But let me challenge that just a bit. I think you're right and I think that there are a lot of people who are struggling to pay the mortgage, struggling to pay rent, struggling to make for it. But look at something like the, the salt, the state and local taxes issued become a big deal. And basically what this is, is you can write off the state and local taxes that you pay on your federal taxes. But back in 2017, Trump, weirdly, one, one thing that I actually agreed with, he capped the amount that you can write that off and I think was $10,000, which by the way, cost me, I'm in a high tax state. But we're talking about attacks on the upper middle class. We're not talking about people who can't afford a house or, you know, can't afford to pay, pay their bills. You know, we're talking about the upper middle class, which I am, okay. And oh my God, these people just scream Bloody murder that this was the worst thing in the world. The taxes were increasing the. And so we just changed it. I, I, I think we upped it like 40 or $50,000. So we saved people who are making somewhere between 250,000 and a million plus dollars a year. We save them money on their taxes, all right, to run the deficit up higher so that we're less able to deal with housing and healthcare. So it's not just the people who are struggling to pay their bills who think that they're owed more. It's pretty much everybody. I mean, my God, look at Sergey Brent, all right, dude's worth $250 billion. There's a tax, the billionaires tax is going to cost him 12, you know, and in California, California, the United States of America has much to do. Had as much to do with that guy making all the freaking money he made in the first place. It created the environment so he could start this company, so he could make gobs of money. And in return, we're asking for like 2% of it to help keep things going. And he said, oh, I'm going to move. I'm moving to Nevada. This is so unfair.

[A]

If I could pivot a bit. Something kind of piqued my interest on was what you brought up. You're talking about the competition we had with places like South Korea, Japan, et cetera. One of the bigger events that's going to take place here soon is this upcoming summit between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. It's going to take place, I believe, on May 14. What do you hope this summit produces when it comes to US China relations? Whether that is reducing tensions, perhaps in the South China Sea, lowering the potential temperature over Taiwan, or even perhaps maybe getting some support from China when it comes to Iran or dealing with Russia and Ukraine and ending those wars. Or do you just hope it focuses on some other aspect like trade or something like that, and then just kind of secondly, what do you actually expect will happen? So you have what you hope will happen, and then what do you expect will happen? Because obviously the, the current administration's policies.

[D]

Yeah, I'm not, this is not going to be a short answer, I'm afraid, but what I hope happens is a movement towards a form of detente. And that is not a popular opinion, because everyone wants to take on China and beat China and defeat them, and they're screwing us and we got to screw them back. Look, China is a big major economic player in the world, and that's not changing. And we need to figure out how to manage our relationship in a way that is less confrontational. Confrontational because China, I mean, we've got major trade conflicts and certainly we've heard about the tariffs, but now we've got China. You know, we are trying to block other countries from buying products from Chinese companies, and they are responding by trying to block U. S Companies. Any U. S. Company that agrees with that policy will now be sanctioned in China. In fact, they're blocking executives from leaving the country if they, they adhere to this. So we are in a rapidly escalating piece of warfare that is bad for us, bad for China and bad for the globe. We need to chill. And I know, look, I know China. I know about the uyghurs, I know about their threats on Taiwan. I know about how they suppress their people and a thousand different things. I'm not going to war over any of that, okay? We have got to figure out some way to peacefully coexist with people we disagree with. And this idea that if we disagree with people, well, we'll go ahead and crush them and bend them to our will. We gotta stop that. So I want to talk. I was actually in China. I led the first congressional trip to China in like six years. Met with all the high level leaders in China. I love our ambassador to China, David perdue, former senator from Georgia, really smart guy. He's doing his best to try and heal that relationship. Now, look, Trump has put us in a very weak position. You know, he started this war in Iran. This got us in the horrible position I described earlier. He started this tariff war with China, and China was like, okay, we'll just stop buying your soybeans, devastated our farmers. We'll stop giving you the critical minerals that you need for your national security. All right, so we put ourselves in a weakened position, but I hope we find some way to say, hey, look, whatever our differences may be, they are not intractable. They are not, you know, it's, it's you or us sort of differences. So I hope to move towards the time as far as what does I expect. We've got a president of the United States with the attention span of a gnat, so who the hell knows what's going to happen? All right, you know, he could show up and decide he wants to make peace. They could, like, I don't know, not give him his favorite dessert at dinner. So he decides that he's going to double the tariff on him. I mean, and I'm not kidding, by the way, all right, this is who we've Got running this country a child, okay? A temperamental child. So is he going to be smart enough to see past that and actually negotiate an intelligent deal? I mean, may as well go to the roulette wheel, put it on a number and hope for the best. But what we need. And let me just say one final piece of positive news here. Again, I mentioned David Perdue, his team at the embassy in China, top notch. As long as we can keep Kushner and Witkoff the hell out of China and let our actual diplomatic team do their goddamn jobs, then I have a little bit of optimism.

[B]

What about our CEO delegation that we're sending over there? You don't trust them? So what about our CEO delegation that we're sending to China? You don't think, say, Elon Musk is going to negotiate a good deal for us?

[D]

Yeah. So which CEOs you send over there? Some of our CEOs are sensible people. Look, I mean, they're. They're in the middle of this. I mean, they're trying to figure out. It's like, you tell us we can't do business with China tells us the. China tells us you can't not do business with China. And so we're caught in the middle and being jerked all over the place. What I've always said is I'm. I am not a decoupler. I'm a de risker. And, you know, that's why I told China, it's like, look, I understand that you are worried that we're trying to stop your ascent, and to some degree, we are, because we're competing. I don't think we want to do that. But on the other hand, it's not unreasonable to say that we don't want to be 100% dependent upon you for things that are absolutely critical to us. So if we want to manufacture some of these in Malaysia or Vietnam or Australia or bring them back home, I mean, China right now is going all scorched earth trying to stop us from being able to generate other sources of things like rare earth, minerals and other critical manufacturings. They got a whole bunch of tools they play to coerce other countries into not letting us do that. They need to chill on that. We need to chill on trying to block everything that China is doing. So, like I said, some form of detente would be enormously helpful.

[C]

One thing that I think is getting missed and all the messaging, because there's a lot of energy experts right now shaking their heads or scratching their heads that gas hasn't hit $5 a gallon yet because this disruption is significantly worse than the OPEC 2020 deal, plus the, the Russia, Ukraine war. And with all that going on in 2022 that drove gas prices up, I think a lot of people are missing the fact that over 60 million EVs have hit the market since 2022. And that has removed almost, not quite, but almost 3 million barrels of oil a day of demand from the market today that existed in 2022. And it's, if you think about it in those terms, EVs are saving us a lot of money on gas right now. I did a whole model on this this morning. Gas would have already eclipsed its 2022 levels if it wasn't for those 62 million or whatever EVs that have been built since 2022. I just wanted to point that out because I think that's a sort of a messaging thing a lot of people are missing. The one question I'd like to ask you, Mr. Smith, is when I teach my people online about how utilities work and how they're structured, they don't like it. This model where, you know, you have a lot of private equity coming in, a lot of very rich, a lot of money flowing into utilities, buying up, they're making a lot of money. The ratepayers have to pay for everything they buy, basically. And, and how do you feel personally about the way our utility system is structured in the United States? Is there anything that you would change in that respect?

[D]

Yeah, I'm not an expert in that area. And first of all, your point about EV is, is, is awesome. I will absolutely steal that going forward. But that's, you know, part of the reason it is bad. And if we expanded that, it would be even less bad. Look, I think biggest problem utilities right now is they disincentivize reducing consumption and using alternatives. Because, look, I mean, the utilities, they're selling a product and how many companies out there are excited about. Okay, here's what we're going to do. We're going to create a situation where we want you to sell less of your product. There's a natural antipathy to that. So I think we need to more intelligently regulate our utilities based on the premise that we want to generate more power and more efficiency. One of my great frustrations in energy and I, I certainly have a frustration now that we're backing off on making investments in renewable sources and new sources of energy when it's so desperately needed. But the other one is we still haven't invest, invested in efficiencies in this country. And there's so many simple things we could. Same generation of power, but if you have better light bulbs. I always remember it was like 25 years ago, I was in Japan and I got into the airport late and I'm walking up there and I notice, I see the escalator and I'm like, yeah, shit, the escalator isn't working. I walk up to it and it starts when I get close to it. Because there's no point in having a freaking escalator running all day long if nobody's on it. Okay.

[B]

Lights that are on timers at every stairwell, things like that.

[D]

Yeah, and we've just never embraced that because I think part of being an American is it is your God given right to waste whatever you want to waste. That's why we came to America, by God, wide open spaces. You know, we'll go grab a chunk of land and do what we want on it, only not in the 21st century. So I guess the biggest thing I would change about it is I would put incentives in place to get people to use less power. And they've done it in sort of one season, two season. You probably know this better than I do. There's different little incentives, but never at the scale necessary to get us to truly invest in more efficiently using power.

[A]

You talk about how often Republicans will do something and the Democrats do not like that it happened, but then Democrats will do the very same thing and then Republicans, then it's just a flip flop back and forth. One of the things that I'm seeing right now, especially in your realm, is the Obama administration. During his term, he cut the permanent army brigade combat team presence in Europe in half, going from four brigades to two. And he removed roughly seven to 10,000 soldiers when that was happening. And he shifted. Not to his credit, he did shift to rotational deployments to places like Poland. I was actually there when that happened. Now we're seeing the Trump administration pursue another major reduction. Roughly 5,000 troops being drawn down from Europe at a time when Russia remains at war with Ukraine. And frankly, NATO is under pressure to increase its readiness. How do you compare those two decisions? Obama's decision to reduce versus Trump's decision.

[D]

Two big things. One, Russia had not invaded Ukraine when Obama was president, and that ought to be enough right there. That fundamentally changed the equation in the threat that is present. Second, Trump tends to do these things on a whim. I remember at the end of his first administration, Angela Merkel said something. I remember what it was, but it upset Trump So literally the last six months of the Trump administration, there was a plan to take all of the troops out of Germany, all of them. And I sat down with the European commander, the other people, and I was like, seriously? And they were like, it's what the commander in chief said. And that was based on some petty. So. So Trump does it for the pettiest of reasons on a whim like that, without thinking through it. That's the problem. Those are the two differences. To my mind, when Obama did it, it was part of an overall thought out strategy. It was part of the pivot to Asia. And we didn't have Russia invading Ukraine. In fact, at the time, we were still kind of hoping we could find a way to get along with Russia. So those are the two big things that have changed.

[A]

We always try to end on a positive note because it seems like we always are kind of talking, especially in the times we are with the administration, the darker situations.

[B]

We're not trying to sow gloom, we're trying to build a path out of a gloomy era.

[D]

Yeah, exactly.

[A]

We're just trying to inform. But it does, it does sound like we are doom and gloom. Is there something that you can tell us that you're just optimistic about, whether it's broadly the United States in its future or just something that you're working on, or just anything that you're optimistic about, something that you just want to describe that's, that can bring us back, that humanity is good.

[D]

Yeah, no, I mean, I think I was, I was just down in Newport News Shipyard earlier today. Don't try to make that commute if you can humanly avoid it. But. And I think one of the things I'm optimistic about is workforce development. You know, I think we've, we've long been in this pattern of not giving people access to the training that they need to go out and get good paying jobs and help our economy. And I'm seeing that change. We've seen a massive increase in apprenticeships. We've seen a massive increase in community and technical colleges doing training, coordinating with businesses and with unions to give people access to the training they need to go out and get good paying jobs and live a good life. And that has significantly improved just in the last five or six years. I see a real commitment to workforce development to meet the moment in terms of what we really need workers to do in this country. And so, yeah, no, I continue to be very optimistic about that.

[B]

Thank you so much for taking the time to not only come on the show, but Hearing us, hear us out about that. And I do hope that you can come back and we can continue the conversation, because I think we have very similar ideas about the future of our country surviving and the Democratic Party and the left. And I think there's a lot to discuss and I think this was really productive. So we thank you for coming on the show today. And once again, for all the listeners, this has been Congressman Adam Smith. And thank you so much for your time, sir.

[D]

Thank you all. Appreciate the chance.

[B]

And that's our interview with our first ever guest on American Power, Congressman Adam Smith. I thought he had a lot of interesting stuff. I liked his answers to your questions on the military chat. But I'm curious what you think with your. You have more expertise than I do, of course.

[A]

Well, I mean, I'll be honest, on all the Iranian stuff, I agreed fully with him. He came in with really solid answers. When it came to his discussion on the Trump Xi Jinping, that summit that's supposed to happen, I believe that happens the day after this podcast drops. And I think he was very diplomatic about it. But what I foresee happening is that Xi Jinping, to quote Trump, holds all the cards in this situation. I feel like what's going to happen is Trump is going to go in and he's going to see the pomp and circumstance. They're going to put on a massive show, military parades. They're going to make him feel like this amazing, like the, the, the second, like the King of China essentially, when he walks in and make him feel so good. And he, it's gonna, it's gonna impact him because that's, he responds to that stuff. It's, as we say in other episodes, it's the Mamdani New York Post approach.

[C]

New York Post.

[B]

The fake New York Post cover approach.

[D]

Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

[A]

And so I think they, and they recognize that. And what's going to happen, my concern is when you're, when he's in the group settings with all of his advisors and geez, with all his advisors, it's going to be normal discourse. They don't want to stir any, any pots. They don't want to make any waves or anything. It's trying to rebuild the relationship. But if Xi Jinping and Trump get into a room alone, I think Xi Jinping is going to start offering him things that could be dangerous for the United States. Specifically. What I'm talking about is perhaps he offers Trump, hey, why don't you, why don't you build some Trump casinos or Trump hotels in Beijing Or Hong Kong or Shanghai.

[B]

Oh, you think it'll be like personal quit pro quo, not even like American advancement.

[A]

And so what's going to happen is because of that, I think you're going to see and obviously, I don't think the congressman could talk about this. This is obviously civilian Chad Scott that gets away with this kind of stuff.

[B]

Right.

[A]

But I think in those backroom deals between the two of them and their interpreters, what you're going to see is he's gonna, Xi's gonna offer something and that he can give to Trump after the presidency that benefits him, his family or his friends. And all that Xi requires in return is, hey, maybe you just cool down, cool it with Taiwan. You back off and maybe, maybe you say Taiwan does belong to China and it doesn't. It's not actual policy because that's a congressional purview. They. But, but he can. That's a powerful tool, the President.

[B]

You're talking an unspoken deal anyway. This is not something that we announced regardless of whether.

[A]

Well, what will happen is Trump will absolutely do something outside of the like, he will do something like perhaps let off, pull some military pressure away. He might allow more chip technology or jet engine technology that is proprietary to the United States and highly sought after by China. He gives it to him and all Xi Jinping may say is, hey, I'll, I'll invest in your garbage meme coin or whatever the heck it is that Trump coin $1 billion in your coin. And that becomes dangerous because Trump is in a position where he could give real power to the Chinese and all he gets back is individual benefit. And there's not a whole lot we can do to stop that. And that's the biggest concern I have. And I knew the Congressman couldn't talk about that. I would just want to get his feelings. But I am very concerned that this, this. We're going to see all of the headlines and all the parades and Trump's going to tweet and all this stuff, but then there's going to be a backroom deal that we're not going to discover until later on, and it's going to be very. And we'll find out it's detrimental to us. They get our chip tech, they get our jet engines, they get our whatever. And Trump got personal benefit after he got out of office.

[B]

So that's something like that be presented though. We would just see the US doing China, like providing suddenly, suddenly.

[A]

So one of the things that China absolutely seeks is like 3 nanometer chip technology. That's Something they do not have. You require machinery that comes out of the Netherlands. Only the Netherlands built it. They have built it with the United States's help. The Netherlands. There's only a few countries on earth that have the capability to build 3 nanometer chip technology. Netherlands, the United States, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Those, those countries. China has been seeking that forever. There is a moratorium on those machines going to China from the Netherlands and the United States. But I also, but also the actual chips themselves are banned from to going to China. And so what ends up happening is perhaps we see, yeah, Trump gets a couple hotel deals and a meme coin deal or something like that, and all of a sudden there's three nanometer chips appearing in Chinese weapons and we don't know where that came from or it was part of some secret deal. That's a concern I have. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I'm saying in the history of the presidency, this would be the time that it would probably most likely happen. And that's my concern with that. So. Yeah. What about you, Matt? What you, what do you, what do you think about what he said about the energy stuff?

[C]

Yeah, I, I appreciated Nat for. So the conservation answer is is not. And I feel like I asked him something he wasn't prepared for. But in the, in this day and

[B]

age, you can't, he's gotta be ready.

[C]

Well, you can't conserve yourself out of a cheaper electric bill. That's not possible anymore. And that's why I brought up the delivery fees and that, you know, when he talks about, you know, utilities increasingly

[B]

so every year, so. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt, but like, maybe if you made your major conservation efforts last summer. Well, your bill's 30% more expensive this summer. It doesn't matter. You have to make.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

What are you going to turn off?

[C]

I mean, when they're charging you 400 bucks just to keep the electricity on even if you don't use it, what the hell is conservation going to do for you? It's just not the delivery cost. And the root of that whole problem is a lot of money flowing into our utility network. That that kind of money is designed to do one thing and that's make a lot more money at the hands of American people. And I don't, you know, we've turned our utilities into like this retail shopping thing where people should have access to electricity that they can afford. It's, it's just a basic thing. It's an infrastructure thing. The grid should be the most secure thing in this United States. It should be one of the most secured things. And it's owned by private companies like it. It makes no sense to me.

[B]

None of that privilege. It's the backbone of not only our economy, but our, our way of survival. You know, I mean, energy is essential. There's. Well, except for the handful of homesteaders.

[C]

But it's the compounding effect of it too is a lot of people don't think about it, you know, if, if you're living, you know, just anywhere, like in an apartment in Dayton, Ohio, I don't know why I thought of that, but let's just say you are. And your electric bill is $1200 a month. How much do you think the factory down the road is paying for theirs? And how much do you think Walmart's paying for theirs? Like all of that stuff goes across the whole economic portfolio. And it, it's. So when your bill's a thousand dollars, everything else you buy is more expensive too, because all of their bills are hundreds of thousands of dollars. Like this is, this is a whole thing. Like, this isn't just people's utility bills at their homes.

[B]

Part of why I mentioned it twice, I believe in that conversation was there's all these people who live near areas where data centers are being built who are suddenly paying higher utility bills. They don't have to use OpenAI or Grok or whatever to have their water poisoned and their energy bills go up because the utility is pumping it into this new AI data center. You just have to be near it on the grid. And that's not something that we can conserve our way out of. You can't control that. Yeah, I agree with you. The conservation answer is not. I was glad that he was in support of, you know, I mean, without a clear plan. But, you know, public utilities, I think, I think that's, as you said, it's a service. This is, you know, no different from the water at this point. We need it. And I was happy to see him. I mean, obviously Washington already has a public utility, but to be able to support, because I do think that's a path forward, away from. Yeah, we've just privatized, you know, I mean, it's similar to health in some ways, healthcare. Like we've privatized something essential. And of course, when we privatize it, it doesn't, it's not static. They have to find ways to extract more and more value out of it to please shareholders, which means, you know, relative surplus value out of all the consumers and the workers and pay them less and we pay more over and over again. Like, these things aren't going to stay the same. I do. I was glad that he brought up that, you know, compliment to affordability. Is the issue that wages haven't gone up because, oh, yeah, we can talk a lot about the increase in prices, but, you know, employers, American corporations are also not paying people enough. So inflation goes, you know, they raise the prices. But it's, it's part. It's not the only. There's artificial inflation. There's. There and there's. There's greed, of course, but it's not the only component in affordability. It's that wages are the same as they were 33 years ago.

[A]

And we asked him, I think, really good questions. To be clear, from my perspective, I'm just speaking for myself. I support probably 90% of what he has to offer. But those questions we asked, I think are important. He had fairly good answers for most of them. But it is worth noting that, yeah, I mean, I'm glad that there was pushback and I'm glad that we can have this discussion about.

[B]

I mean, he was very open to talking to us, which I appreciate it.

[A]

He let me push back a lot. Super great guest. I mean, for first guess, I mean,

[B]

the two things that I would take issue with are, you know, similar. He's talking about this over focus on school scolding. And like, when I hear that, I'm like, these are just conservative talking points though. This, like, oh, it's so hard to be a white man now. You're not. You can never do the right things. Yeah, we still have the highest wages. Who cares? Like, I think this idea that we lost the cultural war to conservatives is missing. I mean, he talks about it a lot, but this labor element, right, where the economic element, like, you let these people become vulnerable to that kind of misinformation and then feel like they were being scolded. That wouldn't matter if these people could afford to live comfortably. They needed a scapegoat. Right? So all this stuff about how we focus too much on identity politics, I can't sign off on that because I'm not willing to throw trans people under the bus. And it doesn't sound like he is either. But, like, I'm not willing to say, oh, it's okay if you don't get the pronouns right. It's okay if you deny someone's identity. It's okay if you want gay people to keep it to themselves, as long as you Vote for clean energy. Like, I'm not, I'm not with that. We got to be intersectional about this stuff. But I think, you know, the reason that it comes off as scolding is because it's not backed by economic policy, it's not backed by labor rights. So, you know when someone is poor and racist and you tell them it's another racist problem. Yeah, they're going to keep being racist. Like, you can't talk people out of it exclusively by saying, don't be racist. I agree with that. You can't scold people out of these things, but you have to improve their material conditions. And I don't think he's willing to say Democrats haven't done that. But, like, it's not scolding that caused Trump to win. That feels like. That felt like an over.

[A]

It's almost like a. He's countering the culture, the culture war argument with more culture war, essentially.

[B]

I mean, a lot of you hear this. I mean, I, I think some of the trouble I had, and maybe we need to define terms better in the future, is saying, well, the left does this, the left does that. Are we talking leftists or are we talking Democrats, who are essentially. And that's, I think, center, left, centerist party. Because I, I was like, I don't, I don't know. It also bothers me, this idea that, like, you can't have discourse anymore because people yell at you. Yeah, they're watching kids get murdered on their phones, like, they're watching. Maybe it's more than passion, and if you don't agree with them, they won't let you talk. But, like, nothing other than an absolutist approach has gotten people to even listen to civilians about Gaza for, like, two years. People going to their elected officials and saying, hey, I hate this. Why are you giving them money? So it's like, yeah, people are yelling at you. I do not condone political violence. I do not condone any kind of activism that leads that. I don't think that's activism, but I, and, you know, for the sake of this conversation, I have been threatened. I have had death threats. I've had people show up at my shows and threaten me. It's scary. And it is a position you put yourself in as a public figure. And it's something that in this country, we failed to address after Gabby Giffords got shot, after Steve Scalise got shot. Like, that's a real thing. And it's on us for not actually creating consequences for that. But the fact that people get threatened in their homes is not to me an indication that people who share the beliefs with bad actors are 100% wrong. And that I felt like dominated that part of the conversation. So that's. I'd like to engage in more in the future. He seemed open to talking about it.

[A]

Oh yeah, no, and like I said, and I don't want to walk over Matt here, but like he. It was a great conversation. She had a lot of great answers. Like when it came to the discussion on the drawdown of troops. There absolutely is a difference. It is vengeful for Trump. It is personal and he's being a baby about it. Obama's to me. Yeah. And I didn't agree with Obama drawdown. He may have, but because I, I'm biased. That was my world. I lived in NATO and. But the pivot to the Asia to Asia was real and that was necessary. And so I, I do appreciate that. Yeah, he, he was, he. First of all, I appreciate that he came on, but he also. Yeah, absolutely solid dude for being on and stuff. So I just. Yeah, but that's the thing. We can all disagree and have the discussion and if he wants he can come back on and we can have more of that. And it was great. I think so.

[C]

I honestly wasn't keeping track of what I either agreed or disagreed with him on. I mean, it was so refreshing that I just felt like I was speaking to someone. Yeah. That was giving genuine answers that they had thought out. Like, I don't care about disagreeing with someone. It's. Are they being genuine? Are they telling me what they actually believe or are they playing some game with me? And that whole conversation I just felt like he was being very genuine and honest and whether I agreed with him on stuff or not at that point didn't matter to me because I haven't seen that in a long time. So I really appreciated that. And I'm perfectly fine with people not agreeing with me or me not agreeing with people as long as everyone's being genuine of the show.

[B]

Right. We want to have a civil discourse and actually address these issues. I mean, I also appreciate him engaging with us on this stuff because I definitely. I'm a little different. I didn't agree with him on a lot of things. A lot. I did top down a lot of it. I feel like we're in the same position of like, oh yeah, we're being run by a petrol and egotist when it comes to the characterization of the left and why we got here. I feel like he and I Probably differ, but he did sound like he was willing to listen and hear people out about that kind of thing. So I thought it was a really productive conversation. If he comes back. One thing I'd like to talk to him about more, Matt, is he was talking. You know, I think your great point about, like, oh, part of the reason this crisis isn't worse is because of all these EVs. Like, EVs are actually helping us in a way that people aren't seeing. Or like, well, delaying. I hope he does run with that, as he said he would. I'd love to talk to him more because I know he supported federal, a federal solar bill for federal buildings. And I'd love to hear more how he thinks that we can structurally and culturally, because I do agree that we need to get used to waste not being a virtue. I don't agree that consumers are going to fight climate change. We already, that's, that's an old narrative that has already been debunked. Like, we can't do it by conserving as a consumer. Like, if corporations are still just burning fossil fuels, it's not going to make a difference if I recycle. But he is right. We have a massive culture of waste. So I'd be interested, like, what is his opinion on, like, yeah, how do we, how do we pivot to solar? How do we. I'd love to hear his justification for nuclear because I am not on board. But how do we pivot to renewable energy sources on a federal level would be really interesting, especially considering who's in charge right now.

[C]

I'm not gonna lie. The whole reason I brought that up was because in general, the Democratic Party is pretty terrible at messaging. And I'm like, I'm just gonna say this to this guy and maybe it'll spread. Like, because it's like, we miss, we miss so much.

[B]

Edit this part out and then we'll share the clip once he starts saying it.

[C]

No, I'm serious. It's, it's, it is, it's. People don't realize how much of an impact 62 million more EVs are having, like right now on the price of gas. I posted a video earlier, said thank an EV owner. If, if, if you're worried that gas isn't over $5 yet, that's because of EV owners. That's, that's. You cannot discount 62 million EVs and how much fuel they burn or, you know, if they were isolated down, demand pretty significant. You know, if you look at a refinery goes down in the Great Lakes area for a day. Everyone's gas jumps by over a dollar overnight. What do you think two and a half million barrels a day over the entire length of this conflict is doing? Like, so it's a big thing. So I just put that, like a bug in his ear. Like, hey, here's a little, you know, maybe work on Yalls messaging a little bit. And then I went on to my actual question.

[B]

I was good. I noticed that you're like, anyway, I just want to say that. So here's my question. So American power says if your gas isn't $5 yet, thank an EV owner. Unless it's a cybertruck. But nevertheless, there's a lot of. A lot of these. These are Teslas.

[A]

I don't know.

[B]

But there's other options. There's other options.

[C]

I saw one of those Krasnstein guys, or however you say their last name, drug on X for buying a cyber truck.

[A]

Yep.

[C]

It's like he's getting canceled because he bought a cyber truck.

[B]

There have been people recently, very popular bumper sticker in liberal states is, I bought this before he went crazy. If you put it on your Tesla. And then I saw one the other day on a cyber truck, and I was like, not. Not possible. He was. He was mask off. You know, he was talking about white rights. By the time the cybertruck came out, man, like, he was very close to the Sig Heil at the inauguration. But the cybertruck was released, and I just thought that to myself. And then yesterday, I saw that someone has been putting, like, community notes, like citation stickers under those being like, the cybertruck came out after these events. Well, like the bat, the ultimate bathroom wall of the world survives one way or another. The discourse is alive. Nevertheless, that's what it looks like.

[A]

Bathroom walls into a car.

[B]

Honestly, it's a lot less toxic than the discourse on. On X. I think if you have to take time to print a sticker to put on someone's Tesla, you're. You're giving a little more consideration to your. To, you know, to your wording, your word economy.

[C]

Well, several of my friends have taken their Tesla emblems off and replaced them with, like, an emblem they got from their alma mater, like, wherever they went to college. So, like, if you see a Tesla with, like, an Arizona state emblem on the back of it, you know, that's an anti elon musk person right there, because they did that on pur.

[B]

She just put, like, a Jaguar emblem on there. A BMW. Yeah, it's a BMW. Don't look at it very hard. Well, listeners, thank you so much for listening to our very first interview here on American Power. We hope to bring you many more in the episodes to come. We'll be back next week with a normal format episode once again for chad Scott and Mr. Global. Matt Randolph, I'm Nat Town. And remember, power corrupts, but American power corrupts Americanly.