← Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar
Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar
2/25/25: Trump Demands Ukraine Minerals, Trump Backs Elon Email Purge
01:09:46
Loading summary
Transcript111 lines
- [00:00]
Sagar Enjeti
Stop hitting snooze on new tech. Upgrade the whole team@lenovo.com Unlock AI experiences with the ThinkPad X1 carbon powered by Intel Core Ultra processors so you can work, create and boost productivity all on one device. Win the tech search for business PCs@lenovo.com.
- [00:24]
Donald Trump
Lenovo Lenovo.
- [00:30]
Krystal Ball
Where'd you get those shoes? Easy. They're from DSW. Because DSW has the exact right shoes for whatever you're into right now. You know, like the sneakers that make office hours feel like happy hour, the boots that turn grocery aisles into runways, and all the styles that show off the many sides of you from daydreamer to multitasker and everything in between. Because you do it all in really great shoes. Find a shoe for every you at your DSW store or DSWell.
- [01:00]
Ryan Seacrest
Hello, it is Ryan and I was on a flight the other day playing one of my favorite social spin slot games on chumbacasino.com I looked over the person sitting next to me and you know what they were doing? They were also playing Chumba Casino. Everybody's loving having fun with it. Chumba Casino is home to hundreds of casino style games that you can play for free anytime, anywhere. So sign up now@chumbacasino.com to claim your free welcome bonus. That's chumbacasino.com and live the Chumba Life.
- [01:25]
Sagar Enjeti
Sponsored by Chumba Casino. No purchase necessary VGW Group Void where prohibited by law 21/ terms and conditions apply hey guys, Sagar and Krystal here.
- [01:32]
Krystal Ball
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show.
- [01:40]
Sagar Enjeti
This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.
- [01:45]
Krystal Ball
So if that is something that's important to you, Please go to BreakingPoints.com, become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows unedited ad free and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
- [01:56]
Sagar Enjeti
We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you@breakingpoint.com Good morning everybody. Happy Tuesday. Have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have? Crystal?
- [02:08]
Krystal Ball
Indeed we do. So Trump met with Emmanuel Macron of France yesterday. Lots of news made on Ukraine so we will break all of that down for you. We also have the very latest in the wars between Elon and the agency heads and OPM and Trump and whatever with regard to this doge5bullet email. So lots of Developments there. We'll break that down for you. We also have have Apple making a big economic announcement. Is it real, though? Because there are some other counter indicators, I would say, with regard to the economy with Apple specifically, a lot of developments with regard to Israel that we wanted to get to, including they appear to be annexing a significant part of Syria. So that's the thing that is just happening now. Also tanks rolling through the occupied West Bank. So a lot to focus on there. Huge shakeup at msnbc. Joy Reid is out. Amen is getting moved. Jen Psaki is in. Just a lot of shifting of that lineup. And actually, notably, she almost never does this, but Rachel Maddow directly criticizing the network there specifically with regard to the cancellation of Joy Reid show. So write that down for you what it says about that network and where they're heading in the Trump era. And I'm taking a look at. This is an astonishing story. So West Virginia experienced these horrific, historic floods, devastating 2000 houses destroyed, three people lost their lives, et cetera. They've been begging Trump for an emergency declaration. Still, as of today, they haven't gotten it, which means zero federal help on the ground in West Virginia. These are some of the poorest counties in the country. These are also some of the most Trump supporting counties in the entire country there. So I'm gonna take a look at what is going on there, which I still have a lot of questions about, to be frank with you.
- [03:46]
Sagar Enjeti
Yeah, I'm very curious. I wasn't even aware of the situation, so I'm excited to hear that monologue. Thanks to all of our premium subscribers for supporting the show. But let's get into it with ukra. So there's been some significant developments here, as you said. President Trump meeting yesterday in the Oval Office at the White House with Emmanuel Macron. Emmanuel Macron's real mission was to come here and basically to sell Trump on stopping whatever he is doing. But it does not look like that will be successful. Here's a little bit of Donald Trump in the Oval describing this quote, unquote minerals agreement, which we're gonna return to in a little bit, that he wants to sign with Ukraine. Let's take a listen.
- [04:20]
Donald Trump
It looks like we're getting very close. The deal's being worked on. We're, I think, getting very close to getting an agreement where we get our money back over a period of time. But it also gives us something where I think it's very beneficial to their economy, to their, to them as a country. But, you know, we're in for $350 billion. How we got there, I don't know. But that's a lot of money, a lot of money invested. And we had nothing, nothing to show for it. And it was the Biden administration's fault. The Europeans are in for about $100 billion and they do it as a form, in the form of a loan. And the Europeans have been great on this issue. They understood it wasn't fair and we were able to work something out.
- [05:06]
Sagar Enjeti
So that is the description of the quote, unquote minerals agreement. But all of this is all coming back to big war between the Europeans and between Donald Trump in terms of wanting to sign this peace deal with Russia over Ukraine. The Ukraine minerals agreement is kind of second to the overall peace deal. The big peace deal is basically negotiations with the Russians, which is currently Secretary of State and the Secretary of State and Steve Witkoff have been engaged in to return what it appears to be is to the Istanbul framework of April of 2022. So it is interesting because obviously the Europeans are freaking out about that. They do not want to be on the hook for their 30,000 peacekeepers. They're saying, even if we did that, America, you guys still have to pay for it. All of the intelligence and there's a big war and a feeling of abandonment on the continent. It fits very well with the Germany story that we did yesterday. The new Chancellor of Germany saying that we will have to try and have independence from the United States, which is the logical endpoint of a lot of geopolitical forces over the last decades or so.
- [06:11]
Krystal Ball
I mean, it also goes without like some of the numbers and stuff. He just completely makes up the 350 billion number. The comparison with Europe, Macron actually jumps in. I think we have that.
- [06:20]
Sagar Enjeti
Yeah, we have that.
- [06:20]
Krystal Ball
And it's like, let's go ahead and play. He actually jumps in. He's like, well, you know, wasn't all just loans. Like we actually some of that was hard money as well. Let's take a listen to that moment. Will rent support the US being compensated?
- [06:32]
Emmanuel Macron
I support the idea to have Ukraine first being compensated because they are the ones who have lose a lot of their fellow citizens and being destroyed by these attacks. Second, all of those who paid for could be compensated, but not by Ukraine, by Russia, because they wasn't one to aggress.
- [06:49]
Donald Trump
Again, just so you understand, just so you understand, Europe is loaning the money to Ukraine. They get their money back.
- [06:56]
Emmanuel Macron
No, in fact, to be frank, we paid. We paid 60% of the total efforts. And it was through like the US Loans guarantee grants, and we provided real money. To be clear, we have 230 billion frozen assets in Europe, Russian assets, but this is not as a collateral of a loan, because this is not our belonging. So they are frozen. If at the end of the day in the negotiation we will have with Russia, they're ready to give it to us. Super. It will be loan at the end of the day and Russia will have paid for that.
- [07:29]
Donald Trump
If you believe that, it's okay with me. But they get their money back. We don't. And now we do. But, you know, that's only very weird.
- [07:38]
Krystal Ball
Interpersonal dynamics between these two as well. Very like touchy. A lot of sort of like alpha male positioning and jockeying there, whatever. But, you know, I mean, I have a lot of feelings about this. And number one, I just want the war to end. Like the fact that we are going back to a framework that was originally negotiated at the very, in the very early days of this war. And frankly, I think Ukraine would be very fortunate. We would be very fortunate. They would be lucky if they're able to achieve, you know, that agreement that was on the table at that point. Because if you'll recall, and of course, we discussed this the nauseam here on the show, at that point, Ukraine really did have Russia on the back foot. They really had outperformed. There really was this coalescing of the US And Europe and all these forces behind them. We had just put on this massive amount of sanctions, you know, the biggest sanction regime in history. It was very uncertain how that was gonna go for Russia, et cetera. So the dynamics were a lot more in Ukraine's favor at this point. And so when you think about going back to, like, it's just heartbreaking the number of people, lives that have been lost, the death and destruction, all because. And this is the part where I get to like, the way Trump frames this is just like, wrong and a lie. All because the US Wanted to use Ukraine as a proxy in this fight against Russia. That's why that peace deal wasn't pursued. And so, like I said, complicated feel. On the one hand, if he's moving towards ending the war, great, I'm on board with that. Let's do it. On the other hand, like, saying that it's Ukraine's fault that the war started, saying we should be reimbursed. No, we're the reason why we push them to have this massive war and devastate their population, devastate the country, et cetera. And of course, I'm also disgusted with just like the naked return to colonialism and imperialism where it's like we're gonna just make you a client state and extract whatever resources we can out of you. And I don't know if you saw this, but why is that bad? Russia came in. Russia came in and was like, we have rare earth minerals too. Maybe let's cut a deal. And I'll tell you why it's bad is cuz I believe that these countries should actually have sovereignty. I do actually that the post World War II order in which the norm generally followed around the world, in which countries, small countries are left alone and where it is a breach of international law and something to be guarded against when you have large countries that are just taking advantage of small countries. That's why I think that is a bad direction to go in. But the other thing is that is really unclear to me is okay, if we strike this raw earth minerals and their ports and their oil and gas resources, this across the board 50% were basically taking over your state deal. Well, I mean that doesn't get us less entangled in that region, that gets us more entangled in that region. So I still have a lot of questions about how this is all gonna go.
- [10:28]
Sagar Enjeti
Well, see, this is where I just totally depart from this like kind of liberal fantasy view of the world. Like not to go all Howard Zinn, but the idea that the post World War II order has protected small countries is ridiculous. I mean, if you look again, I would borrow some leftist commentary, take a look at tiny little countries in South America and how independent they've been over the last 75. It's ludicrous. It's all just complete bullshit. And so why should.
- [10:51]
Krystal Ball
This is my issue. Sorry to cut you off. Like this is to me the sort of core ethos of the Trump administration 2.0. Not just with regard to foreign affairs, but with regard to domestic affairs too. It's like, okay, well things are bad and we've been hypocritical. So instead of trying to improve those international laws, instead of trying to actually act as moral actors in the world and respect territorial sovereign, have additional cooperation, et cetera. Instead it's like, well things have been bad and we've been hypocritical, so let's just make it worse. And it's the same thing with regard to the government here. It's like, well, government has failed you, so let's just strip it down and make it so it can't even deliver your Social Security, Medicare and the things that it actually does well. So, yeah, I reject this return to just naked colonialism and imperialism. And there are a lot of ways that you can do. There are multiple ways you can do a multipolar world, one of which is to actually have respect for smaller countries around the world, actually to respect territorial integrity, actually to move in the direction of cooperation with large powers. And when Trump says things about like, hey, let's cut the military 50% and strike a deal with Russia and China, that would be a move in that direction. There is no way in hell that I think that is actually what's going to play out here whatsoever. Instead, I think we're headed much more towards, like, a new imperialism, a new naked, like, just. We're gonna take Greenland, we're gonna take Panama, we're gonna take Canada, we're gonna bomb Mexico, we're gonna take Gaza, et cetera. And an increase in militarism and defense spending. Very much in line with like, you know, the Cold War hostilities with the Soviet Union.
- [12:34]
Sagar Enjeti
But this is the thing, we don't have a choice. And all countries in the international system will do what's in their best interest. It's just, again, like a literal liberal fantasy of the 1960s that we could create some grand peace ar the United States and the great powers will always rule the world. We're gonna get to this, to the United nations and just again, to show you there's no such thing as international law. There is no such thing as a UN General Assembly. No one gives a shit what Montenegro thinks, nor should we. All of all, the international system of all time, multipolarity, bipolarity, unipolarity, has always come down to the say of the great powers. It is built into the United nations that the P5 powers have absolute authority to veto anything. It's actually implicit in international system that the great victors of World War II will decide the new fate. And so this idea also that we shouldn't have Ukraine pay us back. I mean, again, you're not wrong.
- [13:30]
Krystal Ball
Pay us back. That's our fault. Like we should be paying them, to be honest with you, with the death and destruction that we led them into.
- [13:37]
Sagar Enjeti
Well, again, that's just, again, in my opinion, kind of a ridiculous notion. If you are going to expend $100 billion plus into building this country and ensuring its territorial integrity, the idea that we should not reap the rewards and the benef benefits of it is insane. I mean, go back to the marsh. No, no, no. Because this is the architecture of the Post World War II era, the Marshall.
- [13:58]
Krystal Ball
Plan, these tensions that led to NATO's expansion that pushed, you know, this direction for Ukraine. Like we've used them as our toy.
- [14:07]
Sagar Enjeti
As our prospect, of course, but that's also what they want, right? Zelensky is a willing participant in this.
- [14:13]
Krystal Ball
Paid back when we're a key component. Not that Zelensky doesn't have agency, whatever. But we are a key reason why this country has been at war, why Russia invaded this. We are far more responsible for that than Ukraine is. So, you know, again, I want the war to end, but I cannot just sit here and brook this complete inversion of reality in which is Ukraine's fault that they got invaded by Russia and they somehow owe us something when we're the whole reason why this war wasn't settled years ago in that Istanbul people.
- [14:43]
Sagar Enjeti
It's not just us keeping California. It's also the uk, which seems to.
- [14:46]
Krystal Ball
Be driving us to get upstream.
- [14:47]
Sagar Enjeti
I think it was mostly us. I don't agree. That's why I think Biden is terrible. It was an awful president. But again, if we return to this idea, do you think we did the Marshall Plan out of the goodness of our heart or did we do it to prop up a democratic Europe? Democratic small D. To do what? So that we could have a nice big old marketplace over there? We don't do anything out of the goodness of their heart, nor should we. It's a stupid idea. That's not how countries conduct relations with others. If we have now expended over 100/plus billion dollars, the United States has depleted its stockpiles and more, that we should just say, oh, deal's done. No. If we're gonna insure your terr integrity or do this peace deal with Russia, we're gonna get something out of it. Whether Ukraine exists has absolutely no import to the United States whatsoever. The only thing that if we're going to get something out of this should of course be to the economic benefit of the United States consumer, which again, is the backbone of the US liberal world order. I know people don't like whenever I talk like this. It's the truth. All right. The other people who are telling you about democracy and oh, NATO, it's all BS completely. What Latvia matters so much to America? No, it's ludicrous. I mean, countries are both in the traditional Russian sphere of influence, as you said, with the NATO encroachment on Russian borders and more. The entire idea behind it is a US and European basically market system which we use our military power to protect to the benefit of our consumers, of our companies, and of the European companies as well. Let's all just be honest about it. And that's where I have to return to, where when we look at the way that the Ukrainians are complicit in this is that they have wanted since that push for, for more militarism, for more war. They want to basically take all of our stockpiles, they want to increase their war with Russia. Their plan from the very beginning is what is to draw the United States in. Whatever they're doing is definitely bad for American security interests. And so while, yes, I won't let Biden or Boris Johnson off the hook, the Ukrainians also, especially the Ukrainian government, has tied itself legally to this framework where they're not allowed to have elections, even though we're protecting democracy. They're not allowed to even negotiate on any territorial intent according to their own laws. Like they have locked themselves in to this paradigm and that's where they have agency. And we also can reset the paradigm of how we conduct relations between states. The ideal foreign policy that I would ever want is exactly this. Right now we're meeting with Russia, Ukraine. You're not even there. You know why? Cuz it's not about you. That's the whole.
- [17:19]
Krystal Ball
But what happened to them having agency? What happened to it being their fault?
- [17:22]
Sagar Enjeti
They can do whatever they want inside their country. The point is, is that on the macro level, we will decide what's good for us.
- [17:29]
Krystal Ball
That's point is that it's not their fault that we wanted to drag this war out for years. We were the ones who were driving that train. We're the reason why in 2022 in Istanbul, we went in and said, no, we don't want this peace process to continue. It wasn't because of Ukraine. They were at the table negotiating. We covered those negotiations.
- [17:51]
Sagar Enjeti
You're absolutely right.
- [17:52]
Krystal Ball
Okay. They have desires and agency. And of course, if they're going to be invaded by this nuclear superpower, they want whoever can have their back to have their back. But we are the reason why this has been dragged out for years. And the fact that you have an election, have a new president, doesn't wipe that slate clean and now mean somehow that they owe us. No, they don't. We owe them. That's the truth of the matter. If you're actually looking at things from an equitable perspective. Because we are the primary reason that they have lost hundreds of thousands of lives and their country has been decimated because we wanted to use them as a plaything in Our geopolitical ambitions. That's the truth of the matter. And so this idea that it's Ukraine's fault that Russia invaded them I think is a disgusting lie. It's bullshit. It's complete inversion of reality. And also to frame Zelensky, Trump gets asked another point here. He had no problem calling Zelensky a quote unquote dictator, even though he was democratically elected. And yes, I agree with you, they should have elections. Although I'm also sympathetic to the argument they make that like, hey, it's kind of hard to have elections when you've got millions of people who have fled the country and people who are displaced and parts of the country that we're not even sure whether they're us or Russia at this point. But yes, they should have elections. But he was not willing to say Putin was a dictator, but he's perfectly comfortable saying Zelensky's a dictator. So again, listen, I want this war to end, but I also, we have to exist in some sort of reality based framework here. And he has completely inverted what actually happened in this war and the entire trajectory of it.
- [19:22]
Sagar Enjeti
Look again, to return now, is Putin a dictator? I can say that, yes. Do you know why it's a bad idea, for example, for the President of the United States to call a Russian nuclear superpower, the leader of that country, a dictator or a war criminal? I dare say, like maybe Joe Biden is, because we have to conduct relations with these great powers. Now, is Russia like a preeminent superpower? No, but it's a nuclear armed power and its military has already dramatically increased its power and its size to the point where even the so called great powers of Europe are unable by their own admission to even keep up with them from a war production level in general, it's a good idea to just make sure that things are on balance. That's really what pisses people off. And this is what I just don't get. People would liberals really would rather live in a world where we vote correctly in the UNGA and don't call Zelensky a dictator than to have peace? Peace is all.
- [20:13]
Krystal Ball
Not only the ultimate Zelenskyy a dictator.
- [20:15]
Sagar Enjeti
Cause he doesn't matter. He's irrelevant.
- [20:17]
Krystal Ball
That's my point. But it's also just a lie. And so that's why, because I care. Because having reality and like factual accuracy is something that I think we should all care about. I mean, to turn Ukraine, which was truly a victim of the circumstance, into like they're the aggressor and to Say that, oh Russia, you know, it's not Russia's fault that they invaded this country. Like it's number one Russia's fault, it's number two our fault. And it has really very little to do with it being the Ukrainians fault. And no. So no, I'm not gonna just sit by and say like it's fine to just make up this preposterous upside down worldview. And I don't even see how that actually helps in these negotiations either. Because your goal in the negotiations since Russia was the aggressor and you don't want to have countries just willy nilly taking over other countries because that leads to more war and more death and more destruction and more devastation and us getting entangled more places. By the way, what you would ideally want is the best deal you can achieve at this point on the Ukrainian side. To me going into this, calling Zelensky dictator, throwing him under the bus, signaling you aren't going to call Putin a dictator, that you're going to side with them even in their preposterous narrative of how this war unfolded and somehow make it about Ukrainian aggression is insane and completely gives up any leverage you have to try to secure the best deal you can for Ukraine, which would be the most just outcome.
- [21:50]
Sagar Enjeti
That's the presumption that you made there is incorrect. Is that why should we care about securing the best deal for Ukraine? That's Ukraine's problem. We should secure the best deal for us. And that is exactly how countries should conduct international relations. Ukraine's job is to push for its own interests. Congratulations to you. I actually think they've done a pretty good job. I mean they've got to save 80% of their country, 20% of their country's controlled by Russia. They literally get to live and exist. That's your victory. They refuse to acknowledge that victory when you're up against a nuclear armed power. Our job is to do what is best for us and for our quote unquote allies. Ukraine, what kind of allies? This is currently always asking us for money and to embroil our nuclear arsenal on their side. To give them NATO umbrella like this is not something that is beneficial to us whatsoever. Not to mention how much money we have. All paid in extra gas because of these, these Russian sanctions.
- [22:46]
Ashley Kineti
Ready to prioritize yourself in the new year? Your skin is a great place to start. Dime Beauty, founded by a master esthetician is more than just a skincare company with four skin conscious categories. Skincare, beauty, body care and fragrance. Daim offers simple, spa worthy products that will help you enter 2025 with confidence. Whether you're revitalizing your regimen with nourishing products or building one from scratch, Dime makes it easy. The Work System our all in one best selling routine includes a cleanser of your choice, toners, serums and moisturizers. Taking the guesswork out of skin care for your healthiest, happiest skin yet. Dime's commitment to clean ingredients and sustainable packaging ensures every product is as gentle on your skin as it is on the planet. With thousands of glowing five star reviews and a loyal community, the results speak for themselves. Revive your skin and give yourself the routine refresh you deserve by visiting dimebeautyco.com that's dimebeauty co.com your best skin awaits Ryan Seacrest here.
- [23:47]
Ryan Seacrest
When you have a busy schedule, it's important to maximize your downtime. One of the best ways to do that is by going to chumbacasino.com Chumba Casino has all your favorite social casino games like spin slots, bingo and solitaire that you can play for free for a chance to redeem some serious prizes. So hop on to chumbacasino.com now and live the Chumba Life. Sponsored by Chumba Casino Casino.
- [24:10]
Sagar Enjeti
No purchase necessary VGW Group Void where prohibited by law 21/ terms and conditions.
- [24:14]
Unknown
Apply this is Ashley Kineti from the Ben and Ashley I Almost Famous podcast. It feels like everyone is talking about GLP1s these days. Those are Ozempic and Semaglutide and with Future Health you can find out if they're right for you too. Maybe you feel like you've been struggling with your weight for years and no matter how much you diet and exercise, you just don't feel healthy. Just go to try fh.com to find out if weight loss mistakes meds are right for you. Future Health is not a healthcare services provider. Meds are prescribed at provider's discretion. Results may vary. Sponsored by Future Health to return to.
- [24:48]
Sagar Enjeti
That spring 2022 framework, Steve Witkoff, who is Trump's what friend envoy envoy extraordinaire from Israel Gaza now involved in this, is now talking specifically about the Istanbul Framework as one that he would like to see in the deal. Let's take a listen. They are responsive to an end to this. There were very, very what I'll call cogent and substantive negotiations framed in something that's called the Istanbul Protocol Agreement. We came very, very close to signing something and I think we'll be using that framework as a as a guidepost to Get a peace deal done between Ukraine and Russia. And I think that will be an amazing day. So there you go. So the Istanbul framework of spring of 2022, which you previously mentioned, that is important because that's the deal that was on the table of which Boris Johnson basically went over to Kiev on behalf of Joe Biden and was like, yeah, don't do this. Actually, we're gonna be behind you this entire time. And it leads to this complete quagmire. So I'm not letting Joe Biden or Boris Johnson or Emmanuel Macro, any of these NATO leaders, off the hook. But we are where we are right now. So how do we deal with this? And so the way that we deal with it is end it as soon as possible. It's bad for us, it's bad for them. It's bad for the Russians, too, just in terms of. Well, actually, let's put it this way. Is it good for us to have an isolated Russia with a war economy that is booming, war production more than the United States and NATO combined? That sounds bad to me. So whatever we can do to try and bring that temperature down and just make sure that we're not having this not only ongoing land war, humanitarian disaster, but just geopolitical tension rise again over a country which is completely irrelevant to the United States. Yeah, I think that's overall a good thing. And I mean, this is also where we have a bit of a binary choice here. We had Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and all of them who genuinely did not want peace in Ukraine. They wanted this war to go on forever. And then we have whatever the hell this is, realism with the Trump flavor, the Trump doctrine, whatever the it is that we can describe it. I'm gonna choose the latter. I mean, I think the latter is far preferable if the war ends, and especially if the US Taxpayers, or at least US Consumer has benefited in some way. That seems to be somewhat more of a net positive than whatever the hell we were doing over the last three years. And I think that, honestly, I think this will be tremendously popular if it comes to fruition. The only, I would say, counter to all of this is the problems that could be sidelined in the rare earth minerals deal that you talked about. Let's put that on the screen, for example. So here we have the actual text of the rare earth minerals deal worth hundreds of billions of dollars, under which the US Would express its desire to keep Ukraine free, sovereign, and secure. According to this draft, which is obtained by Axios, the Ukrainian deal would effectively allow US Investment in Ukrainian mineral companies with some sort of split guaranteed in the future. As you said, the Russians are also saying, hey, we've also got a ton of rare earth minerals, which apparently on paper is correct. I did not know that. In terms of what their rare earth mineral stock stocks and all of that.
- [27:53]
Krystal Ball
Ryan was right when he was like, you know, these rare earths turn out to not be so rare.
- [27:57]
Sagar Enjeti
He is right. Yeah. He's like, they're in Mexico, they're in Chile.
- [28:00]
Krystal Ball
We actually China, Ukraine, now Afghanistan. And I also read that Ukraine is a little bit overselling their rare earth situation. But that's why it's important to understand some news outlet, I can't remember which one, got their hands on the deal that was proposed. And it was not just rare earths mineral. It was basically all of Ukraine's economic activity, active primary economic activity, including their ports, their oil and gas, their quote, unquote, rare earth minerals, which also, by the way, like, which rare earths have been important have shifted over time as well. So in any case, yeah, it's. I mean, if you, if, if some sort of deal like this actually goes down, then it means we are obligated to Ukraine forever, because we're not. We're going to. You don't think we're going to protect those economic interests and be committed to protecting those economic interests?
- [28:46]
Sagar Enjeti
Of course we are. To keep Ukraine free, sovereign and secure. Desire is different than the guarantee of their security, which is the actual opposite of what we should ever get ourselves into. It's nice to have a free and a sovereign and secure Ukraine. It's nice to have a lot of things. Honestly, the text of that deal is perfect. It's like, yeah, we can express a rhetorical desire to have something, but we don't have to do anything about it. And that's the problem I have with what Zelenskyy ultimately wants. He wants, not only he, let's be honest, a lot of the Ukrainian people now, they think they belong in NATO. They think they're entitled to our security umbrella, to us having to trigger Article 5 on their behalf. Sorry, never gonna happen. Like already, not only you've been invaded, 20% of your country there, in terms of the historical spheres of influence and in terms of the actual economic and security benefit of adding this gigantic territory to our security umbrella and our further interests. I mean, this would only further embroil us into the affairs of the continent, which is less and less and less important every day to the United States economy and to the United States security. So Overall, the text or whatever of this deal, which is not one that secures any like need, right, legally or whatever, for the US to get involved here while reaping some economic benefit, that's the best you could possibly get.
- [30:10]
Krystal Ball
But Tagar, why do you think that Zelenskyy is proposing this? It's because he knows if we have significant economic interests in the country, then we are going to defend those economic interests and then we can make a choice, especially we're talking about, you know, this is going to be some of Trump's billionaires buddies that propose this, that want to get their, you know, their claws into the Ukrainian economy, et cetera. And so that's the whole reason why Zelensky is open to this is because he sees that as a way of guaranteeing that we stay embroiled in this country, that we keep these interests there and that we will defend them if they are encroached upon. He sees it as being sort of like a security guarantee.
- [30:49]
Sagar Enjeti
Yeah, I don't disagree. But the thing is that then actually prove it, you know, become important to us. If you are, then yeah, maybe we'll defend you. But for right now, I mean, if you just looked at the bilateral trade we had with Ukraine, we're doing four times more trade with Brazil, we're doing four times more trade with multiple other countries than we do with Ukraine and Israel, by the way, if we all wanna talk on those terms. But of course, nobody who's pushing this peace deal wants to see anything like that. My only point is that as we continue to go down this, we are marching towards, in my opinion, a good outcome, which is a rejection of this rhetoric based international order. Cause it's not rules based, it's rhetoric based. Let's put the next one up there. Because this affirms that the U.S. actually voted against a UN resolution, quote, condemning Russia for, for the Ukraine war. But this is why again, I wanna return to the point that the great powers rule the world. So there's a lot made of this from the pro Ukrainian side. They're like, oh my God. 93 different countries voted in favor of this. 18 against and 65 abstained. Well, the people who voted against it are the US and Russia. China abstained and so did India. So the world's largest population abstained. The second world's population abstained. Two out of the three, two out of the five P.5 powers voted against it. So whatever these 93 other countries say, cool, nice, thank you for your words of affirmation. It doesn't matter. And that's my point around international law or the UN or any of these other resolutions, complete crap. I mean, and this is something where you just have to return to the preference in my opinion from what I can see from these liberals is literally rhetoric as opposed to a result. And the result is obvious no matter what. Even if it was literal Ukraine vassalage, if you wanted a quote, independent Ukraine or at least of Russia, how is that not preferable then the continuing ongoing march to death of the entire Ukrainian population, its state, its economy and everything. The idea that it was just gonna emerge as some at new Brussels or something, it was obviously not going to happen. And so I don't know, I find there's just so much fake idealism that has been baked into this, both right and left, by the way, that comes into this, which is falling apart on its own merits. And I think that is a necessary event for a more stable international outcome in the future.
- [33:17]
Krystal Ball
Well, what I will just say is this. First of all, as I explained before, I don't think the answer to us having been hypocritical or things being not great in the international order is to just say so let's just do total barbarism and might makes right and conquest here and there and everywhere else and more militarism and likely more aggressive Cold War posture towards China, et cetera. I don't think that that is the correct direction to go in number one. And number two, you can't ignore the fact we take for granted now that all of these European nations can coexist peacefully. That has not been the historical track record and in fact the architecture that was set up after World War II, which by the way was set up to serve our interests primarily, but also was quite effective at making sure that there were not repeated constant wars on the European continent. In fact, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is the largest land war in Europe Europe since World War II. So it's not like it didn't accomplish anything. It actually was quite successful in that way. And could it have been better? Could we have certainly the Cold War era use of all of these smaller countries in proxy wars against the Soviet Union and the obsessive have to get rid of any communist regime whatsoever. That was the wrong way to approach multipolarity. And frankly, I think that's exactly the direction that we are headed back in with the Trump administration.
- [34:54]
Sagar Enjeti
I hear that we will see. But the point, you know, the reason why that that mattered in the past, these European states warring were they were the bedrock of the Global system and of the global economy, they're irrelevant today.
- [35:05]
Krystal Ball
They're still matters. If they go to war with each other, they go to war with each other.
- [35:09]
Sagar Enjeti
That's their problem. The only reason why did the United States get involved in World War I? Right? It's like, let's all be really honest about it. It was about the attacking of the Lusitania and about the. Well, that was a pretty. And then us getting involved was to basically bigfoot the European powers and say, no, we're the ones actually who are gonna be in charge. Why? Because we want the spoils of the international system. After World War II, what we become the preeminent guarantor of the west and of the rule of space, international order. The Soviets get their side of it, which again is about a complete division of the world for market based purposes. Europe will no longer even be 50% of global GDP by 2030. Its irrelevance to the global affairs is dramatic compared to how it was in a hundred years ago or even 75 years ago. So if there's a war between Latvia and Estonia, it doesn't matter at all.
- [36:00]
Krystal Ball
But Sagar, you're missing my point a little bit, which isn't that Europe is the most important region on the planet right now or whatever. My point is that you dismiss that international architecture that was set up after World War II as being fake and a waste of time and not accomplishing anything. That's just not true. That's just not true. That architecture actually did service for years. Even though, you know, I think again, the way we approach multipolarity with the Cold War was deeply destructive and led to that incredibly hypocritical approach which ultimately leads to the downfall of all of this. But that international architecture that was set up, it did its job in terms of preventing wars, additional wars in Europe. So you know, to say, oh, none of this is as possible and we can't do any better than just barbarism and conquest and taking over whatever countries we feel like taking over. I don't think that that is the case if you look at the historical record.
- [36:54]
Sagar Enjeti
My point is, is that that was an outdated model for an outdated market which does not exist anymore. The United States is an Asian power and is one where its destiny for both on a consumer at a technological level will be accomplished there. There is not a single serious economist who would even dispute that. Even Obama. Obama had the whole quote unquote pivot to Asia. This has been on paper, if you just look at it as a balance sheet and take out everybody's nice little vacations to Munich or to Italy or whatever. It's obvious. And my point is that over committing to this European security and fetishizing it is some great incredible thing. Just because we did it 60 years ago, we should continue to do it today. Which is mostly the argument, if you really look at it on a merit like level, for why we should be so supportive of Ukraine is bad for the overall US Interest. Now I know the whole barbarism and all of that. Again, like what you think other countries don't operate that way. In a certain sense there's a Thucydides trap. There always will be. With the way that great powers function inside of the system, in a sense you don't have any choice. And beyond that, when we talk about how the United States has conducted itself, it. It has always been this way. It's just been rhetorically dressed up. It's not just us, all these other countries. Like when China wants to justify its expansion, it does so in the same rhetoric of, like in criticism of Western rules based international. When Russia invades Ukraine, how do they do it? They do it in a criticism. Again, as if they're the ones who are being encroached upon. They don't just outwardly say we want oil or whatever or it used to be ours and so thus we deserve it. That's basically their argument, which is stupid, but that's what it all comes down to. And so honesty in the international system. Let's say you were talking there about Russia and China and the United States. This idea of a meeting, it will not happen. In the rhetoric that you're describing. The only way it would happen is to be like, all right, let's all be honest here. Who needs what? How is it going to happen? And you know who we borrowed this from? This is the great irony. This is what the European powers did before World War I. They carved up the world because they were the guarantors of security with the might and the ability to enforce those borders. And there actually was a period of some relative peace on.
- [39:10]
Krystal Ball
And then there was World War I. Yeah, okay.
- [39:12]
Sagar Enjeti
I mean, I didn't say every system is perfect. It always breaks down because things change.
- [39:17]
Krystal Ball
Here's what I would say. And then we can move on, which is that when we have pursued what we perceive to be in our just total naked self interest. For example, when we went into Iraq, those things have ended up being a disaster.
- [39:34]
Sagar Enjeti
Well, I would flip it a disaster. I don't think that was for our self Interest. And that was part of the problem, of course.
- [39:38]
Krystal Ball
I mean, I think we clearly went in to secure natural resources, just as we're now talking about being in Ukraine forever to secure natural resources, just like we're talking about being in Greenland, in Panama, Panama, in Gaza, to secure our own naked self interest. And so what I would say is that I don't think that that is, number one beneficial to America in the long term whatsoever. And number two, I certainly don't think it's good for the people of those countries who are getting blown up and having their societies destroyed. And the amount of blowback that we've seen from that hypocritical adventurous, where we were really nakedly pursuing our self interest, no matter what language we wrapped it around, democracy or markets or whatever, where we really were just nakedly pursuing our self interest, the amount of blowback from that has been utterly catastrophic for us. So pursuing it more nakedly without any veneer of democracy, it doesn't improve the fact that this has led us, that is a big part of the decline of this country is that adventurism and is that naked pursuit of our own self interest which has led to massive blowback for our own country and created more horror, more barbarism, more terror, more danger, all of that.
- [40:54]
Sagar Enjeti
My last word would be, I would dispute that the second Iraq War was a war of national interest. And that's exactly why it was such a terrible idea. It was born of an ideological obsession with nation building. And yes, securing the oil was also a great. It didn't even work out. Ironically, the Chinese currently control the oil market out of Iraq. But if we look in the past at both Vietnam and the second Iraq War, those were ideological projects not born of national interest. They basically fused ideology with, well, it's in the US interest to make sure South Vietnam is demise. It sounds so insane.
- [41:28]
Krystal Ball
It's the domino effect some 70 years later. And that's how they thought of it as being in the national interest.
- [41:33]
Sagar Enjeti
My point is that if you actually had a true balance sheet analysis of that which many realists at the time of both their Iraq and Vietnam said, you would never do it. And actually they would be better off and so would we. And so if we pursue things that are openly from a position of national interest and don't let ourselves get sucked down the trap of democracy or human rights or stopping communism or we have to can't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud, then we will be better off overall. This is kind of a kissing jerrying view view of the world, which I agree with 100%. And it was one where, if we had pursued that, we would be richer, we'd be more prosperous, those people would be better off, and we would be better off. So you can read it two different ways, but I would read them much more of mistakes of ideology rather than of mistakes of natural interest. I would say when the United States works in its national interest, it actually works out pretty damn well. And it's when we depart from that, like our stupid experiments in Cuba and in the Philippines, when we just want to, like, appear, you know, like one of the great powers, or whenever we pursue, you know, this land war in Asia against Vietnam or invade Iraq for no purpose, literally whatsoever, that's when we lose our treasure. That's exactly how the Roman Empire, like.
- [42:49]
Krystal Ball
Australia as well, for example, wanting to take over Gaza. I mean, that's the problem.
- [42:54]
Sagar Enjeti
We're doing that on behalf of the Israelis, not for us.
- [42:56]
Krystal Ball
That's the problem. Is that the way you might calculate that balance sheet as you described it is not. Not. There's no, like, universal way to calculate that.
- [43:05]
Sagar Enjeti
Yeah, that's.
- [43:05]
Krystal Ball
And so, you know, Trump is looking at it, and his calculation is, oh, we should have 50% of Ukraine, which, again, obligates us to Ukraine forever. Oh, we should take over Greenland. Oh, we should take over Panama. Oh, we should take over Canada. Oh, we should bomb Mexico. Oh, we should do total ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza and take that over, because that'll be good for our interests. That's. That's what I'm saying, is that when you are unconstrained by anything and it's just purely might makes right, what you're gonna end up with is a lot of disastrous foreign adventurism that both is bad for our country, but also, yes, I do care about the fact that it leads to mass slaughter and devastation and horror for people in other countries around the world, too, like the Palestinians, for example.
- [43:50]
Sagar Enjeti
I think that's fair. I understand how you got there. Again, I just think. And look, you're right in terms of the balance sheet. Many people. People disagree with me. All the libs in my neighborhood, they will tell you Ukraine is a vital national interest, and they can express their wish at the ballot box if they will. This is just an argument that I made. This view is not popular in Washington. It is really not actually all that popular in America. Most Americans like to truss up their foreign policy in some sort of doing good in the world. It's how we basically solve it.
- [44:21]
Krystal Ball
Because humans, people want to believe that they can make the world like that. We don't have to accept naked barbarism, colonialism, imperialism, that things can be improved like they, they. Yes, they have a basic belief in the power of human beings to improve civilization. And instead what we're seeing is just a return to. Well, actually we're just going to go back to pure resource grabs. You know, that we feel like doing an adventurism around the world wherever we feel like.
- [44:49]
Sagar Enjeti
I think the nightmare scenario is that that doing that would actually lead to a more stable scenario. Now, of course, as I said, the big risk to that is Gaza, because that is the definition of doing something outside your own national interest and for literally another nation's interest, which we will get to later on in the show. So why don't we just end it there?
- [45:06]
Krystal Ball
All right.
- [45:06]
Sagar Enjeti
It's been a good discussion.
- [45:07]
Krystal Ball
Yes.
- [45:09]
Ashley Kineti
Dreaming of hydrated skin amidst these dry winter months, Dime offers clean, master esthetician crafted skincare products that deeply nourishment, nourish, protect and hydrate. Their formulas, made with clean ingredients, lock in moisture for skin that stays soft, smooth and radiant all season long. Hydration starts with Dime's best selling Hyaluronic Acid serum, delivering deep moisture where your skin craves it most. This lightweight, fast absorbing serum helps quench dryness, plump skin and boost elasticity from the inside out. Once your skin is prepped with the serum, seal in all that hydration with their Dewy Day Cream, a rich, luxurious moisturizer designed to provide all day softness and lasting glow. Together, this powerful duo keeps your skin smooth, supple and luminous even in the harshest weather. Shop the duo now@dimebeautyco.com that's dimebeautyco.com and get the hydrated skin of your dreams.
- [46:09]
Unknown
This is Ashley Kineti from the Ben and Ashley Eye almost famous podcast. Fast it feels like everyone is talking about GLP1s these days. Those are Ozempic and Semaglutide. And with Future Health, you can find out if they're right for you too. Maybe you feel like you've been struggling with your weight for years and no matter how much you diet and exercise, you just don't feel healthy. Just go to try FH.com to find out if weight loss meds are right for you. Future Health is not a healthcare services provider. Meds are prescribed at provider's discretion. Results may vary. Sponsored by Future your Health At Ameca.
- [46:40]
Sagar Enjeti
Insurance, we know it's more than just a car or a house. It's the four wheels that get you where you're going and the four walls that welcome you home. When you combine auto and home insurance with Amica, we'll help protect it all. And the more you cover, the more you can save Amica. Empathy is our best policy.
- [47:10]
Krystal Ball
All right, let's move on to the latest of whatever the hell is going on with this Doge Elon email that he sent out asking for everybody to send in their five bullet points, et cetera. So Trump yesterday, when he was with Emmanuel Macron, got asked about the Elon email and whether or not people should respond and how he felt about it. He seems in this conversation to really go to bat for Elon and back him him up. Let's take a listen to what he had to say.
- [47:36]
Sagar Enjeti
People to ignore it, but Elon Musk.
- [47:38]
Donald Trump
The last email that was sent where he wanted to know what you did this week, you know why he wanted that, by the way? I thought it was great because we have people that don't show up to work and nobody even knows if they work for the government. So by asking the question, tell us what you did this week, what he's doing is saying, are you actually working? And then if you don't answer, like, you're sort of semi fired or you're fired because a lot of people are not answering because they don't even exist. They're trying to. That's how badly various parts of our government were run by, and especially by this last group. So what they're doing is they're trying to find out who's working for the government, Are we paying other people that aren't working? And, you know, where is all this? Where's the money going? We have found hundreds of billions, billions of dollars of fraud so far. And we've just started.
- [48:30]
Krystal Ball
Some of the agency heads instructed their employees not to respond because they were waiting on further guidance.
- [48:35]
Sagar Enjeti
But Elon Musk's tweet said a failure.
- [48:37]
Krystal Ball
To respond would be taken as a resignation.
- [48:38]
Sagar Enjeti
So there's been a disconnect in communications. Are you concerned at all about that only.
- [48:42]
Donald Trump
No, no, no. That was done in a friendly manner. Only things such as perhaps Marco at State Department where they have very confidential things, or the FBI where they. They're working on confidential things. And they don't mean that in any way combatively with Elon. They're just saying there are some people that you don't want to really have them tell you what they're working on last week.
- [49:03]
Krystal Ball
They don't mean that in any way combative. So he's. Yeah, I mean, so number one, he's backing up Elon. Number two, he's trying to downplay what we covered yesterday, which is that a bunch of these agency heads really started actually by Cash Patel, but then the Department of Defense jumps in. Secretary of State Marco Rubio z of Rafael RFK Jr. Went one way and then went the other way. Tulsi Gabbard, basically all the agency heads ultimately were like, no to their own people. You don't have to reply to this email. So Trump's trying to downplay that dispute, but he seems to back up Elon there. Then let's put this next piece up on the screen. This is great reporting from our friend Jeff Stein and co. By the way, Jeff Stein got a promotion over the Washington Post. Congratulations to him. He's going to be their chief economic correspondent in any case. Case Trump administration tells agencies they can ignore Musk's order on this email reply. The Office of Personnel Management told HR officials that employees would not be let go for not replying to an email asking what they did last week. So seems to contradict Trump. But this is the, you know, direction coming from effectively, like the HR Department of the whole federal government. This is the OPM email that came out later in the day that seems to now indicate people are supposed to respond to this email. They say to further clarify response. The email sent on Saturday is voluntary. Was strongly encouraged. Once again, you should not transmit any confidential or sensitive privilege or investigative information. Please send your bullets to this email going forward. I've asked the office to operationalize this exercise, so please stay tuned for instructions. In the future, OPM may consider incorporating expectation that employees submit weekly accomplishment bullets into its regular weekly reporting structure. Because, you know, having to send in five bullshit bullets every week is certainly going to improve government efficiency. Again, thank you for your dedication to our agency's mission. So they're saying here they're going to operationalize this exercise moving forward. And then we've got one other piece here from Elon who says, subject to the discretion of the President, they will be given another chance, referring to employees who did not respond. Failure to respond a second time will result in termination. So anyway, kind of indications all over the place. Trump backs up Elon. Then the Office of Personnel Management says, no, you don't have to respond. Elon says, you're going to have to. You get one more chance. Then OPM comes in and says, well, it's not mandatory right now, but we're going to operationalize this. So that's basically where things are Yeah.
- [51:30]
Sagar Enjeti
I have a theory now of Elon Blowback which I was trying to tease out to you yesterday is boss theory is that the more Elon is seen as a dickhead boss as opposed to a visionary entrepreneur, the more Americans will turn against him. So the vast majority of Americans are not like us, they're not self employed. You know, they don't own their own business and that's fine. It's a pain in the ass for all. For the people who wanna know what it's like out there, they work for W2 or they have a boss, right? Or they and or are the boss having boss been subject to somebody's authority previously. You and I previously have worked office jobs. So you know intimately what it's like to have a literal moron trying to performance review you or tell you what you can and can't do differently in some sort of like HR software that rates you one out of four. It's both dehumanizing and also incredibly stupid at the same time. But the stakes are so high because your salary is on the line. And so I believe that the more Elon as seen as a capricious and an annoying boss over the vast majority of over the largest employer in the United States and the more that people have a connection to that employer, there will be more pushback against that. Now part of the reason why most Americans had not really cared about it previously is at the end of the day, the private institutions like Tesla or SpaceX, you have a choice of whether you want to work there or not. You're also incredibly well compensated and it's not, not like worldly important that you work in your job, which at least some government jobs are. But I think that the more publicity that there's a spotlight on this type of behavior that Americans really don't like to be screwed with by their boss. I remember reading a statistic, it's like 70% of people like hate their boss or they're just like 20 some percent of people would literally kill their boss if they had or say they would if they could. Wow, people really hate their boss. I get it. It's one of those where I've been in that position before where they're so annoying. And so I think that the more that this permeates two people, it will really start to piss people off. Because if you think about it, white collar service based, everybody knows what it's like to have an annoying supervisor or to be scheduled or to be told one thing and then told the opposite. I mean, how often does that happen when you work in a workplace. It's maddening.
- [53:47]
Krystal Ball
And white collar employees get treated way more humanely, and I mean, like, literally like human beings than blue collar workers who are completely dehumanized, often subject to these ridiculous security procedures and surveilled even while they're in the break room eating their lunch and all that sort of crap. And so, yeah, everybody hates bosses. Everybody hates bosses. So I think you're right about that. And I think Elon is leaning hard into the asshole boss Persona. So when you couple that with the fact that these federal government jobs, I was telling Sagar before the show, one of the states that has the highest proportion of federal government workers is actually Alaska. People think of federal government workers being here in D.C. they by and large are not. I mean, there are many here in D.C. this is obviously the greatest concentration of them, but they're spread out across the country and their impact is felt across the country. And then you think about like the ancillary workers and, and just the, you know, anytime you have this level of like glee and delight in firing people and destroying their lives and their livelihood, it's gonna, it's gonna rub people the wrong way. So I think we are starting to see that pushback. You know, what's gonna happen with this frickin Elon bullet point situ. I don't really know. And it is an interesting subplot to see. And one thing I didn't anticipate is the possibility that the agency heads themselves, themselves could be somewhat of a check on Elon because they got their Senate confirmations, they went through the thing, they thought they were getting this level of power and agency within these departments, and then they're watching Elon just completely bigfoot them, even to the point of like, well, I get to say who works for you and who does what and how this whole thing is run. And I'm gonna get access to all your data and my little like goofy 20 year olds are gonna come in and run wild through your agency whenever the hell they feel like it, whether you want them there or not. And so while the congressional Republicans, because of the politics around it, will just bend the knee to Trump and Elon, and Elon has threatened them with primary challenges and that's an important enforcement mechanism, et cetera. It's a little bit different dynamic with these agency heads. So it is a particular dynamic that I want to watch and I think is a little bit unsettled as of now in terms of how all of that is going to play out there. Was yesterday an interesting protest, I guess you would say, at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. We can put this up on the screen. Somebody hacked into the screens in the building and played this AI generated video of Elon having his, like, feet kissed. Yeah, it's kind of disturbing to see.
- [56:29]
Sagar Enjeti
You should put a trigger warning on.
- [56:31]
Krystal Ball
This, to be honest with you. And then across the screen, it reads, long live the real King Courts, a rat reference to the position of power Elon has taken and also Trump's previous reference last week to Long live the King in the context of the New York congestion pricing situation. So that is something that happened that was confirmed by multiple reporters, including Jeff Stein. As I said, there's also a few developments in terms of the legal battles against Doge. We can put this next one up on the screen. So the federal ethics watchdog that Trump. Trump has been blocked from firing by a federal court has ruled that some of the terminations of probationary employees appear to be illegal. So Trump tried to fire this dude. A court said, you can't do that, or at least there's a temporary injunction put in on that. And so he has said that, according to. And this is not a court ruling, to be clear, from Hampton Dellinger. This is just. He's the federal ethics watchdog. He's advising that some of the probationary employee firings may be illegal. You also had. We don't have an element for this, but yesterday you had a judge that really harshly questioned the constitutionality of the entire setup of Doge. And part of this soccer comes down to you guys. Remember, the Trump administration put in this court filing, like Elon. He has nothing to do with Doge. He's not in charge of Doge. He's just an advisor to the president. President. But then when this judge was questioning them, okay, well, then who is in charge of Doge? They couldn't answer. They had no idea. And the reason that this is important in terms of its potential constitutionality is there's something called the Appointments Clause, which means if you have a significant position, it has to be confirmed by the Senate. That's why the government is trying to say, like, oh, Elon doesn't have anything to do with that, because obviously he's not confirmed by the Senate. And so the fact that they're this far into the administration and they're pretending Elon's not in charge when clearly he is, number one. And number two, they can't say who the acting director of Doge is when it obviously has been given these incredible Whole of government powers. That's why this judge was questioning whether or not this whole situation was constitutional at all.
- [58:48]
Sagar Enjeti
Yeah, it's very interesting in terms of how this will continue in the court process. But for me, I am just still mystified at this whole OPM situation because it does really get to a crux of, of it gets to the crux of not only who's in charge, but to what extent they will have authority going forward under their own department. And if Elon can just parachute in and outside of some programs like is he gonna be able to run the so called day to day? I mean, I guess the thing is with Trump, and again, I think this is the thing about Trump as well. Trump is also a boss. Right. Trump is also somebody who probably empathizes with this idea, like, oh, my employees are stealing from me or, you know, they're taking advantage of me. And so now that he runs the government, he probably empathizes with that, sending such an email. But this, like I said, I think it's starting to flirt with people who are feeling jerked around because that's where I think most people can again, empathize with the chaotic nature of all of this. And if there was a plan and there were going to be cuts, I think a lot of people would be fine with it, you know, but. Or at least Trump MAGA for folks would be not necessarily liberal ones, but the idea that your job is in jeopardy or not and all of these legal theories and you have to send this email or not, it detracts from the idea that there's like a steady hand and competence on the wheel, which if you think about it, that was the pitch that Donald Trump made whenever he came back to office as I'm gonna make everything normal and restore it to 2019. Again, those are very different interpretations of that. And that's why it's important, but that's why I think it matters.
- [60:22]
Krystal Ball
Yeah, absolutely. And then just to go through some of the impacts here and some of the things that really cut negatively against them, let's put this next piece up on the screen. I mean, it's impossible to keep up with all the things that are impacted and all the things that are going on. So this is a bit of a sampling, but this CNN article actually was really good and pointed out something that I hadn't thought about before. They say military families rocked by Trump's federal government cuts. We've talked here before about how much of the federal government is employees are retired military. And so that's very significant. But this article looks specifically at there've been all kinds of federal government programs, including one that was championed by Trump in his first term to hire military spouses and give them work and flexible work and often telework within the federal government. And the reason is pretty obvious here. You've got this group of military spouses who are oftentimes having to be moved around the country, country based on where their significant other is stationed at the time and what deployments they're dealing with. Also, if your significant other is deployed overseas, that's going to create childcare issues, et cetera, if you're having to commute a long way to your job. And so when the order came down of, okay, everybody back to the office, initially, military spouses were not excluded. So people for whom they'd been given an ability to be able to work these jobs and have that of flexibility of being able to work from home and be able to work long distances, even when they get moved around, et cetera, they were not excluded. And then there was some memo that went out that was like, maybe you are excluded. And it's just been total chaos and really unclear. And the other piece with this is in terms of firing all of the employees that are on this probationary period, it's important to understand that that doesn't just apply to people who've been newly hired by the federal government. If you move positions between agencies or even sometimes if you get a certain promotion. But certainly if you're moving from, okay, he was stationed here, now he's stationed somewhere else, and I'm totally switching to work at a different agency that's closer to where he lives now, to where we live now. Those people would be on probation. So that means that you would have a disproportionate impact on these military spouses that I think everybody finds pretty it's a good thing for the federal government to these are people who are capable of skills that are useful to the government. It's not like they're not deserving of the positions, but they require some flexibility and they're more likely to be in this probationary period. So it's hit them in particular really, really hard. In addition, something we can put the next one up on the screen that Sagar and I were mentioning yesterday is you're already having big impacts at the national parks. So National Park Service was already pretty bare bones in terms of, you know, they'd faced staffing cuts and also staffing freezes. So the workforce has declined by 15% since 2010. But park visitation is way up. It's increased by 16%. If any of you guys have been to these national parks in recent years, you've seen like they are quite busy people, really love and enjoy. It's like an affordable vacation. They're incredible, they're beautiful. It's a wonderful experience. I'm making greatest favorite memories are at some of the places in the national park system. And so you're having already massive lines. You've had reservations at Gettysburg National Military park that were just blanket canceled because they weren't able to manage the reservation system. You had waits in order to get into the Grand Canyon national park were like multiple hours long because some of the people who, who just let people in and give them the map and take the money and whatever had been let go. So you're having significant impacts there already. And then the other piece is you've had a fair amount of what appears to be self dealing, although you could never say for sure. But certainly the appearance of self dealing coming from Elon as well. Put V5 up on the screen. So they laid off a bunch of workers at the auto safety agency that oversees Tesla. This agency had come like Elon had expressed his disgust at this agency previously prior to being the head or not the head of doge. According to who you believe they've mandated that Tesla and other automakers report crash data on vehicles. Specifically like self driving technology equipped vehicles have to report this crash data. He didn't like that. That they've launched investigations into deadly crashes involving his company's cars. He didn't like that either. So again, can you say Jarrett, okay, they got fired cuz Elon wanted them fired. You can't say that. But it certainly has the appearance of self dealing. And very similar with this next piece as well. You can put this up on the screen. So employees that had been reviewing Neuralink also were fired over the weekend as part of a broader purge. So 20 people in the FDA's Office of Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices, several, several of whom specifically worked on Neuralink, according to two sources. They were all let go now after the fact. Sagar. Some of these people they're scrambling to bring back because they realize that we really need some of these people. So they're scrambling to bring them back. But to your point, I think you're absolutely right about the more that he appears like the evil dreaded boss, I think that's really bad. The more people see him less as the visionary and more as the self interested, self dealing billionaire, the worse. And then the more that it impacts groups that are sympathetic and services that people actually value, the more of a political problem this is going to be.
- [66:07]
Sagar Enjeti
That was my prediction is if you start to actually come after stuff that people use and. Or our beloved, for example, national parks, one of the literally most beloved national programs in the country.
- [66:16]
Krystal Ball
And we should expand the national parks system.
- [66:19]
Sagar Enjeti
Sure, yeah.
- [66:20]
Krystal Ball
Because they are sort of overcrowded at this point because they're so popular.
- [66:23]
Sagar Enjeti
I know, yeah. Actually like I said, I went to Zion during COVID and. And it was, oh my God, the reservation system was a disaster. So if anything you should make it better and make it easier. One of the reasons I love and I support them is that it's literally free, or as close to free as you can get. A lot of the accommodations around the area are actually very cheap. It's very easy to take a very cheap vacation there, especially if you're nearby. You see it all the time. If you're into camping or any of this, you know, you can use the reservations. The park people will help you. They have it all set up. They really do. It's awesome. In terms of the government support for it, that is an example again of people who are like, hey, hold on a second here. I also think that where it comes down to not only with the military strategy, but the slap shot nature of it. The more again people are fine with the plan. I really believe that, especially Republicans. Most Republicans hate the government. They wanna see it gutted and all that, but they want to see it done in such a way not necessarily that doesn't impact them, but is for a goal. So if it's just about dei, it's like that's actually not that difficult. You can pretty much, even with the widest DEI definition, you could identify and publish all of the programs that have that and you could axe them and. Or you could fire the employees involved. The problem with the 10% layoff or with any of that and then bringing people back is it just feels as if it's doing it for the sake of it. Which is fine if you're at Twitter. And honestly it may be fine in the long run, right? It really could be. It could be one where they all leave and we don't even notice, which is Elon's kind of theory of the case. I don't really think that's true in democratic institutions, but I could be completely wrong. And that's where I currently see especially the pushback for families. Cuz I keep thinking about the statistic if 4 million people work for the government. That means that there are 8 to 10 million people out there who know somebody or are related to somebody who are directly related and or married to that person, not to mention their kids, if they're older, or their cousin. I mean, we could do the tree out. And everybody's a couple degrees removed from somebody who directly works with us here in Washington. I know dozens of people who are affected. Also, my commute's gotten worse. Thank you, Elon, for calling all these people back in. It's a pain in the ass. And that's another one where you are we really like, what is the metric? Are we asking people to come into work? I think that's fine. But to what end is it just to clock in and to clock out? Like, what is the theory of what is all happening here? And you know, the government's not a startup. I've always said that. And this is the problem with treating it as such. It's a literal democratic institution. Sometimes things are done stupidly and inefficiently, but in a sense, that's only because people like it that way or because congressmen or senators like it that way, and many constituents do as well. So it's a very complicated dance that I don't think think that currently they are winning. And Trump seems enthralled by the whole thing. I think Trump, and this is where I need to check my own bias, and I always say this. I think it would be a little too cute by half to have some great liberal backlash against Elon and Doge. It seems just a little too on the nose for what the media wants and what the liberals want, which, by and large, their political theories have been wrong over the last four years, outside of abortion. So I just don't know. Maybe he's correct. I mean, he's a very smart person. For him, the media and the liberals are against it. So he continues to fight. He could still have millions of people who rally, even not to him per se, but to the Republicans who defend it.
- [69:42]
Krystal Ball
I mean, there definitely is a massive liberal backlash. That much I can tell. I mean, I think that it's showing up at town halls in every state, that everywhere they're having town halls, whether it's a Democrat or Republican who's having them, people are showing up en masse. And so there's no doubt about that. And certainly in a midterm election, when that, that enthusiasm is what counts, I think that's going to be really, really determinative and important. So, you know, I do think that There will be a massive electoral backlash to all of this. But, you know, we'll see how Laura. And there's a long time between now and then, et cetera. But yeah, you've got the evil boss piece, you've got the incompetent piece. You know, it's very hard to argue that any of this is being done based on, like, merit. But when it's just these very blanket, across the board, not thoughtful having to scramble like, shit, we fired the dude who keeps our nuclear energy safe. We better get that guy back. And no, we fired some people at the FDA that were keeping track of bird flu. That seems kind of important. We better get those people back as well. And that's where your point about the government not being a business is a really, really important one for people to understand. Banned because government is not supposed to be like, its main goal isn't actually to be quote, unquote, efficient. And I'll give you a perfect example. Air traffic controllers, right? Businesses take all kinds of risks, especially businesses run by Elon Musk take all kinds of risks, including safety risks, betting that the fine or the consequences will be less than the fallout from cutting those corners and taking those risks. But as a society, we wanna make sure that the planes don't run into each other other. So you don't want to just slap shot, fire a bunch of air traffic controllers and make the thing more dangerous, even if that did mean it was, quote, unquote, more efficient. I also got news for you, like, the federal government, the amount that we pay to employ the federal government workforce is also not that large a part of the budget either. So even if you slashed like a preposterous amount of this workforce, you're doing very little in terms of actual cost cuts. And that's. The other piece is like, when you zoom out even from just this, okay, what Doge is up to, and they're like, bullshit, pretending like they found this or that fraudulent program, which they have not actually identified any fraud thus far whatsoever. And you consider the broader agenda, which is like, okay, well, we're trying to cut spending so we can do what? Give a giant tax cut to people like Elon Musk who already pay very little in taxes, then the agenda just completely depends, departs from what most Americans want. And Sahar's absolutely right that most people, if you ask them like, oh, should the government be cut? Should it be made more fish? Should some of the fat be cut? And they'd be like, yes, absolutely. But the way you do that matters. And the impact on people's lives matter. And I don't think that this is landing well with people based on what we're seeing.
- [72:35]
Sagar Enjeti
It's a good political. It is a good test theory for Trump theory of politics. Trump's theory of politics is if that the media and the liberals are against it, then he's gonna fight against it. And that has proven very well for him. It has worked dramatically well, actually, politically for him specifically, not necessarily the Republican Party. So how will he continue to fare? Not only his grip on the party, his ability to then perhaps transfer some of that in the midterms or in the future election? Because right now, if you were to believe a traditional media narrative, you're like, oh, it's going to be a blowout. But I just have a sneaking suspicion that the rules might have changed only in the sense that because the mainstream media no longer has the same grip on the American culture for its ability to set narratives. I genuinely question how much of this is even penetrating because even when the lib narratives penetrated during the election, it didn't hit to the electorate in the same way. The electorate is huge, right? Nobody can really know. But a lot of the memes that people tried to make that were supposed to be offensive, turn people off or whatever, in the traditional rules of politics, they didn't work at all.
- [73:45]
Krystal Ball
That's only the case when Trump is on the ballot. And Trump is not really supposed to be on the ballot again. He has other ideas.
- [73:52]
Sagar Enjeti
That's what you want.
- [73:53]
Krystal Ball
He has other ideas. That's what I want. As of today, based on the Constitution, he's not supposed to run again. He's also getting. He is getting old too, but, you know, so he's never been able to translate his particular political gifts in this way. He's very much like Obama. His particular political gifts to midterm elections, special elections, or really anyone else. So, yeah, when he's on the ballot, the polls are understate his support. People wanna give him a chance. Time and time again, he comes extraordinarily close in 2020, even with the disastrous state of the country under his leadership, he obviously wins in 2024 and is able to secure a popular vote victory, which is extraordinary. But the midterms before that were a disaster for Republicans, and the 2018 midterms were a disaster for Republicans as well. So I've never seen him able to translate his political gifts and talents to anyone else. And I don't see why that would change when people are already kind of over the honeymoon period and already turning certainly on Elon, but also his numbers are going down and people aren't happy with the state of the economy either.
- [75:18]
Unknown
Creativity doesn't wait and moves, shifts, evolves just like you. And with the Yoga PC from Lenovo, your tools finally keep up. Stunning, smart and sustainably sourced yoga PCs from Lenovo are designed to amplify your creativity with AI powered performance. Whether you're sketching, editing, animating or composing, yoga moves with you adapting to your creativity, to your rhythm. With beautiful displays of and the flexibility to shift from laptop to tablet, yoga unlocks new ways to inspire and create. Because at Lenovo we believe your tools should fuel your flow, not hold you back. Yoga PCs from Lenovo support you at every step of your creative journey. So check out lenovo.com yoga and supercharge your creativity with yoga Empowering creators everywhere.
- [76:18]
Ryan Seacrest
Do you own a business that's ready to thrive? It's time to let Intuit QuickBooks take things like unpaid invoices and tracking expenses off your plate so you can take things to the next level. Intuit QuickBooks is an all in one business platform that can help with those day to day tasks like invoicing and expenses. Manage and grow your business all in one place. Intuit QuickBooks your way to Money Money movement services are provided by Intuit Payments, Inc. Licensed as a money Transmitter by the New York State Department of Financial Services.
- [76:49]
Sagar Enjeti
Are you still quoting 30 year old movies? Have you said cool beans in the past 90 days? Do you think Discover isn't widely accepted? If this sounds like you, you're stuck in the past. Discover is accepted at 99% of places that take credit cards nationwide and every time you make a purchase with your card, you automatically earn cash. Back.
- [77:09]
Ryan Seacrest
Back.
- [77:09]
Sagar Enjeti
Welcome to the now it pays to Discover. Learn more@discover.com credit card based on the February 2024 Nielsen report.