← Keeping It Real: Conversations with Jillian Michaels
Keeping It Real: Conversations with Jillian Michaels
DEJA VU or Dominance? Sean Spicer on Trump’s Second Term -Wins, Losses & Scandals
01:15:26
Loading summary
Transcript85 lines
- [00:02]
A
A bombshell Vanity Fair profile of Chief of Staff Susie Wiles hit the stands. And of course, it sent shockwaves from 1600 Penn to Mar? A Lago. From calling the president's personality alcoholic to labeling J.D. vance a conspiracy theorist and admitting the mass deportation machine has made mistakes. The Ice Maiden of the MAGA movement is finally speaking. And for anyone who lived through 2017, the parallels are screaming. Now, Today, I'm joined by a man who was in the room when the fires were first lit. Former White House Press secretary Sean Spicer's here to give us the raw truth on whether Wiles is losing her grip or if this is all part of the plan.
- [00:42]
B
The narrative that the mainstream media drives is that there's a group of sycophants around Trump that just say, yes, sir, whatever you want, sir. And you see a story like this come out, and you go, you see that's not true.
- [00:54]
A
And then The Trump administration's 2025 report card on immigration.
- [00:57]
B
So either one has to agree that immigrants coming in. You alluded to this. Are not equal to the rest of us. So it's okay to have a class of citizens that we pay less because we. We are, you know, we're a more sophisticated group of individuals, and so we'll let those people do it. That's really what people are saying.
- [01:16]
A
Foreign policy, social justice issues, and, of course, course, the economy. Plus, Spicer gives us a fearless prediction for the 2026 midterms.
- [01:26]
B
The economy's in the crapper next to July and August. They're out the door.
- [01:30]
A
Grab your coffee because this one is loud. Keeping It Real with Jillian Michaels. Sean, thank you so much for joining me. How are you?
- [01:43]
B
I'm doing great. How are you?
- [01:46]
A
I'm doing well. I also have the chapstick. I don't know what kind of gum you have. I have nicotine gum. What kind of gum are you doing over there?
- [01:52]
B
I'm an extra kind of guy. So, you know.
- [01:56]
A
Okay.
- [01:57]
B
Yeah, I. I did. I was with. I. I did a whole thing for a while that got noticed. I. I had Orbit, Cinnamint, and that got some attention on Saturday Night Live. I switched over then to Extra. Hasn't gotten the same attention.
- [02:12]
A
That's good.
- [02:13]
B
Okay.
- [02:13]
A
I, you know, always evolving. I'm gonna take it. I'm gonna take that pro tip from you. I got a lot to ask you about, and I know your time is precious. I would wait.
- [02:22]
B
Can I just ask you a question? It's your show. How does a woman that's so into Fitness. Like, I. You're so. I've, you know, followed what. What put you on nicotine gum.
- [02:33]
A
Okay. So believe it or not, nicotine actually has all kinds of cognitive benefits. It's the crap in the cigarettes that's really bad for you. So nicotine can help prevent the. I have Parkinson's in my family. I have Alzheimer's in my family. It can help with recall. It can help with verbal fluidity. It can help prevent Parkinson's. It can delay the progression of Alzheimer's. So I do just. I'd very little bit about 1 milligram a day, five days a week for. In the hopes of rather cognitive health and focus when I'm doing shows.
- [03:16]
B
I like that. Okay, thank you.
- [03:20]
A
Or you'll throw up. Just to be clear. Just to be clear. Very little. So if you were to do the patch, which many people in the Maha space do, instead, I think they get like, a 14 milligram patch and they cut a tiny little square of it. So they're doing like 3 milligrams and they put it right between the shoulder blades. I've tried that. I don't really feel it. I have gum that's 2 milligrams a piece, and I do half a piece of gum. You chew it 10 times. Only 10 times. And then you put it in the corner of your mouth, and you might feel a little nauseous. Make sure there's food in your stomach. It takes a minute to acclimate.
- [04:00]
B
Okay. All right. This is super. Okay. I learned a lot. Thank you.
- [04:05]
A
Try it first, though, when you're not on camera so you don't, like, throw up everywhere and curse my name. Try it on my show next time, Sean. This way, if it all goes south, it'll be the appropriate environment. So I hope that was helpful and not terrible.
- [04:19]
B
No, super helpful. Yeah.
- [04:22]
A
I have been dying to ask you in particular about the Susie Wiles Vanity Fair meltdown. So before we even get going, obviously want to throw up this sound bite to set the stage here, guys, pop up SOT1 for Sean and myself, please.
- [04:41]
C
Let me get into some of the main things that I found very notable from what Chris Whipple, who works with Vanity Fair, detailed from their conversations. One is that wows referred to to President Trump as someone having a, quote, alcoholic personality. She also talked a lot about the vice president, J.D. vance, someone who, I should note, you know, had this conversion that Whipple noted as well, from Never Trumper to a MAGA acolyte. Susie Wiles essentially said that that change, that conversion has Been, quote, sort of political. And she said the vice president has been a, quote, conspiracy theorist for a decade. She also talked about Russell Vote. He is the White House budget chief, but he's also, of course, one of the architects of that notorious Project 2025, conservative blueprint for the future of our Republican Party, something that Trump had previously, of course, disavowed. She argued that Vote is, quote, a right wing, absolute zealot. And then she also went to a number of different things. One, she talked about Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, someone who is one of her closest friends, I should note, in this administration. She argued that Bondi, quote, unquote, whiffed, completely whiffed the handling of the Epstein file. She also talked about how the president who came in and offered a series of pardons to really roughly 1,000 people who were convicted for their crimes on January 6th. She essentially admitted that she had urged the president not to pardon those who had committed violent crimes on January 6th. And on the Capitol attack, she also talked about how she disagreed with him sometimes when it came to tariffs, as saying that she had urged him to delay some of the tariffs that he ultimately announced. And it goes on.
- [06:21]
A
Okay, I have so many thoughts on this, but the first one is that it screams of Trump's first term in office. I mean, fallouts with Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, William Barr, Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, John Bolton. I mean, the list is so frickin long. John Kelly, James Comey, Mitch McConnell. And it goes and goes and goes. I would keep you far over the hour just reading the list. What are your initial thoughts on this, having been on the inside of this?
- [06:50]
B
Mixed, and here's why. So Chris Whipple, who wrote that piece, has written a book that has been updated, I don't know, 10 times where he interviews every chief of staff. Now, personally, I think Chris Whipple is a leftist Trump hater. But the question you have to ask yourself is, do you want him to write my narrative without any input from me? So there are some people that would suggest I don't want to participate in whatever he writes about me. Therefore, I can say that I never spoke to him. There are some people who believe that. Why not at least try to mold and shape the narrative that he's going to write about you? Because he has a platform where he writes about every chief of staff and the mainstream legacy media Will, will. Will publish what he says. They'll echo it. So it seems to me, and I have not talked to Susie about this, but I would seem to me that she made the gamble that I'd rather be inside the tent trying to mold the narrative than sitting outside and having someone write a story about me based on anonymous sources and, and wish I help shape it. That being said, two things. One, I'm not shocked at how he twisted things. And two, like, if you unwind the, the piece there that Alana Trin did on, on cnn, you know, she said, let's take him backwards. That Russ Vote is a right wing zealot. I think that Russ would probably wear that as a badge of honor. I've known Russell a long time that that's a title he'd wear proudly. Second, she said that the vice president was a conspiracy theorist. And I think he has addressed that. That, sure. I mean, initially, when a lot of people, I mean, this is your world. Especially when it comes to like Covid and some of the things that, quote, unquote, the experts told us, it seems like a lot of those conspiracy theories at the time were truth. And the vice president spoke very eloquently the other day in Pennsylvania about, you know, they have a great relationship, they joke around. And, um, and again, there's things that you might say to somebody like, if I, if, if I had a good friend that, oh, they, they can be the biggest pain in the butt. And if it was written down, taken out of context, that would seem like an insult. But there are friends of mine that I go, dude, you just don't know. I mean, like, it's in a loving way. So I don't think it was a disparaging description of the vice president. And then you work backwards, you talk about the president and his alcoholic style. She wasn't saying that as, as a demeaning thing. Her father, Pat Summerall, was an alcoholic. And there is a trait that she describes because again, it's not, it's. All of this was taken sort of snippet, snippet, snippet. And when you go back and read the context in what she was describing, it was paying Donald Trump a compliment that when you're. That her experience with her father and alcoholics is that people who operate at that level really have a sense of, of fortitude and being and believing that nothing can stop them when they're determined to do something. And Trump subsequently, in a New York Post article said, yeah, I do have that kind of thing. So again, what happens sometimes when you read a story like this and the difference. You noted this very correctly. Gillian Trump won. We would have seen that story come out and there would have been a Circular firing squad. And everybody would say, what a jerk. What happened in this case is that Susie Wiles has earned a lot of respect because of her effectiveness and, and the critical nature that she played in both getting the President to back to the White House and having a very successful first year in office. So the difference between one and two, I know this from experience. When bad stories came about me, I'd be like, I'd look around and I'm like, hey, is there anyone that wants to defend me, help me? Because that's bullshit. It never happened. And I'd be like, is there anybody related to me? Anything, Anybody? This time, Trump 2.0, there's a willingness to, to not give the media any scalps to defend and protect. And in Susie's case, like I said, she has earned this level of support and it showed. And I was very much in awe of how this was handled.
- [11:03]
A
If we could be. If I could be totally transparent with you, and I hope you don't take this the wrong way, a lot of what she said made me feel a little better, and here's why. As a person who's moderate, the conspiracy thing doesn't freak me out for all the reasons you said. I did kind of wonder, and I've said this publicly, that Trump's fearlessness, I think, is his best quality. And I also worry in some cases will become his undoing and his kind of like impulsivity with Twitter. These are all things that I'm like, I kind of like, you know, I think it's fair to have a healthy critique of someone's behavior. It doesn't mean I don't think he's doing a good job at the border. It doesn't mean that I'm not happy. Gas prices are at a four year low. But these are things where I'm like, oh, the Rob Reiner thing. Oh, my gosh, no. And I kind of wonder if maybe that wasn't what she meant about like, like the kind of the alcoholic comment where he just, he's off the cuff, he's impulsive, he's afraid of nothing. Like, I actually, oddly, felt a little bit validated, like, all right, there's somebody in there. I did feel like pardoning people who had committed violent crimes on January 6th was a mistake. I thought it was bad optics. And arguably, I don't know much about January 6th, but if you're talking about people that actually did things wrong. Cause I know there's debate about people who did nothing and people who did something. She said here, the ones who committed violent crimes. Agree. Glad to know somebody's in there telling him that. I don't disagree with that at all. Everybody's talking about the fact that Pam Bondi kind of whiffed the Epstein files. Everybody. Megyn Kelly is. So I hate to tell you, I kind of, I, you know, again, as a person who's center right, I don't. Trump disavowed Project 2025. So for her to say this guy's a bit ideological, I'm kind of happy to know you've got somebody in there who sees it that way. Like, I, as a moderate, didn't see this as a bad thing. Am I crazy? No.
- [13:10]
B
I mean, in the sense that the narrative that the mainstream media drives is that there's a group of sycophants around Trump that just say, yes, sir, whatever you want, sir. And, and you see a story like this come out and you go, you see, that's not true. There are people like Susie. And by the way, I've never bought into that. I've had, I regularly, in my conversations with the president, will say, you know, sir, I know that you're trying to do this. I have a, I have a thought for you that might be a little different or how you could approach this differently. He takes feedback. He welcomes criticism. I think what people mistake is sometimes, and I acknowledge this myself, if somebody comes to you and says, you know, Sean, you were wrong, the way you handled this area, and they come at you aggressively, generally, I'm an Irish, like a angry Irish leprechaun. I'm going to be like, you know, I'm going after your bowl of Lucky Charms. And, and, and so how you approach somebody like Trump matters. And I think the, that you don't go after and go, you're wrong, sir. I've watched people do that. It doesn't end well. I was, I've said to them, him often, sir, hey, I know what your objective is here. I had a thought about how maybe we can achieve that goal in a different way. What do you think? And he'll say, sometimes I'll go, no, screw you. Sometimes he'll say, I like that. But he welcomes critique and feedback and the narrative that he doesn't have people around him like Susie. And you're right, what this showed is that there are people that disagree with him. I had Steve Moore on my show the other day. Steve hates tariffs, and he says, I tell the president all the time I don't like him. And yet the, the president still values him as an Economic adviser. So to your broader point, I, again, this. Is this exposed, this narrative, ridiculous narrative that the President surrounded himself with sycophants and anyway, and so I agree with you. I mean, like, I don't agree with every analysis that Susie made, but I also, I like the idea that there is a healthy discussion and analysis and feedback going on there, but I kind.
- [15:07]
A
Of felt that way. There was. Now, I appreciate that there's concern on the other side. You know, I was talking to my producer and he's like, well, you know, Jillian, the other angle here is that is this going to be the 2.0 of MOG is not cool anymore. People are kind of leaving it behind. And all the podcasting bros. Or I didn't vote for this. And is this going to be everybody kind of abandoning Trump because it's not popular, it's not cool. I didn't get that at all from those. Are you, Are you seeing any of that? I'm not at all, no. I would be remiss not to ask you if you think there's, you know, not going to be like, oh, I'm distancing myself kind of a thing.
- [15:49]
B
No, no, no. Look, if this is what distances, then where have you been for the last 10 years? I mean, one of the beauties of Trump, as you were describing a moment ago, is that you, you get the whole ball of wax if you, if you want this disruptor kind of guy that's an outsider willing to fight and sh up, then. Then you get the whole thing. I joke with people all the time. I'm five, six, you know, and some people will say, like, I wish Trump would do this, but just not this. And it's like me saying, hey, I Wish I was 6, 2, and I can dunk a ball. It's not going to happen. Right? And so when people say, I wish Trump was the disruptor that he is, but he doesn't tweet the way he does, or truth social. And I'm like, right, okay. What? This is the dumbest conversation when people say that. Because I'm like, how many times do you know somebody? We go, they're a really smart businessman, but they're kind of awkward socially. I wish they could be. And it's like, you don't get to pick what part of a person you want. It's not like an AI created presidency. And, and so, right. I. I think you get Trump. And to me, the net, the. The good outweighs the bad. Like, he is a disruptor. He's doing things from A look, you might describe yourself as center right. I'm all right. And I think that like what he is doing, I'm very proud of. I love the disruption, you know, every, even on the tariffs. I'm a, I've generally been a free trader. But how many times are we going to get told that another country gets to access our market basically unfettered, tariff free, non tariff barrier free. And yet when we want to sell our goods from US Manufacturers, service providers, farmers and ranchers, we're going to get screwed going into their market and we should just sit back and take it. This president was willing to upset the apple cart. Think about NATO. We created a construct decades ago that said, hey, here's the deal. We, we will collectively all spend a certain amount on our national defense and we'll protect each other. And everybody shook hands and agreed and said, that's a great idea. And then what did most of all of Europe do? They said, well, instead of spending money on our national defense, why don't we spend it on welfare programs, roads, bridges and we'll let the United States pick up the tag for decades. And Trump said, no more, no mas. And everybody said, my gosh, this is, he's so rude. Look at what he's doing. You don't speak to Europeans like that. And soon enough they said, okay, pony up. So what? I get so wound up. People want to get wound up around the actual about like he was rude to Keir Starmer from Britain. Like, we don't speak to the British that way. And my answer is really, would you rather have a better deal or worry about how he addressed him, like Sir Kirmer? I mean, like I just, to me, so many people's priorities are backwards.
- [18:31]
A
You know. And one other thing that Susie said is like, I would have asked him to delay some of the tariffs. Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity said they might tweak his strategy on tariffs. Again, to me, I'm like, so what? A lot of people had critiques about, yeah, we should do it. You know, we're not sure how it's going to play out. It's threading a very fine needle from Victor Davis Hansen all the way down the line.
- [18:55]
B
So I, you know what?
- [18:56]
A
Jillian thought that this was, I don't.
- [18:59]
B
Want to geek out, but I can tell you that. So Trump decided this is like totally inside the weeds. But just, I was the Assistant U.S. trade Rep for a while in the Bush administration. There are different ways you can use emergency powers, which is referred to as ipa, which is what the President did. Or you can use trade dispute mechanisms, which is there's like 301s and there are all these wonky things. One of them, the latter, requires you to formally investigate certain trade practices, and they can take months, if not years. The first one, the ipa, is immediate. They chose ipa. Well, I'm going to let you in on another secret. There was huge disagreement about which. Which tool to use. Right. To Susie's point, you. You could have used trade dispute mechanisms. That's healthy. The idea that they're having these discussions and saying which is a better tactic? When do we do it? How do we do it? That's what you should have. I don't get, like, going back to your initial point. Why is everyone freaking out that there's just, you know, a robust discussion about the best tactic? That's what you want.
- [20:01]
A
I hate to say it, but I kind of loved it. I. Because. Because everybody's like, are we doing it the right way? And if she. If it's obvious that you're having conversations and disagreements and it's like, well, I thought this. But we ended up going that way. That would be normal for any company. Anyway, I. I'll move on from that. I just specifically wanted to hear your thoughts on that issue. And I appreciate the perspective. It's made me feel a little bit validated. I'll be honest. I would love a report card on 2025. So let's start with what I think is the most obvious immigration and border policy. So let me know what I'm getting wrong here. Close the border. Awesome. Fentanyl deaths down. Great. Implementation of major enforcement laws like the Lake and Riley act. Win. Okay, now losses, legal challenges that limit certain deportation and enforcement plans. Even Susie Wiles said that she wished that with immigration policy, they'd been a bit more discriminating or less bombastic. I think that's kind of what I took away from it because of the backlash. A hundred lawsuits and dozens of restraining orders coming from blue cities. And he's having a hard time with mass deportation. So on one hand, you've got the far right saying, not enough, not enough, not enough. And on the left, it's like the Gestapo. So that one I take with a full blown grain of salt. Now tell me what I got wrong and tell me what I got right here.
- [21:33]
B
You got it. All right. I mean, look, a couple things from the macro level. You did A plus. There you go. Thanks.
- [21:41]
A
Okay.
- [21:41]
B
You're very welcome. Look, this is what I love. Even just from a macro sense, I'VE been my first campaign, I did in 1994. So I've been in the game 30 years. Most politicians, you know, promise you the world when they're out on the campaign trail. We're going to do this. I'm going to do this. And then two years or four years later, depending on what office it is, they come back and tell you why they didn't get it done. You know, Congress failed to act. I was able to do this, that President Trump made it very clear, if you elect me, I'm going to seal the border. I don't need a bunch of congressional things that Biden had said had to happen. I'll just do it. And he did it. And so just from a macro standpoint, the idea that a politician goes out, makes a promise to the American people, and then follows up on it with no apology, no excuses is what I want more of. I want people who keep their word. I want them who actually execute. And on the border, he made it very clear, I'm going to seal it. People aren't going to come in illegally, and if they are here illegally, we're going to get rid of them people. One of the things that Ms. I think gets missed in this debate, and even, by the way, just as a side note to your point about the court cases, he's doing what he said he can't. If the courts have an issue with some of the stuff, and frankly, some of it, I think is ridiculous. How the court is ruled, that's not on him, that's on the courts. And they are adjudicating that further by going to the Supreme Court. But the bigger and broader point that I would make is this. For some people, they go, I just don't like some of the ways that it's being executed or whatever. And my answer to them is we are by definition a nation of laws. People say, I want to come to America. Why? Well, because of our system of government, of how we treat people of our Constitution. Okay, so if you want to come here because of our laws, then you need to obey our laws. It's very hard to me to feel sympathetic for somebody whose first act is breaking law, coming into our country and then saying, I want to stay in this country because it's so great because of those very same laws. And so I am sympathetic to people. I'm a Catholic, I'm a Christian, so I get people who are fleeing persecution, who want a better life. I want to create legal pathways to come into this country. But because you just don't get to break our laws because you decided that you had to do that or you wanted to do that or you needed to do that. We have a system, and I get it. It can be cumbersome, it can be bureaucratic. But the funny thing is, our laws are probably more lax than most other countries when it comes to just the legal paths of immigration. So I just. I get a kick out of the subject because to me, this is. This is fundamental. If we really are a nation of laws, then we need to follow them. And if you don't like them, then petition Congress to change them and say, I think we need to do a better job here. I think we need to do it this way. But that's how you change the system. You don't get to just decide which laws you get to choose to follow or not.
- [24:36]
A
What about this? The. I was just watching a young Democrat. I think his name is James Talarico. And I've actually heard the exact same talking point from Chris Christie. And I. I'm not trying to, you know, I'm not trying to make you, like, a Democratic Chris Christie. I'm not trying to get your hackles up, but they both said we have 7 million jobs in this country, and Americans aren't applying for them. And, you know, I hate this conversation about immigrants picking fruit. It makes me sick. It feels like you're implying that they should be a slave class. And the reality, in my experience, and historically, through my educating myself on the matter, is that when people who are immigrants come here legally, they have better upward mobility, they're more likely to start businesses, their kids do better in school, they pay more into the system than they take. What do you think if Trump had been a little softer on that? Like, listen, if you're here, come apply, you gotta pay a fine for coming in illegally. You know, we're gonna fast track your case. We're gonna vet you thoroughly. There are 7 million jobs. Where can you contribute? Where do we have gaps? Or is that. Do you totally disagree with that? Cause then there's also the conversation of, like, they're taking jobs from Americans. But then it's like, you know, how many Americans have applied to pick avocados in California? None. I don't actually know the answer to that, and I think you probably do more than I do.
- [26:02]
B
So let's start with the avocados. Why aren't they picking them?
- [26:07]
A
Because they don't get paid enough.
- [26:09]
B
Okay, so to your point, we're either admitting, number one, that we're allowing these immigrants to come in because they're less human. They deserve to get a crappier wage, a lower wage, because we don't really think that they're. I mean, so either one has to agree that immigrants coming in, you alluded to this, are not equal to the rest of us. So we. It's okay to have a class of citizens that we pay less because we. We are, you know, we're a more sophisticated group of individuals, and so we'll let those people do it. That's really what people are saying. Secondly. Yeah, yeah. The question is, what. What is the. What is the trade off? So you want a cheaper avocado and you want people to. To pay less. Part of the reason that a job isn't being done is because the wage isn't being met. Right. And so. And we want to. We only want to pay, you know, I don't. I don't eat avocado, so I don't know what an avocado goes for. Let's just say it goes for a dollar. Well, if. If you want an American to do the job, it might cost you more to have it pay. You might have to pay more for it. The price of an avocado might go to, say, $1.50. And people go, I don't want to pay $1.50. So basically, we're having an existential conversation about the value of human dignity. What's it worth? What is it that we're willing to pay? But it's. You know, when people talk about letting these people in, it's. You know, I would argue that there's maybe a middle ground, which is there are certain visa programs, seasonal working programs, agricultural working programs that we can bring people in for a temporary amount of time during a growing season or whatever. But. But we need to be honest about what's happening. What the real discussion is, either we're saying that a certain class of people is worth less, and we're willing to pay them less and treat them less. You know, they obviously don't get benefits either, which is what so many people advocate, especially on the left. They got to get health care. We don't offer those people that. So you're either admitting that it's okay to have multiple classes of people or two, that we don't really want to pay the real wage that an American would want for that job, because we don't want to pay additional for an avocado or a lemon or whatever we're picking these days. So, I mean, that, to me, is the real discussion that no one really wants to have.
- [28:26]
A
You're so right. That is so true. And it makes me sick when they say that Jasmine Crockett went viral for saying black people are done picking cotton. But of course, the implication was, but let all these immigrants come in and they could be the next class of slaves. And quite literally made that comparison. And I'm just thinking, as a former Democrat, you guys are okay with this. Really?
- [28:56]
B
That's what I find.
- [28:57]
A
Former Democrat.
- [29:00]
B
Go, go. It's so ironic, though, that these people who want to talk to us about, you know, dignity and human life and, and, and treating people a certain way, that's really what they're advocating for, is saying that we should have a second class of people who we don't have to give the benefits to, that we would to every. I mean, think about all these Democrats right now in the current environment are arguing for health care and how it's critical and blah, blah, blah, blah. But in the same breath, they're saying we should let a group of people come in, that we won't give those benefits to, that we will pay a lesser wage because deep down we really don't want to explain the fact that we want the cheap avocado or the lemon or whatever it is. And we, it's okay because, you know, and I just, again, so many discussions that on big policy issues, it's like when you start to peel it back and say what's really at stake here is, you know, whether we want to have real discussions, real policy discussions on some of these bigger issues. Right? So whether it's immigration or manufacturing, I mean, think about this, Jillian. And this is like, again, one of my pet peeves. China is by any, any standard an existential threat to our national and economic security. It's. I, I don't think there's many people that could honestly debate that that's not the case. And yet post Covid, we, we allowed them to send a virus to our shores that killed and affected countless millions of people. And yet here we are afterwards with a manufacturing base largely still there, all of our ppes still there, them building up a bigger and stronger military. And yet again, no one wants to have, you know, but, but I still want to buy the cheap stuff on Amazon or at Walmart. Right. At some point, you can't have it both ways. Either they are, you recognize the threat and we understand what it's going to take to build up as a country, to become stronger as a people. Same thing with, like, technology. I, I am a big believer like that TikTok is a danger to our country, to our kids, et cetera. And yet no one will want, no one wants to actually have the discussion about like, you realize the data that they are getting, the algorithm, what it's doing to kids mind, what it's doing to spread disinformation because, well, we like it and it's a cool app and my kid loves it and it's like, okay, this is literally the equivalent of smoking cigarettes for their brain. And yet we don't want to have a real discussion. And so to me, what, what I get wound up about is that so many policy discussions, whether it's immigration, China, military policy, it's, it's, we want to have this, a simple five second discussion and go, what? You know, yes, no, black, white, you know, one, two, like, we're going to the eye doctor. And if you've ever been when you're getting glasses, they're flipping the thing, what looks better? 1, 2, 3, 4. We want to walk out going, okay, here's your answer for your policy. And a lot of this stuff is much more complex. And I just, I think that we need to be real about what the issues are that we're facing. You know, the debt and deficit is another one. We're $38 trillion in debt. We're running a $2 trillion, I mean, a $2 trillion a year deficit. And yet people don't want to go through the effort that President Trump and Elon Musk led called Doge. Like, at some point you realize that the, the jig is up when it.
- [32:16]
A
Comes to holiday gifting. I want to give people things that they'll love. Beautiful, timeless pieces that they'll wear for years. And that's one of the reasons I go with quints. Everything's premium quality at a price that actually makes sense. Quint has something for everybody, whether it's silk tops and skirts for dressing up, perfectly cut denim for everyday wear. Every outerwear that actually keeps you warm and looks good. Their Italian wool coats, they're standout pieces. They're beautifully tailored, incredibly soft, and they're crafted to last for seasons. Every piece is made with premium materials from ethical, trusted factories. And they're priced far below what other luxury brands charge. The craftsmanship, it shows in every detail, from the stitching to the fit and the drape. It's elevated, timeless, and made to wear on repeat. I personally am obsessed with their super soft Mongolian cashmere sweaters. For only 50 bucks, they look and feel amazing. Guys find gifts so good, you're gonna want to Keep them with quints. Go to Quince.com Jillian for free shipping on your order. And 365 day returns now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com Jillian to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quints.com Jillian. You know, you bring up the deficit and it takes me to two different things, both involving Maha. So one is we want health care for everybody. We have to fix health care and we want these Obamacare subsidies. But I've been told the reason that those Obamacare subsidies that were put in place during COVID were meant to sunset is that the Democrats, by the way, set to sunset is because they would have cost so much money over. I can't remember the timeframe, but it was of course, you know, over several years. I think it was up to a decade. It was into the trillions. It would have added trillions more to the deficit. But then we want healthcare for all Americans. Like there's definitely a conundrum. Same thing with Maha. It's like, oh, they cut all these people and all these different departments and they're cutting research. And there was a moment where Kennedy was testifying, he goes, we don't have the money for all of this. Like we have to make cuts. That's the reality. But it's like you're cutting healthcare for women and you're doing, and the nuance of this. Can you tell me what is a solve for healthcare? Someone asked me and I was like, function outside the system. Get, get a high deductible health care plan and do cash pay preventative medicine. Like what is the solve?
- [35:03]
B
Yeah. So a couple things. First of all, you mentioned Maha. I gotta tell you, like Maha, to me, I'm one of these people. I know that a lot of Maha was driven and people's eyes were awakened because so many women, especially Maha moms, really drove that issue. And I'm, I'm a convert. I'm fascinated by it because for the longest time I'm a guy that's dealt with like weight issues and, and I'm like to, I always thought like when I'm trying to eat healthy while I'm drinking, needing this because there's a stamp on it says heart healthy. And then you find out there's a boatload of ultra processed seed oils. My favorite example by the way, is red dye. Where we were told, you know, it's, it's, it's banned all these other place Bobby Kennedy and the Maha movement says these Ultra processed red dye in particular is really bad for you. And then one day, and no one can answer this question for me, Jillian, one day last year in November, the Biden administration, after the election just went poof. Yeah, we agree. And I said, I said to people, what was the study? What was the new piece of data that changed it? And I was saying this somewhat facetiously because I was like, what changed between Monday and Tuesday or Wednesday and Thursday, whatever day it was. And the answer I got was, and I'm like, right, because you knew it was bad the whole time. You told us that the Fruit Loops and the Starburst or whatever else the dye was in was fine. And then one day you went, you know, Bobby was kind of right, but we don't want to say anything. And Good Morning America and all these other outlets did stories about like, you know, ultra. The dyes and the ultra processed utils may not be good for you. And it's like, really? Because Maha has been saying that. And you've been deriding them for, you know, months, years, telling them that they're quacks. And suddenly you woke up one day acting like some. You were the guy that discovered this. You know, I literally would clip or screenshot these news reports that I'm like, wait a second, Johnny, come lately. Where did this come from? Because you, you now suddenly are acting like you're. You knew it, when in fact, you derided Bobby Kennedy as a quack for a year. And everybody else that said some of this stuff, you'd said that it was not science based. And suddenly when the Biden administration did it, it was, what, a brilliant move because it causes cancer. Like, what? Time out on healthcare, though one of the. To me, the thing that's fascinating about healthcare is it's pretty much the only industry that you can name where there's zero competition. None. You go to the doctor and you ask a simple question. One, in fact, not even you, usually you don't even ask a question. You show up, they'll save a 20 copay. The doctor comes in, says, we're going to run these tests. I'm going to give you these drugs. Okay, thank you very much. No one ever says, do I need it? How much does it cost? Can I get it cheaper? Is there a way to do it better? I'll tell you a funny story. It's actually not funny, but it's illuminating. In 2008, I was switching jobs, and the night before I switched the job, we play this pickup game of softball. So we went out of the National Mall. It's just a bunch of staffers. And we all walk around and, you know, there's no field. It's just. You will go 10 paces, and that's the pitcher's man. Another 10 paces out is second base and whatever. So we're playing this pickup game of softball, A bunch of staffers, and I was the last guy to show up for the. For my team. They said, all right, Sean, you're pitching. Set. First pitch goes by, guy with it. Second pitch, the 6 foot 4 dude drills it into my face. Into my face, takes out all my teeth. Well, apparently, federal insurance didn't at the time cover. Cover your teeth. So the government says to me, after I get out of the icu, they said, now everything is dental. Okay? So I get out of the ICU after three or four days to take the tube out, whatever. And, you know, I got like, you know, my mouth is all. And they said, okay, but that's dental. And you. And we don't cover dental. So I had to get eight root canals. So what did I do? I started calling around to end in honest. And they pick up the phone, you know, Dr. So and so's office. And I'd say, hey, my name's Sean. I need eight root canals. If I come into your office and do all eight at one sitting, what's the best deal you can give to me now, aside from getting a lot of laughs? They were like, I'm sorry, what? And I said, you know, so I called a bunch and I shopped it. I literally shopped it around. And they would. And I'd say, I'll sit there for one sitting. You don't have, you know, so you minimize the. The gas and the. Whatever else in novocaine or. And I drove down the cost by a lot. I think I ended up getting like a, you know, eight. For the price of six root canals.
- [39:30]
A
Yeah.
- [39:30]
B
And. Yeah, but the point was, is that I injected competition into it. And same thing. When I got my eyes, I got prk, which is like Lasik. I shopped it around. What's the deal? And that's not covered by insurance. So what do you find? Market forces. Now, I'm not arguing that every piece of health care, like, you know, but. But the point is, is that there's zero price competition in health care. And the first thing that has to happen is. So I'm not a doctor, but I would say maybe you have to have some basic level of health care. When I was 21, 22, 23, I was on the campaign trails, and I would get catastrophic coverage for like 80 bucks a month. So if I got really sick, I got covered. But if I just wanted to go. So you create some competition, some, some structure that's like you have, you know, your first, say $5,000 is out of pocket through a medical savings account. So you, you or your employer contribute to it. That way when you call the doctor, you say, hey, I want to shop this around. I had an MRI a little while ago that wasn't covered or some kind of imaging. It might have been a, just a, like an enhanced X ray of some sort. I can't remember what it was. And again, the insurance company said, we're not going to cover this. So I called around four or five places, I said, what's the best deal you can do? And they're willing. And I'd call back another place and say, hey, I just talked to the place down, you know, just this far from my house, and they're willing to do it for, you know, 500 bucks. Would you guys match that? No. Sure, we'll match it. But we need to add an element of market force competition into health care that's not existent right now. And, you know, to the extent that people are listening that say, you know, orthopedic surgeon, so many people now in the healthcare space, in the medical space refuse to even take insurance. They'll say, great, we'll see you, you pay us, and then you go fight it out with your insurance company. So I would argue that we get back to a system where we have a health savings account that can roll over, right? So you can keep money, you can build a nest egg out of it. You're. You or your employer can contribute onto it. You, you add that onto a catastrophic account that covers you if you have some kind of chronic illness like cancer or, you know, et cetera, et cetera. But I, and what kills me, though, when I ask this question of like, Dr. Oz or any of these guys, like, why, why are even the congressional leaders, they'll give me some sort of answer that's like what I just described to you. And I'll say, then why aren't we doing it? And they'll go, you know, the insurance company has a massive lobby. Big pharma has a massive lobby. And their view is why we don't want to give up our piece. Think about this. You mentioned Obamacare. The biggest recipient of Obamacare money is the insurance companies. There's 24 million people on the exchange right now. And remember, as you described just to people, get this Obamacare was you can keep your doctor if you like it, false. Keep your plan if you like it false. And it was going to make health care affordable. False. Then Democrats to your you said passed these subsidies that said, hey, it's spiraling out of control. So we're going to pass temporary subsidies hoping that that band aid helps. It didn't. And now the hot potato got handed to Republicans because they let those subsidies expire. And the answer is, well, you should keep subsidizing a crappy, unaffordable, expiring, out of control cost program because we don't want people to really know what we did to them. So I would argue that what we need to do more than anything else is use this opportunity as an inflection point, that maybe it's a temporary bridge because I don't want anybody to go out without health insurance who's on the exchanges. And this is what's screwing people is right now costs are going up. So you have to make a decision right now for your family. Which plan do I want under Obamacare? What can I afford? And so I don't mind temporary helping them while we figure out what to do. But I also think that, like, if we don't use this moment and rise to the occasion again, this gets back to like, then, you know, stop. If you're a Republican, you've known about this for 10 years, grow up, stand up, lead on the issue.
- [43:37]
A
Such good advice. I've been working on a book and there's a whole chapter in there on how to get an hsa, get a high deductible healthcare plan, how to negotiate cash pay costs which are less than you're going to pay, and your insurance deductible for the drug in most cases. But people don't know this. Politicians aren't messaging it, and the insurance lobby is so fricking powerful, they don't want anybody to do these things. So thank you so much for that. Sidebar, Economy report card. Okay, here's what I've got. 2025 saw job increases. Now, I'm a little confused about this, actually, Sean. The left says lost manufacturing jobs. The right says we got jobs where we want them in the private sector, but we cut government jobs. So I'm gonna let you tell me if I'm right or I'm wrong. What is with the jobs? Is this a winner or a loser for us in 2025?
- [44:34]
B
I think net it's a winner. But to your point, like, here's what happened they did all these doge buyouts of government employees and they all basically the buyouts are effective the end of the government's fiscal year, which is September 30th. So there suddenly in the October 1st report, you saw this job loss, but those were all the people who took buyouts from the government. Which net, net is a long term benefit because you're getting people off the government roll, which isn't just their salary, it's their long term benefits, et cetera. So I think that's a great hit. I think there are some areas where AI is having some disruption as well. But net, net the President's going to make out on job creation. But more so what I think is important is all of the foreign direct investment that the President's been talking to get companies to invest in the United States. You've got like chip makers in Arizona that from Taiwan. You've got Ford and GM talking about reinvesting in car plants here in the United States, drug companies talking about reshoring a lot of the manufacturing they do overseas that's going into the pipeline. And so first quarter, second quarter, probably more so of 2026, we are going to see a lot of that come to fruition.
- [45:43]
A
Quick caveat team. Sean and I are both experiencing some pretty extreme winter storms outside. There are a few technical difficulties along the way in this interview, but we never lose audio. And he is dropping gems. So stick with us and just listen all the way through. It's going to take time for the jobs. Be patient and allow some of this reshoring to occur. Inflation dipped to 2.6. So doing great cooling as far as I understand.
- [46:13]
B
Yes, and not only that, but like, but we weren't supposed to. Right? So, so they were very clear. If you look at all the quote, experts I put a, there's a guy, Charles Payne at Fox Business. I retweeted his chart the other day. When the inflation report came out, all the experts had their consensus was that inflation would actually tick up from 3.0 to 3.1. Obviously it went way down. And it was sort of like, yeah, our bad move on. And that's the point is that all of these people who say that they know better than Trump and that his policies are horrible, clearly the. I just don't know why we keep listening to the so called experts.
- [46:52]
A
You make it, you make a great point. Okay, so inflation down, markets up. But you know, we all know that benefits rich people. So I don't even know if I count it because the vast majority of.
- [47:03]
B
Americans I mean, or people with a pension plan, but they are. I mean, if you have a 401k or a union worker and you got a pension, like, you might not be investing every day in an E trade account, but people who have a 401k or a pension, government employees who have a G fund or C fund through the TSP program, military members now are invested in the TSP program. Those are all stock based or mutual fund based or, you know, so when people say they're not in the market, they might not be actively trading stocks, but I've got a bunch of mutual funds that, you know, when the market rises, they rise. And so we are, you know, the market isn't the always, the be all and end all, but it's important.
- [47:50]
A
Got it. Okay. You know, you just hear so often like, you know, people who are going paycheck to paycheck aren't in the markets, so this one sort of doesn't count. But I appreciate that answer. That's. I wasn't thinking of it that way. I wasn't coming at it from that angle. All right, now this one's obvious. Interest rates are slowly coming down, but cost of living is still, it's still bananas. A flight that I took in 20, 20, 22 has quadrupled. Like, does cost of living ever come back down? Because people are still feeling the pain.
- [48:31]
B
Yeah, look, I think it will come back down, and it is coming back down. Look at, I'm a cheap, new frugal New Englander. I look at the price of gas every time I go by and make a decision about when to buy it. And it was 293 this morning, for example. Not bad. It was above $3 a gallon for a while. And I mean, the price of eggs is down. So are some things still too high? Like if you're, if you're buying steaks and beef? Yeah, no question about it. But there's a lot of aspects of life that are a lot better. I tell people this, under Biden, inflation went to 9%. So something that might have cost $3 when President Trump left office the first time might have cost 500. Biden, Trump's got it back down to four. But is there still progress that needs to get made? Sure, but we're moving in the right direction.
- [49:21]
A
Okay, okay. Yeah, that's the thing. He doesn't really get any credit for the fact that it hasn't continued to skyrocket. And they're like, oh, eggs are still expensive, flights are still expensive. I myself have been guilty of that, But I appreciate this is what I play out with Maha so often is I get that everybody wants Bobby to move faster, but what you're not seeing are all the things that didn't happen had he not been in that position at hhs. And I'll give you one example that I've mentioned numerous times. The former head of hhs, Xavier Bechera, wanted to remove all age restrictions for gender affirming care on kids. And Kennedy is now working to block gender affirming care for kids prior to 18. It's like, that alone is such a monster size win. But of course, it's. It's never. Not for, like, what about the other 10,000 chemicals in the food? You know, you did red food dye. Like, what about this? What about that? What about this? I think we need to have some grace and a little bit of patience is what you're basically saying here.
- [50:22]
B
Yeah, but 100%, I think you're absolutely right. Part of this is I think Trump and the administration, Bobby included, are victims of their own success. The dog literally caught the car, right? So immigration, you look at that. We talked about that a minute ago. We're down to zero border crossings for four months in a row. Stop for a second. We used to have 10,000 illegal border crossings a month, and now we're at zero. And everybody goes, okay, so what's next? And you go, okay, so you got rid of ultra processed foods in a lot of places. You did this red dye you're doing, and it's like, slow your roll. These guys are killing it. And I think that sometimes you have to look at things in perspective. I'm very proud of what they've done. I get a kick. By the way, you mentioned Bobby's predecessor. For all these people who give Bobby crap. The previous HHS secretary under Biden was a trial attorney. Okay. And they want to criticize Bobby Kennedy, who's been a longtime advocate of health and wellness. And they literally had no problem with a trial attorney, Javier Bessar, being the HHS secretary. I'm sorry, I just, I get a kick out of this stuff because. So how quick they forgot who the last guy was and his lack of qualifications for the job. I think Bobby is opening our eyes to a lot of issues and wellness opportunities that will keep us healthier and live longer. And that's, frankly, what it should all be about. Not just health care, but how do we prevent disease? How do we get rid of chronic conditions so that we are safer and healthier? We're less obese. All of these things that cause long term things. Because as a conservative, you could just even look at it from a fiscal standpoint, the less people that are on government healthcare programs like Medicare, Medicaid, because of chronic conditions that could have been prevented, that's good for the deficit, it's good for government spending, and then it's also just good as a human being that we're actually becoming healthier and living longer.
- [52:23]
A
Foreign policy. This one's kind of confusing to me. So Russia, Ukraine, famously, I'm gonna resolve this day one. I wish he hadn't said that. This is, this is, in my opinion, part of that alcoholic behavior of taking a gun and shooting himself in the foot. Because there's no way we're losing. It's not his fault we're in it. It's not his fault we're losing. But there's no way you can resolve it because you have no leverage. So then when he says that and he sets this expectation, he gives them a bat to smash him over the head with. Where does this go? Russia, Ukraine. Do you give him an A? Do you give him an F? I don't even know how to grade him because I don't see a path to success here.
- [53:04]
B
Yeah, so let me back us up just a second. So under Trump's first term, you realize there wasn't a foreign incursion anywhere. Like, Iran was contained, North Korea was contained, China wasn't as provocative in the seventh fleet, and Russia, for the first time in decades, didn't either encroach on or go to war with anybody for four years under Donald Trump's first administration. And then Biden pulls us out of Afghanistan, sends the signal that we're feckless. Putin says, hey, I could go grab Ukraine and no one's gonna stop me. And he was right. And then Trump, I think based on his relationship with Putin from the first term, says, all right, you bring me back in. I know this guy. He didn't do anything when I was in the first time. I'll get it solved. And I think he actually thought that. I get your point. I wouldn't have said it because I think you, you under, you know, you over promise or under deliver, you know, backwards. You over promise, you under promise and over deliver. God, it's a, it's long week. But, but, but the point is, I mean, he should, but, but what's happened is, here's the, here's the dynamic when you ask where we're going. So this literally happened under Biden because I think there's no question that there was a belief that no one would stop. And Putin was right. The problem is fundamentally that we're not going to send U.S. troops over to Ukraine as a peacekeeping force. There is a very small. I don't think anybody in the national security space really believes that Ukraine could actually be the victor. We can hold them back. We can stem the tide. And I also think that Putin is not someone that could ever be trusted. He doesn't want peace. He just wants to attrition over and over again and wear Ukraine down. So I don't think there is a win. And I understand Trump's point. Like, this is Europe's problem. This is in their backyard. Europe is really good at telling the United States what it should do and how it should spend its money. But Europe wants to tell everyone what to do, keep buying gas from Gazprom from Russia and fund a lot of their economy through back channels. So I just, I feel like the real answer, and I appreciate how President Trump addressed this initially, was, hey, Europe, he's in your backyard. If you really want to stop this guy, you step up, we'll have your back. But we shouldn't be the first line for Europe's problem.
- [55:23]
A
China. So we have a preliminary trade deal with China. Like, nothing's resolved with Taiwan. I don't really understand the AI situation. We do have access to their rare earth. The far. I don't. What. Where are we at with China? Is this like progress? No progress. More of the same. What's going on here?
- [55:47]
B
A little progress. A lot more of the same. They have a summit scheduled for April. We'll see. I mean, again, I put China somewhat in the same bucket as Russia that I never believe anything they say until they show it they are. Again, this isn't my words when I talk about China being an existential threat.
- [56:03]
A
They.
- [56:04]
B
This is not Sean Spicer's view of the world. They actually will tell you their belt and road initiative, what they've put down. They have 100 year plan, these guys. They want world domination, but they'll tell it like, this isn't like a bunch of foreign policy geeks, you know, theorizing. They will say it. They will be, you know, the Chinese stated policy is world domination. So it's, it's just funny to me sometimes when you see us politicians sort of question what we're, why, you know, what their motives are like, they'll tell you what they are. They've said it. It's. It's out there. I think that, as you said, the bigger problem that we have is so they have the largest amount of rare earth minerals. Taiwan is the almost exclusive maker of semiconductors. So we are do dependent on both of those. So if they take over Taiwan, literally your smart smartphone, your computer, your car, your tv, everything has a chip in it. Suddenly we get none. They own it. Everything else gets built with rare earth materials. They have the bulk of them. We need to understand how to decouple ourselves from China. We need to invest in rare earth minerals. You see that as part of some of the President's trade deals with China, Australia, etc. Where they might have a baton, but they have some and we are working with them to develop. But again, this gets back to my policy point that I made to you a few minutes ago, which is they, they will own us, Literally own us. You will speak Mandarin if we do not get our heads straightened out and start realizing that they have a plan and they will have us, like, they will own us if we do not learn to, to bring back critical manufacturing to the United States, bring back our industrial base. I mean, this is, I just, I get a kick out of people who are like trying to go, gosh, what should we do? It's like they're coming for us. Do you want to get ahead of this or do you want to wait until you're trying to figure out how to put together a sentence in Mandarin?
- [58:06]
A
So given the state of the state, is he winning? Is he doing as good as he could be? Is there more he could be doing?
- [58:14]
B
I would say the one thing that I want to see more of is, again, this is like, is making sure that we understand that if we don't make critical investments in rare earth materials, in semiconductors, and the President has done that, so we have a huge investment in a plant in Arizona that will help get us, get us in that direction. It takes time. You can't just build semiconductor chip, right? We're making the right investments. I would like to see more, I would like to see us more on the military side. Get ready. I mean, if, you know, to your point about Taiwan, we have, and this is open source material. We have run multiple exercises about what happens if China invades Taiwan, right? Go out, look at the seventh Fleet. What's happening in the Indo Pacom area of operation. We lose every time in our own war games. Like when we game it out, we lose. Okay? And again, so what are we doing to prepare ourselves, not just militarily but economically, to say if that scenario happens. And by the way, again, not theoretical The Chinese stated view is that Taiwan is part of them and that they will eventually be unified again. Like, that's not theory, that's a fact. So it's going to happen. It's literally, Gillian, like, I'm staring right now outside, it's pouring rain. If I walk outside and said, I wonder if I will get wet if I don't carry an umbrella. It's not a question of if it's going to happen, right? And we sit there and say, I wonder, though, if I just walked out. And I like these existential theoretical conversations we have about China just annoy the crap out of me because policymakers act like somehow, like there's a third way, right? And what if my answer to that is, if I'm wrong, if everyone else is wrong and China doesn't invade Taiwan and China really doesn't want to take over the earth, what's the harm in being better and stronger and more or less dependent on them? Right. What if we build our own industrial base here? If we take away that threat economically and militarily, it doesn't hurt us, it makes us stronger, so why not do it? And yet we keep thinking somehow, if we play with China more, that somehow this is sort of the whole Nixonian idea of going to China and injecting capitalism into their market, that somehow one day they will see the light and become this capitalistic democracy that will mirror the United States. That's not going to happen. And yet you have a lot of policymakers that believe, truly believe, and I used to attend these things called sed, Strategic Economic Development Conferences, where our government would go over and we'd sit down with the Chinese. We believe that we know what's in their best interest more than they do. And that is just the fundamental, dumbest thing I've ever heard. They're very clear about what they want to do, how they want to do it and when they will do it. And yet we keep thinking if we just go over there and have one more meeting, like we talked to all these leftists, we're talking about climate change, as if they don't know about this. Like, their view is, screw it, we're just going to keep building coal fire plants and doing what we want. And we think that somehow if we have a meeting with them and show them some PowerPoints about what's going on, that they'll just suddenly stop. They know what they're doing. It's not like they're a bunch of idiots. They know exactly what's happening. But you have John Kerry and a bunch of people that fly over there and literally be like, let me just show you with my little laser pointer what's going on in the environment, as if they don't have scientists of their own.
- [61:35]
A
You know, I express the, the same frustration in areas of my expertise where people demand a perfect world. They think they're functioning in some sort of idyllic world where you could convince China that there you could stop them from promoting or propagating climate change. And it's like, that's not reality.
- [62:01]
B
But Jillian, in your world, you know, you, this is like, think about, in your, in your world, somebody comes to you and says, hey, I want to get in shape, I want to be healthy or whatever. And you're like, great. So here's what we're going to do. We got a cardio routine for you, here's a diet for you. And, and then here's some strength training. And they go, you know what, Jillian, here's the thing. I, I'm not really, I think that I, I, I, I'm going to eat what I want. I might walk 10 steps, but like, at some point you go, okay, this is the way, this is how it's done. Like, this is my, like, and, and all of these people approach Taiwan and China the same way that, that people like me probably approach a lot of people in your world, which is, what if I don't do the food part? What if I just, like, go to the gym once a week? It's not an option. Right. And you're never going to get the results that you want. And yet we think somehow, like all of these people, like I said, John Kerry flies over to China, like, as if he thinks somehow they're going to go, you know what, guys? This Kerry guy just came in and told me about how this worked. I had no idea about the climate and the polluting. Thank God John Kerry came. Like, yeah, I mean, and yet that's what they said. We're going to fly over to China, we're meeting with Xi Jinping and the Vice Premier, and we're going to walk them through. Like, like, I, honestly, I'm like, how dumb do you think that they, you think they are?
- [63:20]
A
Yeah, here's a tough one for you, and I'll make this my last one. But it's probably the most obvious, where is the 20 point peace plan going? Because I'm under the impression Hamas is never going to disarm. And you know, everyone's like, it's good. No, no, everything, it's going to be fine, but that it probably is going to fall apart again. What do you foresee here?
- [63:45]
B
I mean, if I had money to bet, I'd probably bet it with you. But here's the thing. I also don't bet against Trump. I've learned when Donald Trump put something together, I've learned over eight years, most of the time he actually gets what he wants. And I talked to a guy the other day that's over there as part of the White House team. They have kept this thing together now for what, a few months? They're already on phase two. The President's talking about the reconstruction, and I'm like, okay, you know what? No one said it was gonna get done. Then they said you weren't getting it to phase two. And so I'm like, you know what? Maybe it doesn't. But so far, so good, and the results speak for themselves. I just, I think that I go back to the political analogy where, you know, Donald Trump wasn't gonna run for president. He'd never file. Well, then he wasn't gonna file his disclosure forms. Then he couldn't ever enter into a primary. Then when he won a primary, he'll never win the nomination. He wins the nomination, he's never gonna win the general election. Right. I've learned. And the irony is, if you go back and look at what he's done politically, economically, etcetera, you know, he'll never institute these tariffs. No one will ever actually negotiate with them. And then you go, okay, he did it. They did. And wow, look at this. Country by country, we're getting better deals, more level playing field, more access for us farmers, agriculture, service providers, manufacturing. And so you go, at some point, if you're playing the odds, the odds actually show that Trump usually wins. And so for right now with his team that's over there and what he has been able to succeed with so far, I'd say that the smart bet is to bet on Trump.
- [65:23]
A
You know what? You're not. You're not wrong about everything you just said. But it kind of comes back to like, well, I hear it may not hold. Well, it went nowhere with Biden for years. It was a disaster. So maybe every day that there isn't a mass slaughter of, you know, Israelis or Palestinians, maybe that'll unto itself gets a decent grade. And, you know, you can't control Hamas, so thank you for that. All right, I swear to God. Sean, last one.
- [65:51]
B
Hold on. But you can go. Look, I just think that, like, look, at some point, I don't know, I'M not a Hamas expert, but I would say right now you've got a coalition that includes a lot of Middle Eastern countries on board on this plan. If they don't get the funding that they need, the president's gone after Iran. There's a little bit of fear, if I were one of these guys that, you know, do I really want to get caught on the wrong side of Donald Trump right now? Because the Iranians paid the price for screwing around. So, again, it's, you know, this isn't. When the Iranian. I don't mean to get off topic, but it's tangential to this. When Iran was being discussed as what are we going to do to take out their nuclear capabilities, you had basically a bunch of people that said, well, the only option if you do this is going to be US boots on the ground, a peacekeeping force, or utter disaster. Trump comes in and surgically goes like, boom, we're going to take out the reactor, we're going to take out their capabilities. And everyone afterwards, like, huh, I didn't even think of that one. And that's the thing, is that we've got to realize, and same thing with China, same thing with everything. This idea that there's only one way, right? So you think about NATO. Well, we have to. We can't possibly, you know, go after them. He did and he got a result. You can't possibly put tariffs on people and then expect them to give you a better trade deal. He did. And so at some point, what I've learned as someone who, you know, has been around this whole area for a long time, is that there actually is a third way that Trump goes in from a business perspective and says, watch me do it this way. Watch me drag this person in. And it works. You look at the Abraham Accords from the first term, this is impossible. These countries all have been warring for years, and suddenly, what is it, nine, ten countries sign on to the Abraham Accords for a historic peace that is held now for what, eight years, seven years? Again, the record, if you look at the record of Trump, foreign policy, domestic policy, every single, every. And politically, by the way, every time he says, I'm doing something, the naysayers and the pundits and the experts say that will never work. We talked about the economic report that just came out. His inflate policies are going to cause massive inflation. It will tick up. Every expert, every single one said, it's going up, it went down, right? And Trump said, you do this, this is what's going to happen. Maybe he actually knows what the heck he's talking about.
- [68:15]
A
All right, last question. What happens for the midterms predictions?
- [68:20]
B
So here's what I'm going to tell you right now. If you tell me where the economy is in July or early August of 2026. I talked about that a minute ago. Second quarter investment. If you tell me where the economy is in July, August, that's when people start to say am I doing well? And if the economy's Booming, we're at 4% right now. Growth. If that continues or ticks up, then Republicans are gonna be just fine. The way politics works is people vote on two existential things. How am I feeling economically and how am I feeling safety wise, not any government statistic. Do you feel in your gut that you have more money to spend, that you can go on a vacation, that you can put some money away for your kids education? Do you feel safe when you walk down the street or do you feel like nervous, like I might lose my job, I don't think I have enough money, I don't want to go on a vacation, I can't spend an extra. Or when I walk down my street I feel really unsafe because you know there's crimes on the right. If those two questions don't get answered in the affirmative, people say I need somebody else to. I'm going to vote for change. If the Republicans, if things are safe and people feel economically secure, Republicans will be fine. If the economy's in the crapper next to July and August, they're out the door.
- [69:34]
A
I could literally talk to you for hours. Don't worry, I will not. But where can people find you so they can listen to you for hours on demand on all these topics? Because I swear I have every single one of these things. You just have such an incredible in depth knowledge. Where do they get to learn from you on a regular basis?
- [69:54]
B
Thank you Sean. Spicer.com's the hub of it all. But obviously we have two shows on YouTube every day. A live show at 8:30am where we talk politics live, take people's questions and then my show, 6pm Eastern every night on the First Television Network, channel 347 DirecTV and at on my YouTube channel.
- [70:13]
A
So you're a little bit busy. Sean, thank you so much. Stay safe, stay dry, keep doing.
- [70:19]
B
Merry Christmas.
- [70:19]
A
I really appreciate you and I hope I get you back next year.
- [70:23]
B
You bet. Will do. Definitely. 100%.
- [70:28]
A
Happy holidays.
- [70:29]
B
You too.
- [70:30]
A
Thank you so much for watching. If you enjoyed the podcast, please like comment, subscribe and share and make sure to let me know what guests you want to see on in the future.