← Keeping It Real: Conversations with Jillian Michaels
Keeping It Real: Conversations with Jillian Michaels
NATO IS OVER?! - The Secret Story Behind the Fall of World’s Greatest Alliance
00:40:27
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:02]
A
As we watch these shifting tectonic plates of geopolitics, the first one from the President of the United States. Sharply critical now of the NATO Western military alliance. I'm so disappointed in NATO because this was a test for NATO. They weren't there. NATO has given the United States a lot since 1949. Enhanced security. TRUMP gave an invitation to Putin to invade some of our ally NATO allies. There is no way that Congress would allow this. Congress has passed a law that the president cannot withdraw from NATO, nor can it stop expenditures that must be made in the support of NATO. You know, we spent trillions of dollars on NATO. We got no help. He would probably have a lawsuit on his hands, not just perhaps from Congress, but perhaps from private citizens. So this could very well end up in the Supreme Court. Sounds like a breaking story. Yes, sir. Two sides, both with a totally different take, both invoking civilization itself, both absolutely certain that the stakes could not be higher. And that's probably the one thing they're both right about. So today we're going to explain what exactly is the world order, from NATO to the un, the IMF to the wto, who built it? Who does it serve? And what was already broken before trying to ever came down that escalator. And then we're gonna outline what the stakes actually are. Not the partisan ones, the real ones. The ones that keep serious people awake at night, regardless of their politics. This is the story behind the story on the collapse of the world order. Keeping It Real with Jillian Michaels. For almost 80 years, most Americans never had to think about the machinery that holds the world together. Together. Right. It's just simply there. The dollar has dominated global finance. NATO has kept Europe stable. The United States Navy protected shipping lanes that carry 40% of global trade. The UN gave hostile powers a place to negotiate before they reached for weapons. The World Trade Organization created rules for global commerce. The International Monetary Fund stepped in when economies collapsed to stop financial contagion from jumping borders. And all of this was intentionally created in 1945, after two world wars in a single generation. After entire cities were erased, after tens of millions of people were killed, and after mankind had built weapons that were capable of ending all life on Earth. The people that were rebuilding the world made a cage to contain the chaos, because they understood that incentives had to change. If major powers were economically tied together, militarily aligned, and constantly negotiating across formal institutions, the cost of war would just be too catastrophic to risk casually. Countries that depend on global trade would think twice before blowing up the system that fed their Economies. Nations embedded in alliances would have stronger deterrence against expansionist rivals. Countries that were sitting across negotiating tables would have more options than tanks and missiles when crises erupted. And for eight decades, despite proxy wars and coups and nuclear standoffs, it largely succeeded at its central mission. No direct war between the world's major powers since World War II. That's the system that they say Trump is destroying. Losing it, despite all of its many flaws, would genuinely be catastrophic. And I'm guessing a lot of you are thinking, really, those flaws are crippling the American worker. And it's true that because of this post war order, factories left, manufacturing moved to China, entire towns hollowed out, the national debt exploded, and three events in the 21st century did structural damage to the system that it just never fully recovered from. And none of this, none of it started with Trump. Because the world order was already losing moral authority, economic credibility, and the unity of purpose among major powers that made the whole thing enforceable. Once those eroded, the institutions built to uphold the order, well, they started hollowing out, too. Countries stopped deferring to American leadership. Rivals started testing boundaries they once left alone. Allies started hedging their bets. The rules didn't disappear overnight, but the will and the credibility to enforce them did. And a system that can't enforce its own rules isn't really a system anymore. It's a suggestion. So here's how it happened. The first incident was Iraq. In 2003, the US invaded a sovereign nation on false intelligence. They bypassed the UN Security Council when it couldn't get the votes and triggered a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people and destabilized an entire region for two decades. The lesson every country in the world took, especially every country that wasn't a close American ally, was simple and devastating. The rules apply to others, but not to America. And that lesson had consequences that landed directly on ordinary Americans, even if nobody connected the dots at the time. When America's moral authority eroded, so did its ability to build the coalitions and maintain the relationships that kept the global system functioning in our favor. Countries that once deferred to Washington started hedging trade. Relationships that once tilted toward American interests became harder to negotiate. International institutions America depended on to enforce the rules started losing legitimacy because the country demanding everybody follow the rules had just demonstrated it wouldn't follow them itself. The global south didn't forget Iraq there, they're still not forgetting it. Every time America asks developing nations to choose sides, Iraq is in the room. And the second incident was 2008. American financial institutions operating with reckless leverage and almost no oversight nearly destroyed the global economy. Countries that had followed American prescriptions for fiscal discipline watched as American recklessness exported catastrophe to their shores. Iceland went bankrupt. Greece entered a decade of depression. Ireland, Portugal, Spain devastated. And the consequences came back to Americans in ways that were invisible but very real. The IMF and World bank institutions America depended on to stabilize fragile economies and keep developing nations within the American led system, well they lost credibility overnight. Countries that have been told to follow American financial models and suffered for it started to look for alternatives. And China was ready with one. The Belt and Road Initiative, a Chinese infrastructure investment with no governance strings attached, started filling the vacuum American credibility left behind. Every port, every road, every power plant China built in a developing country was a relationship that America lost a vote in. International institutions that started going the other way. A country that once needed American goodwill no longer did. The system's two greatest selling points had always been American moral leadership and American economic competence. In the span of five years, both took body blows that they've never recovered from. And then third is obviously China. And this one is the most complicated. Because China didn't break the rules based order, they just exploited it. They followed the rules, they opened their economy and used access to American markets to build the largest manufacturing base in human history. All while keeping their own people under authoritarian control and quietly building the military capacity to challenge the very system that enabled their rise. The factories that left Ohio and Michigan and Pennsylvania didn't disappear. They went to Shenzhen. And the system America built, the open markets, the protected sea lanes, the stable financial architecture, well that made it all possible. American consumers bought the products, American investors funded the factories, American universities trained the engineers. And American politicians on both sides of the aisle looked the other way. Because the financial elites and multinational corporations benefiting from the arrangement were the same people thought funding their campaigns. The result was a peer competitor, economic and increasingly military, that now sits inside the system America built and uses it as leverage against American interests every single day. Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. But getting funding from traditional banks is an uphill battle. And of the 36 million small businesses in the US over 70% of them report needing additional capital and every year. So while revenue is at an all time high, big banks are tightening standards and approving fewer loans than ever. Which leaves owners stuck with mountains of paperwork. But if you want bank rates without the bank delays, check out Cardiff Co Jillian for up to $500,000 in same day funding. Cardiff is the largest privately held small business lender in the US having funded over $12 billion since 2004. Their application takes less than five minutes and has no impact on your personal credit. And approvals happen within minutes. With same day funding banks, they try to lock out small businesses. Cardiff has the key. So big banks may not want to approve your business loans, but Cardiff does. And if you've been in business for at least a year and you're pulling in $20,000 a month in revenue, apply now for up to $500,000 in same day funding at Cardiff Co. Jillian again. That's Cardiff Co Jillian. In the World Trade Organization, in the UN in developing countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America, where China has spent two decades building influence, America abandoned these three shocks. A crisis of American legitimacy, a crisis of American economic credibility, and the rise of a powerful systemic rival didn't just weaken abstract institutions. They weakened America's ability to shape the world in ways that protected American jobs, American prices and American security. And through all of it, through Iraq, through 2008, through China's rise, the people defending the system kept insisting that everything was working, that globalization was good for everyone, that the costs were worth it, that if you believed otherwise, you just simply, you just didn't understand the complexity. Here's what they weren't saying. The system was not designed to benefit the stability of the global order. And the global order was designed by, and largely for the people already at the top of it. I'll say it again. Multinational corporations, financial institutions, defense contractors, transnational elites whose careers and investments spanned borders and whose children didn't work in the factories that closed. So for those people, the system worked magnificently. For a steelworker in Ohio, a factory hand in Michigan, a small businessman watching his supply chain move to China, it looked pretty different. And the anger that built up in those communities over those decades, dismissed, condescended to and ignored by the people running the system. And this is the single most important political fact of the last 30 years. Trump didn't invent the anger about any of this. He just validated it. It was already there, enormous and ignored underneath the surface of American life. Millions of people who had concluded, not unreasonably, that the global system wasn't built for them. It wasn't run for them, and it certainly wasn't doing them any favors. Now, here's where we stop relitigating the past and start talking about what's happening in this moment and what it means for us, whether or not any of this architecture should continue to exist. Let's start with the world Trade organization. This is the body designed to be the world's referee for trade disputes. And it's been effectively paralyzed since 2017, when the United States started blocking the appointment of judges to its appeals court. Here's why. And here's why it matters that both Trump and Biden let it happen. The WTO's appeals court is the final word on trade disputes between nations, but it needs a minimum of three judges to function. For years, the US Blocked every appointment, which left the court unable to operate. Now, the reason was legitimate, okay, because the court had repeatedly ruled against America in cases involving Chinese subsidies, in ways that fell to officials in both parties, like selective enforcement. Rules applied to America, not to the country most aggressively, breaking them. So America broke the referee rather than fix it. And Trump's second term went further, replacing that multilateral system with a bilateral one. Sweeping tariffs on nearly every trading partner, then one on one deals to reduce them. And here's what the critics don't want to admit. It produced real results. The trade defic with China dropped 32% in 2025 for the first time since 2000. China is no longer the country with which America runs its largest trade deficit. Pretty big deal. Manufacturing investment is returning to American soil. Countries that spent decades taking American market access for granted are suddenly showing up with serious offers. Japan committed $550 billion in American investment. Vietnam is buying Boeing jets. The leverage is working. And the workers in the communities that lost factories to China over the past 30 years have waited a long time for anyone in Washington to fight for them this directly. The old system didn't deliver that. It was delivering cheap goods and hollowed out towns. So the argument that dismantling it is reckless has to reckon honestly with what it was actually producing. But here's what the defenders of Trump's approach don't want to admit either. So when America abandons the rulebook, it doesn't just free itself from inconvenient rulings, it frees everyone else, too. China, the eu, regional powers across Asia and Africa, all watching America dismantle the system and drawing their own conclusions. And China in particular, is moving fast, building alternative trade blocs, alternative payment systems, and alternative institutions specifically designed for a world where America is no longer the anchor of global trade. The new rule emerging is simple. Whoever has that leverage wins. Period. Well, America has enormous leverage right now, but leverage rests on three things. The size of the American consumer market, the dominance of the dollar, and the credibility of American military power. All three are under pressure. The dollar faces competition from alternative payment systems. The American market is a smaller share of the global economy than it was 30 years ago. And American military credibility is being actively questioned. Leverage that isn't sustained, consistent and credible stops being leverage. It becomes unpredictability and unpredictable. Powers don't get deferred to. They get routed around. So the question is whether the approach is building something durable, whether the deals stick, whether the leverage lasts, whether the countries currently accommodating American demands are genuinely changing course, or simply waiting for the next administration to play ball. No judges, no rulings, no referee. Something is being built to replace it, whether it serves ordinary Americans better than what it replaced. Well, that verdict isn't in yet. Then you have the UN Security Council, supposedly the last line of defense against global conflict. Sounds powerful. Until you understand the catch. Five countries hold permanent seats. The U.S. britain, France, Russia, and China. Any one of them can veto any resolution instantly. No appeal, no override, dead. That was the compromise in 1945. The great powers would only join a system they could control. And the assumption was that their shared interest in avoiding catastrophic war would outweigh raw self interest often enough to keep the system functioning. And for a while, it mostly did. But now the flaw is impossible to ignore. Some follow the noise. Bloomberg follows the money. Because behind every headline is a bottom line, whether it's the funds fueling AI or crypto's trillion dollar swings. There's a money side to every story. And when you see the money side, you understand what others miss. Get the money side of the story. Subscribe. Subscribe now@bloomberg.com hey, Bill O'Reilly here. Please check out my new interview series, We'll Do It Live. Each Thursday, I sit down with the most influential people in America. We're a no spin chat, no script. Anything could happen. You can find We'll do it live on BillOriley.com, youTube, or wherever you download your podcast. Russia blocks action on Ukraine. China blocks action on Taiwan. When Myanmar's military slaughtered civilians, China shielded the regime. When Gaza exploded into a global crisis, the major powers split along geopolitical lines. The institution designed to stop global conflict becomes paralyzed the moment the major powers themselves are involved. And during the Cold War, that weakness was manageable because something else existed behind it. Backchannel diplomacy. Arms control treaties. Military hotlines. Quiet conversations between generals, diplomats and intelligence officials who understood one thing clearly. Nobody could afford a direct collision between nuclear powers. That informal architecture mattered far more than most people realized. And now it's collapsing. The arms control treaties are gone or unraveling. Trump withdrew from the INF treaty, the Cold War agreement that eliminated an entire class of nuclear missiles from Europe. Russia suspended participation in New Start, which was the last major treaty limiting American and Russian nuclear arsenals. The Iran nuclear deal is effectively dead. North Korea keeps expanding its nuclear program with little to no consequence. The guardrails that restrain nuclear escalation for a half a century are eroding in real time. And at the same time, the communication channels themselves are deteriorating. Russia expelled hundreds of Western diplomats after Ukraine and the west responded in kind. Military contacts narrowed and the quiet conversations that once prevented incidents from spiraling into crises. Those calls between generals, diplomats and intelligence officials are happening less and less. And that matters a lot more than most people realize. Because deterrence isn't just about missiles and military strength. Deterrence depends on psychology. It depends on both sides believing the other side is rational, predictable, and ultimately unwilling to absorb catastrophic costs. Well, during the Cold War, Washington and Moscow hated each other, but both sides still believed that there were lines too dangerous to cross. That assumption is weakening now. The west believed crushing sanctions and isolation and massive battlefield losses would eventually force Russia to back down in Ukraine. And that did not happen. China continues militarizing the South China Sea. Despite international rulings, diplomatic pressure and economic warnings, Both powers are sending the same message. They're willing to absorb far higher costs than the west once assumed. And when adversaries stop behaving like they fear consequences, the entire logic of deterrence starts to weaken with them. Next up, you've got NATO. So NATO was built on a sacred promise. Article 5. An attack on one member is an attack on all. Every nation in the alliance, large or small, would be defended by the full weight of the collective. That was the commitment. That was what American soldiers, sailors and airmen were pledging their lives to honor. But the promise came with a condition. Every member agreed to contribute. The baseline was 2% of GDP on defense. Not because 2% is a magic number, but because it represented genuine commitment. Skin in the game. Evidence that you were serious about the alliance you were asking others to bleed for. For decades, most members ignored it. Germany, the largest economy in Europe, spent years at around 1% of GDP on defense. While American taxpayers funded the most expensive military in human history. Germany built one of the world's most generous welfare states, world class infrastructure and heavily subsidized industries. And let's be precise about what that means. German citizens got cheaper health care, longer vacations, better roads and stronger social programs, partly because they didn't have to fully fund their own defense. America covered It. Washington complained quietly for years, but they kept writing the checks. And Germany wasn't alone. Across the alliance, country after country found reasons to fall short. And we kept covering it. Why? I don't know. Because America always covered it. And that resentment built up in American communities. Trump did not invent that grievance. He just said it out loud, more bluntly than any previous president had dared. But here's where the problem graduated from financial to something far more serious. When the US moved against Iran, it didn't just ask its allies to pay more, it asked them to show up. It needed bases, airspace, warships, the actual military cooperation that NATO was built to provide. And they said no. Not just NATO allies. South Korea said no. Australia said no. Japan said no. The countries America has troops stationed in, the countries sheltering under American security guarantees all said no. When Washington needed them, they stayed on the sidelines. And the countries that did help, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the uae, Bahrain, Kuwait, not one of them was a NATO member. If you haven't heard of Beam's Dream powder, let me tell you this one is special. Not just because it changed how I sleep, but because of the people behind it. Beam is American, made by real people. Focusing on creating something that actually helps. For a long time my nights were rough. I was tossing and turning and dragging myself through the next day on caffeine. I still like my caffeine, but nevertheless, when you're running on empty, it's hard to show up for what matters, guys. And now with Dream I sleep through the night. I wake up clear headed and present. It's made with all natural ingredients like Reishi, magnesium, L theanine, apigenin, melatonin. No drugstore fog. It tastes great. The chocolate peanut butter flavor is my absolute go to. So spring is here and summer's right around the corner. This is the season to show up strong. Do it with something made by Americans for Americans. Do it with Dream. Just go to shopbeam.com real use the code real and get my exclusive offer for up to 4.40percent off Beam's Dream Powder. So with my discount code real you can get their best selling Dream Powder for $39. And if you've been meaning to fix your sleep, this is the time get Dream their best selling sleep powder for up to 40% off. And Trump called every non participating ally out by name. And then he went further. He announced he was considering pulling American troops out of NATO countries that refused to back the Iran cooperation and relocate them to nations that actually showed up. He floated withdrawing from NATO all together and the message was blunt. If you won't help us when we need you, we're going to stop paying for your defense and put our forces where they're actually wanted. And then he connected the whole thing directly to Greenland. The message was explicit. If our allies will not support American military operations, America needs to control its own strategic assets. And Greenland, whatever you think of Trump's methods, is genuinely strategically significant, not just for its rare earth minerals, for its geography. Which brings me to what NATO is actually protecting. NATO was never really just about stopping Soviet expansion. It was about keeping the North Atlantic open for trade, for resupply, for American military power to move east when needed. The critical choke point is what military planners call the Giuk Gap, the stretch of ocean between Greenland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom that the Soviet Navy had to pass through to reach the Atlantic. NATO existed in large part to ensure Russian submarines and surface vessels couldn't cut the supply lines between America and Europe in a crisis. Russia's northern fleet still operates out of the Kola Peninsula. Its access to the Atlantic still runs through that same gap. And China, well, they've spent years attempting to establish infrastructure footholds in Greenland, and it is not of interest for the scenery. They know whoever controls the approaches to that gap influences the entire North Atlantic. And right now, NATO controls it. But the moment that alliance fractures, that's subject to change. And then, of course, you've got the Baltic and the Bosphorus, two major choke points largely controlled by NATO. The Baltic secures critical shipping lanes, energy infrastructure, and undersea cables across northern Europe. The Bosphorus, largely controlled by Turkey, who's a NATO member, is the narrow passage connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, where Russian naval power has to pass. If NATO weakens, Russia gains more room to pressure trade routes, energy flows, and strategic infrastructure. And that doesn't just affect Europe. It affects global shipping supply chains, energy markets, and ultimately the prices we pay for everything from gas to groceries. So walking away from NATO doesn't necessarily save us money. If European allies stop trusting American guarantees, they stop buying American defense systems. They build their own industries instead. And that means fewer export markets for American weapons manufacturers, fewer defense contracts, and fewer jobs tied to the military industrial economy. The alliance isn't just military. It's economic, industrial, and strategic. So, now, that said, legally, a president can't simply pull the United States out of NATO overnight. Congress moved in 2023 to make a unilateral withdrawal extremely difficult. The law requires either a 2/3 Senate vote or an act of Congress. Before any president can formally leave the alliance. The measure had bipartisan backing because lawmakers in both parties viewed NATO as too strategically important to place entirely in the hands of one administration. But here's the deeper point. Damage doesn't require formal withdrawal. It only requires enough uncertainty that adversaries begin questioning whether America would actually honor Article 5 when the moment comes. Because, as I said, deterrence is psychological. The alliance works because rivals believe America will show up. And once that belief starts weakening, the risks rise immediately, even if no treaties change and no troops leave tomorrow. Russia watches that doubt, and China watches it as well. Which brings us to the most dangerous flashpoint on Earth, and that is Taiwan. Now, this isn't just about geography. It's about survival. Taiwan produces 60% of the world's semiconductors and 90% of the most advanced chips in existence. So we're talking about the brain inside every smartphone, every hospital ventilator, every tank, every data center on Earth. If that island goes dark, we're not looking at a recession. We are looking at a global economic collapse that makes 2008 look like a walk in the park. For 50 years, the Peace in the Taiwan Strait was held together by one thing and one thing only. American credibility. But that credibility is hemorrhaging between our dysfunction domestically and the strategic exhaustion of our allies. The calculation in Beijing is changing, and Xi Jinping is watching, and he thinks time's on his side because he sees that America may not show up. And worse, way worse, he sees an American alliance that is fundamentally fractured. So the question used to be, will America defend Taiwan? Well, now the question is, will anyone stand with us when we do? Xi sees the crink axis, which is China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea tightening their grip while our traditional partners hedge their bets. He sees US keep 45,000 troops in South Korea and 50,000 in Japan. But when the chips are down, these nations are terrified to pick a side. He sees NATO allies in Europe cozying up to China's belt and road money, which is Beijing's global Infrastructure and influence program that uses ports, railways, loans, and investment projects to expand Chinese economic and strategic power while refusing to lift a finger to stop Iranian aggression. If we show up to the Pacific alone, we're outmatched by geography. And if our allies, the ones whose security we've subsidized for a century, decide to stay neutral to protect their trade deals with Beijing, then the deterrence is dead. We are staring down a potentially catastrophic miscalculation, and the world is watching to see if Article 5 and our Pacific treaties with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia are actually security guarantees or just geopolitical theater. And if it's the latter, the 21st century could belong to Beijing now streaming podcasts on Fox One because sometimes the headline is not enough. Fox One brings you on demand video podcasts that dive deeper into what's happening, get you closer to the voices shaping the conversation across news, politics and culture. And get this Keeping It Real is now streaming on Fox one, which means you can watch my show alongside other podcasts like Hang Out With Sean Hannity, the Riley Gaines show, and Wilkane country all in one place. From the stories leading the day to hot takes and exclusive interviews, you'll hear from some of the boldest voices around. And the best part is that you can watch or listen on your schedule whenever it works for you. Stream podcasts on Fox 1 anywhere, anytime, on all of your favorite devices. Sign up today@fox.com as always, I'll give you my personal take. For what it's worth, the left is going to tell you that Trump is uniquely responsible for this crisis, that if he could just be diplomatic and play ball, the world order would restore itself. And that is a fantasy. American retrenchment, the pull towards stepping back, questioning the cost of global commitments, asking why America should keep paying for other people's security. It's not a Trump phenomena. It's not even a Republican phenomena. It's a decades long bipartisan trend that's rooted in genuine structural exhaustion. The American public is tired of allies that ride free, tired of paying for a global order while bridges crumble and health issues bankrupt families. But here's where the America first position struggles in this instance. If your take on it boils down to America only, the answer to allied free riding is going to be leverage and renegotiation, not abandonment. Because it certainly doesn't seem abandonment punishes the freeloaders, it rewards the adversaries. It's like the person you played hard to get with that found a new man and he got oil and he got computer chips. Sorry, it's true. And here's the historical reality that no amount of political spend changes when dominant powers step back. The vacuum they leave is not filled by international law and multilateral cooperation. The nearest ambitious power that's willing to bear the cost of expansion is going to step up every time in every era. When Britain weakened after World War II, the Soviet Union moved into Eastern Europe, stat. When America pulled out of Iraq, Iran expanded its influence across the region. When the Obama administration drew red lines in Syria and failed to enforce them. Russia stepped directly into the conflict. When Libya collapsed, Turkish and Russian militias and traffickers rushed into the vacuum. So let's be honest about where this goes. In the best case scenario, the stress on the current system forces reform instead of collapse. Europe finally rearms seriously. Trade relationships are restructured to reduce dangerous dependencies. America and its allies build a coherent strategy around semiconductors, energy manufacturing and critical technology. Western institutions stabilize enough to sustain long term commitments and credible deterrence. And if we're paying attention, parts of that process are already happening. Trump's pressure on NATO forced defense spending higher across Europe. The tariff wars and reshoring push were aimed at reducing dependence on China and rebuilding domestic manufacturing capacity. The fights over Greenland and Panama and energy and rare earth minerals and supply chains all point toward a broader effort to secure strategic geography and critical infrastructure in a more unstable world. The outcome is still possible. The ingredients exist. But there's also a darker path. One where American political dysfunction and allied freeloading Chinese aggression toward Taiwan, Russian opportunism in Europe create a cascade of crises that the current system cannot absorb. Not necessarily World War 3, although serious people no longer treat that as unthinkable. But a world where the rules based order effectively stops functioning. A world where the institutions managing trade, finance and security either collapse under pressure or just become too weak to matter. And for Americans, it doesn't stay abstract. It hits the gas pump almost immediately. When Russia invaded Ukraine, energy prices surged within days. When Iran threatens the Strait of Hormuz, markets react before Americans even know where the Strait of Hormuz is. That's globalization. Whether people like it or not, Americans are already deeply tied to the stability of global trade routes and energy corridors. And those problems don't improve in a world where hostile powers gain more control over them. And it hits the grocery store, too. Food costs rise. Shipping costs rise. Insurance costs rise. The price of everything that moves through vulnerable trade routes rises. Not temporarily. Somebody has to secure the oceans, the checkpoints and the infrastructure that modern economies depend on. But the deepest hit might come from something that most of us never think about at all. And that's DE dollarization. For 70 years, the dollar's dominance in global finance has given Americans extraordinary advantages. Countries all over the world buy oil and settle trade and hold reserves and conduct business in American dollars. It's why we can borrow more cheaply. We can run larger deficits. We can absorb shocks other economies can't survive. And it has a name. Economists call it America's exorbitant privilege. And it is worth trillions to the US Economy. And China's already building alternatives. BRICS nations are building parallel payment systems. Saudi Arabia and other countries are increasingly willing to conduct energy transactions outside the dollar system. None of those alternatives are close to replacing the dollar yet. But the direction matters. Because if the dollar gradually loses dominance, we're going to feel it everywhere. Higher borrowing costs, higher mortgage rates, weaker purchasing power, slower economic growth, a lower standard of living. And then there's the scenario that nobody wants to say out loud. The possibility that erosion stops being gradual. A Chinese move on Taiwan. A Russian escalation in the Baltics. A direct confrontation involving major powers that turns supply, supply chain shortages, and inflation into the least of our problems. Which is why I think that the America first instinct is correct. We should absolutely be doing what's best for America. The real question is what that actually means. Does it mean retreating from the world and hoping that hostile powers don't fill the vacuum or fill the vacuum peacefully? Or does it mean maintaining enough global influence to keep trade flowing, energy stable, shelves stocked, and the dollar strong? Because the moment America stops shaping the system, somebody else is going to start shaping it for us. And whether that power sits in Beijing or in Moscow, I can promise you one thing. They are not going to put America first. All right, guys, thank you so much for watching. If you're feeling extra generous and you have an extra five seconds to spare, please consider liking the video, dropping us a comment, and subscribing to the channel. It helps us out a ton. And don't forget to tune in Friday for the weekly rundown. Until then, take good care of yourselves. 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.