← Keeping It Real: Conversations with Jillian Michaels
Keeping It Real: Conversations with Jillian Michaels
The Political War of 2025 & The Fight For America’s Future with Vivek Ramaswamy
00:59:45
Loading summary
Transcript83 lines
- [00:00]
Jillian Michaels
Who doesn't love the good things in life? I mean, even though I enjoy a little luxury, it doesn't mean I always want to pay for it. And then I discovered Quince. My go to for luxury essentials at affordable prices. Quince offers a range of high quality items at prices that are within reach, like 100% Mongolian cashmere sweaters for 50 bucks. Washable silk tops and dresses, organic cotton sweaters, 14 karat gold jewelry. By partnering directly with top factories, Quince cuts out the cost of the middleman and passes the savings on to us. And the best part is that all Quince Items are priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. And Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes, which I love. I mean, I personally love. The sheets are amazing and you don't have to spend 500 bucks on them. So give yourself the luxury you deserve with quince. Go to quince.com Jillian for free shipping on your orders and 365 day returns. That's Q-U-I-N C E.com Jillian to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com Jillian Bombas makes the most comfortable socks, underwear and T shirts.
- [01:20]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Warning, Bombas are so absurdly comfortable, you.
- [01:22]
Jillian Michaels
May throw out all your other clothes. Sorry, do we legally have to say that? No, this is just how I talk. And I really love my Bombas. They do feel that good.
- [01:30]
Vivek Ramaswamy
And they do good, too. One item purchased equals one item donated. To feel good and do good, go to bombas.com wondry and use code wondry.
- [01:39]
Jillian Michaels
For 20% off your first purchase.
- [01:40]
Vivek Ramaswamy
That's B O M B-A-S.com wondry and use code Wondry at checkout.
- [01:49]
Jillian Michaels
Today, I'm sitting down with entrepreneur, former presidential candidate and political firebrand Vivek Ramaswamy. And we're going to dive into his thoughts on dismantling the Department of Education, his decision to back out of Doge and run for governor of Ohio, Trump's economic policies, tariffs, and so much more. Keeping it real with Jillian Michaels. Mr. Ramaswamy, welcome to the show. How are you doing?
- [02:19]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Well, how are you doing?
- [02:20]
Jillian Michaels
I'm doing great. It is a pleasure to meet you. Congratulations on announcing your run for governor of Ohio. And I got a lot to ask you. I'm going to jump right in. And can I presume that this is essentially a test run for the presidency?
- [02:37]
Vivek Ramaswamy
I wouldn't presume that this is a destination job for me. Yeah, I mean, look, my plan in life has been. I've learned a lot of lessons. It's don't make plans that are way too long term because nothing ever goes like you expect it to. So everything I want to do, I want to make sure it's a kind of a decision I came to in my life, you know, early in my adult life. When you kind of do things that think it's going to get you somewhere else, it's not a good way to live your life. Do something that you find meaningful in the present. And I believe that leading a state of 11 million people at the heart of the country where I grew up and I'm raising my kids is meaningful in and of itself. Even if I didn't do another thing in my life, would I be proud of that? If I did a good job, I would. So we'll take it chapter by chapter. The future is long, everything's possible. But I want the next chapter to be something meaningful in and of its own. Right. And that's how I'm thinking about it.
- [03:27]
Jillian Michaels
I appreciate that. And speaking of Ohio, I watched you recently when you announced the run for governor, talk about how so many different things are going to be kicked back to the states. And of course, new in the news on fire, the dismantling of the Department of Education. Yeah, I've heard this is a disaster. Oh my God. And, and then I've heard you talk about all the reasons this is a great thing. Can you elaborate on what's wrong and why you think that this is potentially the way forward?
- [04:01]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Yeah, I mean, it depends on what you're referring to as the disaster. If you're saying this is a disaster and that's referring to the U.S. department of Education, that'd be accurate because that's exactly, I mean, seriously, that's exactly what it's been. You think about this government agency in Washington D.C. that spends 80 plus billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money per year. Let's just take a big step back and measure, let's say student achievement over the last 20 years, student achievement over the last several decades. Are we doing well in that regard? No, we're actually not. An average seventh grade student here is at the level of an average Chinese student in third grade. Okay, four year discrepancy versus China, five years versus Singapore. An eighth grader here versus a third grader in Singapore are at the same approximate level for academic achievement and performance. So is our federal Department of Education delivering some kind of magical result? According to a national standard? Of course it's not. But to the contrary, even on first principles, I think education is best left to the states where you have competitive models in different states that innovate in different ways and experiment on how you're actually delivering for our kids. That's a great thing to have a competitive system. A federal Department of Education has actually long been a disaster and a waste of money at that. And Julian, I'm a fan of not just. I try not to at least spout the standard, you know, talking points for my side of an issue or a conservative talking point or whatever it's worth, on the day that it's being ordered to be dismantled, to just take a step back and say, what would have been the purpose for creating this in the first place? Right? Like, what was the point of creating a US Department of Education if it's been such a failure? Was there ever even a rationale for it? Even if somebody wanted to create a government, federal government solution to a said problem, so many of those agencies should have just been temporary task forces. Imagine if the US Department of Education had just been a temporary task force overseeing the process of, let's just say, the integration of our schools and making sure that there wasn't racial disparities in how things were transferred from one school district to another. Agree or not, at least that would have had a finite time period that it existed. The problem with this is when you create a task force and instead turn it into a permanent agency, that agency then starts finding relatively random and increasingly even over time, corrosive things to do, foisting ideologies onto our public school, saying that you don't get this money unless you adopt certain racial or gender based ideologies. There's actually one funny story, you know, maybe we'll find it funny, maybe not. It's a little odd that certain schools in certain central parts of the country could not get funds because they taught certain programs that were deemed outside of what was acceptable for a school to be teaching. For example, training programs in archery. Well, you know what? Maybe we don't need one standard for the entire country. But in certain parts of the country, that might make sense to have a public school that integrates that option into middle school or high school education that belongs to locals and education is best done locally, ultimately for each family. Even being able to make the decision of where they send their kids to school. Anybody who's a parent knows that every kid is different and unique and deserves their own path. That's where education's best left is to the decentralized apparatus of the states. And this federal Department of Education has nothing been nothing other than an abysmal failure. And when an institution has failed that badly, there's one answer. You shut it down, returned the money back to the stakeholders. In this case, it's to the taxpayers and to the states and to the people. That's a good development, but it's not the end goal either. It's not the final destination either. The final destination needs to be improving the educational achievement metrics for our students, actually solve this educational achievement crisis in our country. And if I'm calling balls and strikes, Gillian, I don't think either party has frankly done a good enough job of actually confronting that crisis, or we wouldn't be where we are. And, and for my part, that's where I'm focused on the next chapter of this.
- [07:55]
Jillian Michaels
If I could ask you some questions about the money part, because that seems to be one of the most alarming concerns with regard to dismantling the Department of Education is what happens with Pell Grants, what happens with Title 1 funding for underprivileged kids. Now, I know you just mentioned that kids in the more impoverished areas are getting the most money spent on them, which I find crazy. I did not know that. So maybe it, maybe that sort of answers this question that I'm asking. But for kids in poor areas, what happens when there isn't that federal infusion of money? Will they suffer for lack of tablets in school, lack of quality teachers and so on?
- [08:37]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Now, it's sort of an apples and oranges kind of issue here, because I'll tell you, here's why. About 10 to 12%, maybe 8 to 12% of a school's budget typically comes from the federal funding in the first place. It's mostly funded through other sources anyway. The issue with the poorly performing inner city schools and in poorer districts where you have a higher per student expenditure, I can't emphasize that enough. A lot of the poorest school districts in the inner cities included have the highest per student expenditure and the worst results to go along with it, which have been worsening over time. The issue is really the fact that teacher quality is lacking.
- [09:11]
Jillian Michaels
Right?
- [09:12]
Vivek Ramaswamy
That's the issue. The number one factor in certain people might listen to this and just say, this is so obvious. Why is he bothering to say it yet in other corridors, this is like a novel thing to say. So whichever category you're in, I'm just going to say it. The number one factor that determines a student's long run academic performance is the quality of the teachers that he has along the way. Period.
- [09:32]
Jillian Michaels
Right.
- [09:33]
Vivek Ramaswamy
And yet in most school districts, including in my own home state of Ohio, less than half of the money allocated to public schools goes towards classroom instruction. It doesn't make any sense. The best teachers in public schools undoubtedly deserve to be paid a lot more than they are right now. I think it's reasonable to ask the question right now. I mean, I talk about reviving the American dream. That's one of my passions. I've lived the American dream. Is it even possible to live the American dream as a public school teacher today? The fact that that's a difficult question to answer or even reflect on, I think is a scathing indictment of where we are right now in our educational system. We're not recruiting the best and brightest because they're not going into teaching anymore. They're going into other professions. And so what I believe needs to be done, and I'm going to implement this in Ohio when I'm the next governor, hopefully, is merit based pay for teachers. Make sure you're paying for performance, but the best ones ought to be paid a lot more than they are right now. There's other solutions that are literally cost free that no one's talking about where there's red tape and bureaucracy, both in my state and others. I'll give you an example. There's a lot of people who are retired, who have lived great careers, lived out great careers as engineers or doctors, and are in their golden years now. Have that impulse to serve, to give back, to also just find purpose in retirement. I mean, to a lot of people, there's more to the third phase of your life than hitting white balls in some aimless direction. I say that as somebody who enjoys playing a round of golf from time to time is two. But they want to do something. And what do many of them want to do they actually want to go to? Turns out, volunteer in schools. Kindergarten, first grade, second grade, third grade. Maybe you've had grandkids, maybe you don't have grandkids. Maybe your grandkids are older. That's the thing that actually many people want to volunteer to do at that age compared to the standard of instruction in the inner cities. Literally, Jillian, all you gotta do is just read to them. Start with just reading books. Basic baseline for where you could start with a kid who's in kindergarten or first or second grade and then build on that. In many cases, they're not even doing that in many inner city schools. And yet what do those schools do? There are obstacles that stop those full time willing volunteers who are perfectly capable people with advanced degrees. People are perfectly equipped and trained to be great teachers and mentors to young people. We don't let them do it. So this discussion about whether it's more or less money or how much money, it's really how the money's being spent that we ought to be talking about, and then if there's a funding gap, look, let's have that conversation and make sure no school's underfunded. But that is the wrong discussion in an environment where that money in the most funded schools is being squandered so badly that the kids are actually performing worse at the end of it to be comprehensive. I mean, there's a lot. So much to talk about. And I'm sure we want to cover other stuff in the short time we have together. But you think about collection of grants or the repayment of loans. I'm not exactly sure how, you know, this is going to shake out exactly, but Linda McMahon and I have had conversations. I've also spoken publicly about this. You could take that and move it to treasury, right? Reorganizing some of this, the Department of Education, some of this was workforce training. A tiny sliver of its budget was about workforce training and education. There's this giant thing that we also call the Department of Labor. Maybe you should move it there if it relates to workforce training. So there are ample ways to be able to dismantle an institution that just doesn't matter of that bureaucracy. It shouldn't exist. I've been preaching about this since day one of the first time I ran for office, when I ran for US President a couple of years ago. I think it is decidedly a good thing now. It's not a murky kind of gray. Well, there's some good, there's some bad in this category, and I'm proud of President Trump for doing it. It is decisively a strictly good thing for us to dismantle that Department of Education, return as much of that money back to the people as we can send back education policy to the states. But that's just the first step, right? It's a celebration of a milestone, not an achievement of a goal. The goal is actually enhancing, I believe ought to be enhancing the performance of our students right now. Fact of the matter is we're not doing great. 75% of 8th graders are not proficient in math. 70% of them aren't proficient in reading. There's kids in other countries where English isn't even their first language, Jillian, doing better on English proficiency than our own kids. Here I have to. Unacceptable.
- [13:52]
Jillian Michaels
I, I see it. I have a seventh grader and I, I actually see it. And the school is always closed. It's raining outside. It's. There's vi.
- [14:01]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Spring breaks. Two weeks now, by the way. Right?
- [14:03]
Jillian Michaels
Madness. They're never in school again today. I have never in school because of a parent teach. They have missed 22 days. My kids from school since January until now 22 days.
- [14:14]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Why is Valentine's Day now a holiday for K through 6? Like, why is. Why are there two weeks of spring break? It doesn't make sense, by the way. And when they're in school, so many students get on average 60 text message notifications or 60 telephone notifications over the course of your day. So even the quality of the time that people are in school is impeded by, you know, in that case, I would say get the cell phones out of the schools 100%, which is what I favor doing and I'm going to do here in Ohio. But it's a long way of saying to take a step back. It's great to talk about the milestone that was achieved as you and I are having this conversation of dismantling a federal bureaucracy. It's great to talk about school choice. I favor it. And it's a great conservative solution that I'm a champion for. But we're also going to have to talk about actually enhancing the achievement of students who go through all schools, including our public schools. And the fact that we are where we are right now is, I think, a scathing indictment of policymakers in both parties. And what I'm hoping to do in the state of Ohio is to roll up my sleeves, get into the curriculum, get into merit based outcomes, developing healthier outcomes for students in every possible respect. That's what I want. Academic health, civic health, mental health, physical health in every domain, healthier, more fully, ultimately formed students who graduate from high school. That's what I want out of our system. Those are our true metrics of success. And that's what the states are ultimately going to have to step up and deliver. And I do see, you know, something of a leadership vacuum there that we're going to have to fill.
- [15:52]
Jillian Michaels
You know, you're addressing next steps of like, okay, yeah, we've got this problem, going to attack the problem. But in all fairness, I'm not hearing a lot of talk about next steps, which allows for a huge amount of criticism. In other words, you're suggesting we.
- [16:10]
Vivek Ramaswamy
I'm here talking to you, Jillian. This is what I'm hoping we're chatting about next steps. Right you are.
- [16:16]
Jillian Michaels
You are. Which is where I think that in the next two years, we're going to see this go one way or another. And you are, which is really important. And I've seen you do it with things like immigration as well. Whereas at the moment, it's like we're cutting, we're slashing, we're burning, we're doing xyz. But I kind of wonder, which is ultimately going to lead me to the Doge question. If we had this game plan before announcing or dismantling the Department of Education, and it was flushed out to the degree of we're moving this over to labor, that's going over to the treasury, we're going to cover this base here, here and here. Everybody got it, problem solved, holes are plugged. Now we're going to dismantle this thing. I wonder if it wouldn't feel to people or allow so much criticism of fire. Ready, aim, and go.
- [17:11]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Do some commentary on that, because I think there's the truth of the substance of it. I mean, I've had personal conversations with Linda McMahon in the weeks leading up to this, laying out, she's the Secretary of Education, laying out my perspectives on exactly how that piping and plumbing would work. It was clear to me that she had thought about this in a deep way as well. And certainly speaking for my own part, I, and I believe others, too, have laid out different plans of different ways the actual mechanics of taking this apart could work. I almost think there's a good part to your point, Gillian, but I almost think it's actually even in that next step after that. So that's step two. Okay, here's how it's going to go. Basically. I'd say loan collections go, you know, could go to treasury, workforce training to labor. You could have a couple of other areas where you could even see certain, certain things really could go to the State Department. So there's, there's a couple of different areas where the bureaucracy could be reorganized. The rest of it's shut down. Here's how much money goes back to the States. Here's what that means for budgets. The thing that we should actually be talking about is the next, next step after that is what, what the heck the states are actually going to do, right, to address this epidemic of academic failure. And I do think I'm not being histrionic when I call that it is an epidemic of academic failure in the United States of America, and we're going to turn it around. I'm not just here to curse the darkness, you know, I mean, I'm not sure exactly how to answer your question. I mean, I'm aspiring to be a public leader. So that's what we are talking about. This.
- [18:34]
Jillian Michaels
But that's actually.
- [18:34]
Vivek Ramaswamy
And there's a role for every one of us, right? So we're each going to play our roles.
- [18:38]
Jillian Michaels
That's the thing. That's one of the things, though, that has really. You've grown on me a ton. Because when I listen to you and I'll jump ahead with regard to immigration, you're hearing, look, the right goes after the left. You open the borders, it's chaos. The infrastructure's overrun, there's criminals, we don't know who's here. Kids are being. Drugs are being okay. Then you flip the script and it's like, oh, my God, you're anti immigration, you're anti immigrant, you're a bigot, you're a racist. But then I actually loved when you talk about how your parents were immigrants from southern India and how legal immigration is so important and the ways in which immigration can stimulate the economy and how to do that in an effective way so that it contributes to the host society. But, Vivek, I'm not hearing that from many different politicians, and I even wonder if you could elaborate on your thoughts with regard to where immigration goes. Now that we've stemmed the flow, we're getting the bad guys out of here, all things that need to happen. But that next step conversation, I don't think is yet.
- [19:45]
Vivek Ramaswamy
So I'd be happy to share my thoughts with you on this. I hear where you're coming from. All I would say is I am aspiring to be one of those leaders here in a state that really matters. And so I hope that we're able to fill some of the vacuum that you're maybe wondering about. It's a team effort to save a country, and I think that I hope to be part of that team and play my own role in whatever way I can. Asked about immigration, I think it's an important issue to the future of the country. I think it starts with rebuilding trust, and I don't think that we've yet achieved that. With respect to immigration policy, the first way to rebuild trust is to end all forms of illegal immigration into the United States. I am proud to say a hardliner on that question. I think we need a sealed border. We need to use every resource. I think it's an appropriate use of the US Military. I don't think that's histrionic. I think the US Military can protect the US borders. That's part of what being part of the Defense Department is all about. And the incentives to be here illegally defund sanctuary cities. Think about that, Gillian. What does that mean? You got local governments that are subsidizing the violation of a federal law that doesn't make any sense.
- [20:56]
Jillian Michaels
Just did it here in California. He's got some loophole where he's funding health care for illegals. But I know at least 1030 year old kids that can't afford health care that are American citizens and pay taxes.
- [21:09]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Absolutely. And so the overarching principle when it comes to immigration policy I think ought to be a simple one that I believe every American should agree on, which is the purpose of any policy, including immigration policy, is to improve the plight of the citizens of our nation. It's that simple. What improves the plights of the citizens of our nation? We're a nation founded on the rule of law. So subsidizing or encouraging or even tolerating the violation of the rule of law doesn't advance the interests of our nation. We're a nation founded on the rule of law. So I could go on about the illegal immigration issue and how we should end foreign aid to countries in Central America where frankly the Darien Pass, a region that used to be shut down for people, that northward flow of migrants from Venezuela to the southern border of Texas, all the way to sealing the physical border itself, all the way to ending the incentives to be here illegally, ending every form of aid and ending every form of spending of sanctuary cities. All of that. That's in the stopping illegal immigration category. If it's in favor of stopping illegal immigration, it's done in a legal way. I'm in favor of it.
- [22:12]
Jillian Michaels
Okay, agreed.
- [22:14]
Vivek Ramaswamy
That's where I'm at now. There's a separate question and I think after we've rebuilt that trust, the question is what should the legal immigration policies of this country look like? And there too, I apply the same principle. What are the immigration policies that would best lift up the quality of life for the citizens who are already here? That should be the sole question that we seek to answer. And is our current regime in so many different areas badly bureaucratized, broken inefficient and ineffective at achieving its result? Yes, it is. But that means we need to roll up our sleeves and address those failures rather than just cursing the darkness. And I'm happy to know it's some other forum. And that's probably a long discussion, a day long discussion unto itself. But I think we need to do that hard work. I don't think it's enough to just push the darkness, to use my phrase of the day. I guess I think that that's a trap we risk falling into. Is it's a lot easier to spot a problem and to complain about it than it is to actually solve it in the stage I am certainly in my career and what I'm looking to do, not going to be able to fix that one. That's for the federal government. But when I look at education policy or the other policies that a governor can actually drive in improving in the revival of the American dream, economic growth, energy production, I want to turn to the solution and do it in a way that unites people. Because I think what you're putting your finger on, if I may tell me if I'm totally off here, but I'm hearing your comments, feeling is I think there's a risk here where the risk is as follows. Right on our side. I'm a conservative. I'm a Republican politician running for office. Okay. One of the risks is that there's a pattern recognition for our side where for the last eight years, if we did something and the left was incensed about it, there was a very high probability that we were actually doing the right thing. So just a correlation. Just a correlation, like whatever. We take the border issue, sealing the border, whatever it is. Right. And some people might contest this, but just roll with me for a second. I'm with you in general. Okay. If. If you're doing a thing that made at least the woke left, right, the. The Neowoke left really upset at you, chances are whatever that was, that you were doing the right thing, great. I think we got habituated into that. And I think the trap I want to make sure we don't fall into is a trap of just doing things because it makes that wing of the left really upset, as opposed to doing things because we think it's actually going to solve a problem that's a pressing problem for all Americans. And I think at our core, at our best, and that's where most public officials, I think, are in this. I think with good motivations, we got to remember that what we're actually trying to do is to solve problems for the American citizens who are already here to make their lives better, to revive a country where if you work hard and play by the rules, you get to have a good life, that you get to live your version of the American dream with dignity, whether you're a businessman or a CEO or a teacher. Or a nurse that your kids get a world class education in the first world world leader known as the United States of America. And if you're going to stand in our way, we're going to run through you. Okay, but our goal isn't to, to elicit a reaction from the other side. Our goal is to actually do the thing.
- [25:32]
Jillian Michaels
Yes.
- [25:33]
Vivek Ramaswamy
And so that's what, that's what I think success looks like is do the thing. And then I see an opportunity there. Because if you're actually focused on doing the thing, I think there's a weird, there's all kinds of interesting shifts going on in America. There's the best case scenario and it's in the middle case. You do the thing and you run through the other side who's an obstacle, but you're running through that obstacle because you want to do the thing. Then there's an even better version of this, which is where I'd like to see us go in our most aspirational version of ourselves is not only are we doing the thing, we're not compromising on our principles, we're not compromising on our values. We're staying true to our values, true to our goals. But use the power of persuasion to even bring along the people who might have thought they disagreed with you to bring them along. That's the best case scenario. And if that's the best case scenario, I'll also paint the worst case scenario, which is that we just do things because they make the other side angry without actually even doing the thing, which is in some cases the worst of all worlds, is we didn't even do the thing that we actually set out to do. But we managed to make the other side mad because pattern recognition over the last 10 years taught us, at least in the last 10 years that's what allowed us to do a good thing. When in fact the next 10 years aren't going to be, I hope, aren't going to be the same as the last 10 when it comes to polarization in our country. And so I don't know if that got too wonky or philosophical or whatever, but that's where I see an opportunity and that's where I see a risk, a fork in the road ahead for where we head from here. And for my part, I'm open to lead Ohio as a governor that has certain goals that I'm in this to achieve. Take the educational achievement discussion, a teacher's union, if you're a political opponent, if you're standing in the way of us standing for the Achievement of our students. We're not going to go lightly. We're going to run right through you. But at our best, I'm not picking a fight for the sake of picking one. To the contrary, I'd prefer it, actually. We were just able to do it together and all celebrate that outcome. And that might mean that nobody was incensed about it. That's not a bad thing. That's actually a good thing. Even though it might make less national news or social media virality in the process. And I do think that that's a slightly different frame shift of what the politics of the next 10 years could look like.
- [27:44]
Jillian Michaels
Oh, I hope so.
- [27:45]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Versus the politics of the last 10 years, if you ask me.
- [27:47]
Jillian Michaels
Gosh, I hope so. And I wanted to ask you specifically about how insanely polarized we are, because you're talking about we're going to run right through you. We're going to do the thing. If I could give an example which sounds like what you're describing, it would be sending Venezuelan gang members back to their country who entered America illegally, and yet some judge who must have bumped their head 50 times before ruling that that plane should have been turned around. This is the part where I'm like, is this even possible? The fact that we cannot agree criminals should go home. Is it even possible, do you think anymore, to get on the same page about friggin anything from sending back dangerous criminals to educating our kids? Do you see hope?
- [28:36]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Totally. And that's the spiral that I'm talking about, Jillian. Because then the right, which I'm part of, understandably starts to engage in this kind of pattern recognition. If you're doing something that really pisses off the woke left, you're probably doing something right. And so if it really pissed off a group of people to say that you're sending Venezuelan gang members back to the country, back out of the country, back to. Back to out of the United States of America where they belong, then it turns out that's making somebody else mad and you're doing the right thing. So it creates this. What I want to do for our side is that's actually been. That's just a fact. Most of the time, if you're really pissing off the woke left, you're doing the right thing. I don't want that to then become our goal. I don't want it to be. It's not our goal that we're solving for, to just do things that inflame the Woke left. Because 95% of the time you're going to Be doing the right thing anyway. I'd like to just frame shift. What we're actually trying to achieve is we actually want to do the right thing. We want to stand for the rule of law. We want to stand for the interests of the citizens of the United States of America. And if you stand in our way, then you're an opponent. But maybe, just maybe, we might even in the next 10 years, different from the last, be able to use once in a while, maybe even the power of open dialogue, persuasion, space for somebody to be able to evolve their own views, to bring along some of the people who might have thought they were against us 10 years ago that might be just a little more grown up today. And I'm not some sort of Kumbaya sort of fake optimist here, but I do think that there is a little bit of a cultural shift waiting to happen in the country. And it's just human nature. Even in a negotiation, a business setting, in a political setting, you always see this. If you put somebody in a corner, they have to stay there. But if you give them the space to move a little bit sometimes you might discover they're actually willing to make that move if you give them an opportunity to do it.
- [30:26]
Jillian Michaels
And if you roll.
- [30:27]
Vivek Ramaswamy
That's how I think about things. Without compromising on our principles, by the way.
- [30:30]
Jillian Michaels
But I feel like in some cases you do role model it. I've seen you go against the party at times. I've seen you take a more center position on some issues that are social, on some issues like immigration and the HB1 visas that we'd brought up. And I wonder if you think Republicans, because at this point, when I see the left lighting Teslas on fire and not standing up for 13 year olds who've overcome brain cancer, I feel like the party is lost, absolutely lost and inverted. I think they have no idea where they're going, who the future of their party is. And I wonder if somebody like yourself and other Republicans can role model what it looks like to call balls and strikes. Do you think that the more you guys do that. Because I also think that's gonna be the key to winning again in the next two years, that maybe Democrats will go, oh, look, look, it's working. People are loving this honesty and authenticity.
- [31:32]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Look, I hope so. I mean, it's a team effort, as I said. I mean, we each have our respective roles to play. Look, I think a risk, and here's. I'm confident that with enough awareness, we're going to be able to avoid this risk. But I think a risk for the next two years is that we keep criticizing the Democratic Party as It was in 2023 and 2024, when maybe some other people step into the leadership vacuum in a way that shift their party, at least in the direction of rationality. We can't be caught flat footed criticizing yesterday. We got to be competing in, in the actual ideological, ideological debates of tomorrow rather than yesterday. Right. So I don't want to see us get caught flat footed. You see this a lot in the weirdly, in the nonprofit world, actually. You see a nonprofit that'll be formed and it becomes so addicted to the problem that it wanted to solve that once it solves it, it almost starts fretting because it's like, oh, my gosh, we solved it. Now what do we do? It's like the US Department of Education. The answer is shut down, move on and find something else to do. That's the answer. But anyway, I want to make sure, and I think we're going to be good on this front. As a Republican Party, I'm going to play my role in whatever way I can to help help us get there, too, to make sure that we're not just Chase talking about Biden and Kamala. Frankly, if we're talking about Biden and Kamala six months from now, that would, I think, be evidence of a failure. Okay, fair. Because at this point, we're still going through a transition, that's fine. But if we're in the latter half of this year, for six months, towards the end of 2025, and we're still talking about the Biden Harris regime, at some point, we're going to have to start chasing the future. That's where President Trump's leading us. I think he's done a great job in so many respects, coming straight out the gate with such force and energy, shutting down the Department of Education today, as you and I are having this conversation, but for the purpose of actually returning that to the states where we could do better, we're off in substance to a great start in a lot of ways. I just want to make sure that not just at President Trump's level, but all the way down. Even in our state elections, even the midterm cycle, we remain focused on not just what we're running from, but what we're running to. Not just the nightmare, but the dream. And I do think it's worth having a conversation again about reviving this idea of the American dream. What is it? Do we believe it still exists or this vast geographic space A beautiful country in that geographic space at that. But is there something that still binds us all together across our differences in that space? I believe there is, actually. I really do. I think it's a set of ideals and a shared culture that bind together the greatest nation known to the history of mankind. And if we're able to distill what that is, the way we might have veered from it. But how we can actually get back to the North Star of that American ideal, that quintessential American identity that I think we're longing for? That's what's going to be success, not just for the Republican Party, but success for our nation as a whole. And the center of gravity of doing that, Gillian, is actually going to shift to the States. So much is being kicked out of Washington, D.C. as it should. It's actually going to fall on leaders at the state level to carry that mantle. And that's why to your first question, this is a destination job for me. I see that as an opportunity to help do my part to save the country in the next chapter, where certainly at the state level, I do see that type of leadership vacuum. And I'm going to do my part to try to step up and fill it in the manner that you and I are talking about right here.
- [35:05]
Jillian Michaels
Does anybody else have pain points when it comes to bras and underwear? I mean, seriously, like riding up the crack of your rear end or gapping with bras or like spillage over bras or uncomfortable underwires.
- [35:19]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Like, this is.
- [35:21]
Jillian Michaels
These are bones I have to pick up until I discovered skims. I'm really, I'm really being serious. I love the brand. They're comfortable, supportive. They look great. They disappear under clothing. I mean, what more can a person ask for? You guys, personally, I love the Fits Everybody collection. I like the Fits Everybody. Boy short, you don't see the lines that like on my butt cheeks under my pants. Hate that. Or the Fits Everybody push up bra honestly gives me just enough of a boost that I'm not going to say need, but I definitely prefer so guys, you can shop Skims Intimates, including the Fits Everybody collection and more@skims.com and skim stores. And after you place your order, be sure to let them know that we sent you select podcast in the survey and then select my show in the dropdown menu that follows. You think about companies with healthy sales like Chubby's or Alo gymshark Magic Spoon Skims. Sure. You think about a great product, an attractive brand, and marketing that lifts a heavy load. But an often overlooked secret is actually the business behind the business making selling and for shoppers buying. Simple for millions of businesses, that business is Shopify. Nobody does selling better than Shopify, period. Home of the number one checkout on the planet and the not so secret secret with shop pay that boosts conversions up to 50%. So if you're into growing your business, your commerce platform better be ready to sell wherever your customers are scrolling or strolling on the web, in your stor, in their feed and everywhere in between. Businesses that sell more sell on Shopify, upgrade your business and get the same checkout Chubby's uses. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com Jillian all lowercase. Just go to shopify.com Jillian to upgrade your selling today. Shopify.com Jillian I want to get back to the state issue in particular as it relates to health in just a moment, but I would be extremely remiss if I didn't ask you about Doge. So we've talked about dismantling bureaucracy and I must have watched, I don't know, a thousand videos at this point on X of Clinton, Gore and Obama saying the exact same thing that you have said or Elon has said or Trump has said. And yet somehow it has been interpreted by the left as this authoritarian regime to take away all governing bodies and enforce ultimate control. How that hypocrisy has occurred, I don't know. I'm wondering, what was your initial goal with Doge? You know, why did you step away from Doge? Are you glad you did now that you have seen Elon musk up on a cross?
- [38:34]
Vivek Ramaswamy
I mean, look, it's predictable that if you're going after the bureaucracy and you're going hard, the bureaucracy is going to come back at you. The reality is, you're right, this should be bipartisan. It is bipartisan. Most Americans are opposed to bureaucracy. I've traveled this country, I've traveled my state. I met a lot of people who say we have too much red tape in the country. I haven't met a single person who says, I think we need a little bit more red tape in your office. Just give me a little bit more of that I'm missing. I haven't met like 1 out of 330 million people in the country. I don't think there is one. And so, you know, I mean, this has been a near and dear issue, passion issue for my heart for a long time. I wrote about it in my several of my books, including my most Recent book of I ran for US President effectively on the campaign of dismantling the overgrowth of the federal bureaucracy, which I think is really a wet blanket on economic growth and even on the American spirit in our country. Our nation was founded on the basic idea that the people who we elect to make the laws should be the ones who make the laws, not unelected bureaucrats. And so after I stepped aside from the presidential race, my top objective was to help Donald Trump get elected last year, which is where I spent most of my time. But when he and I had conversations about what I wanted to do to impact the country next, tackling that bureaucracy was such a natural place to focus. And so I ended up co leading Doge at the start to help get it off the ground. Enjoyed those first two and a half months, and I'm incredibly proud of what Doge is aiming to do for the country. It's a beautiful thing to behold. Now, in my particular case, there were some changes to the mission and the plan and the setup of Doge. My plan had been to run for governor of Ohio after hopefully having some early success at Doge. The reality was Doge came to reside not outside the government, but within the federal government itself, which was a change to the original plan for some good reasons, but it was a change to the plan. And that would have stopped me from being able to do both of those things at once. But I will tell you, this part's super important, Gillian, is the formula for success, or at least an important part of the formula for success for taming down the federal bureaucracy is to send the excess programs. When in doubt, cut them, cut them. And when in doubt about whether to cut him, send it to the states. That's the formula for success. It's what our founding fathers envisioned. It's what our Constitution enshrines as the principle of federalism. And it became clear to me, and my conversations with President Trump were as clear about this, too, that that's where the center of gravity for a lot of these programs is going to go. Just take the Department of Education. The news of the day is a perfect example of that. Kicking it out of Washington, D.C. is step one. But what happens from there, that's really where I saw an opportunity to drive change from the front. And I'm a leader who likes to lead with my own vision of where we're headed. The governor's seat here is the best place for me to do that. And I have nothing but wishing, not only wishing super well, but want to be even helpful Informally, however I can in making sure that federal project has been successful. But my job is going to fall on my shoulders now to make sure that this parts that fall to the states that we actually have strong governors, where I hope to set a national standard for governors across this country of how we actually take and pick up the pieces of education and healthcare policy in a way that actually should be done the right way rather than the way our federal government's been doing it for the last couple of decades.
- [41:50]
Jillian Michaels
You know, you bring up strong governors, I want to push back on you for just a second because if I look at someone like Gavin Newsom and this man I think is single handedly responsible, with some help from Kamala and Joe Biden, of moving me from left to center to center right, I don't think that we can leave this guy without a little supervision. I really don't. Which is part of the reason. And listen, somebody on the other side might say, oh, you know, supervision's called.
- [42:23]
Vivek Ramaswamy
The voters, by the way.
- [42:24]
Jillian Michaels
Okay, well, but we have a beautiful system to vote against their best interest. The frigging state just burned down.
- [42:30]
Vivek Ramaswamy
It's unbelievable. I think things are eventually going to change in California from time to time they do. I mean, they elected Reagan, they elected Schwarzenegger. So I think it's interesting, change happens not gradually, but in quantum leaps. And so I actually had a governor candidate in California, or maybe a guy who will be a governor candidate in California who actually came to even my launch at the time I ran for governor here, we announced about three, four weeks ago. I had several governor candidates from other states just flying in. I gave him, you know, said speak to our state about it. Why not? That's a good movement, right? I think it shows that we need leadership at the state level. Now for my part, what I'm aiming to do is I want to set a standard, right? I want to set what I'll call the Ohio standard that is open source. So everything I'm doing, I don't want to claim it as my idea. I want it to be open source. I would love it if every one of the other 49 governors across the country adopted and implemented that same vision in their state. From merit based pay to getting cell phones out of the classroom to serve in healthier food in the cafeterias, or bringing back the presidential fitness test. My vision for civic education and civics examination, economic growth. We're going to become zero tax like I believe most states across this country should. How Take all the ideas.
- [43:46]
Jillian Michaels
That's what I was Asking what we're.
- [43:47]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Going to do it here in Ohio.
- [43:48]
Jillian Michaels
I saw you talk about that, that you wanted to get rid of property tax, which is, I mean, obviously incredible. It's most people's dream come true. But then how do you pay cops more, pay teachers more, pay for the infrastructure that the states need? If you're not taxing the crap out of people to be dead honest, how does that work?
- [44:08]
Vivek Ramaswamy
So look, there's a multiple different sources of revenue. In general, I think that taxing the supply or the creation of something is the worst place to actually tax something. But there's also just looking at how you're spending the money rather than how much you're actually spending. I think the best cops should be paid more, I think the best teachers should be paid more. But we're not rewarding these people according to anything that resembles a meritocracy anymore. We need to bring back that idea of merit into our culture. It's an essential part of American culture. It's just that we've lost our way a little bit. We need to reset that North Star. I want to improve the effectiveness. Actually effectiveness ought to be the goal. And the savings that allow you to get to zero income tax are actually a byproduct of that improvement in effectiveness. Attach work requirements instead of just giving out aid willy nilly, thinking about Medicaid, think about welfare. You're giving out the money without work requirements. That doesn't make any sense, right? Actually the basic work requirements are even age 18 to 54. If you're childless and able bodied. The idea would be you only have to work 20 hours a week in order to get that form of aid. That's not a lot to ask. And the counter argument to that is people say was that that's not compassionate. No, no, no. I think making somebody more dependent on the government is not compassion, that is cruelty. When you're sitting in your parents basement playing video games and smoking pot, that's not making you feel better about yourself. No, it's going to drive a greater. What do you know, what do you see in the country? Epidemic of depression, anxiety, drug usage, suicide. It comes from that loss of purpose, that rudderlessness that we're actually paying for. So there's an example there of where you're actually saving money, but it's a byproduct of just doing the right thing. From the standpoint of human flourishing, from the standpoint of American flourishing, from the standpoint of effectiveness, of the few things that government is actually supposed to do and to do well, you got a state like my state in Ohio. I want our state to have the best universities in the country. I actually do for sure. I'm not one of these people who says four year college degrees are bad and vocational is good or vocational is bad and four year college degree is good. They're all good. We want the paths for vocational training. Want paths for earn while you learn programs for people who enter professions as electricians or carpenters or welders or mechanics or builders. But I also want our state to have the best possible four year college universities. Maybe we should make them three year college universities in certain cases. But you also got to look at the fact that our state, so this is Ohio specific here, but it's an example of how other policymakers can think. Ohio has the second most number of universities in our state of any other state. And yet we have actually a relatively small number of people who are below the age of 17 compared to other states. That doesn't make any sense. There's a mismatch there. So are there opportunities for consolidation? Where are you saving costs? Sure. But you're also improving effectiveness of those universities. Rather than having empty classrooms and courses that are being offered that nobody's taking because you have so many universities compared to the 17 year olds who aren't actually even going there anymore. I think you could have centers of excellence where you have different universities that are the very best at their respective domain within the same state. And is that going to save some cost? Yes, it is, but it's also going to for that matter improve effectiveness. And I think that the more we're focused on effectiveness, the more that saving cost is a byproduct rather than the other way around. And the thing I would say is even just look at four year college education. I didn't mean it flippantly when I said maybe it should be three. You look at the curriculum. Many bachelor's degrees should absolutely be certified as three year degrees. And I'm going to do that in the state of Ohio. We're going to roll this out in a, in a more effective way later this year in a more detailed way. But the bottom line is can certain bachelor's degree programs be fully accredited at three years? The answer is absolutely. Now you actually look even at certain universities in our state, what accounts for that fourth year is general education requirements. But you double click and look at what are the categories that fulfill a gen Ed requirement. Dei, Diversity, equity, inclusion is one. Sustainability. It's a sort of a euphemism for climate Indoctrination is another category. And whatever you think about the merits of those programs, and I don't think highly of them, but whatever you think about the merits of those programs, are you telling me that a requirement for a bachelor's degree and increasing the cost of college education by 25% on a PER student basis is worth that? I don't think that's a judgment that most people agree with. And so, anyway, I come back to the fact that there are ample opportunities to get a state like ours to a zero income tax, to bring down the property tax burden, but to do it in a way that doesn't decrease the effectiveness of the state, but I hope improves the effectiveness of it in the long run, too. That's a big part of how I'm hoping to lead, hopefully, Jillian, in a way that brings along not just Republicans with me on this, but Democrats, politically, homeless people, Independents. We got a seat for you at the table in this movement. If you care about educational excellence for your kids and give the American dream, you know, come aboard. We're on the same team as the way I talk about this.
- [49:22]
Jillian Michaels
I've heard you speak a lot about health and in particular mental health, and you talked about actually reinstating the psychology institutions, psychiatric institutions in Ohio. Why is this important to you? I don't hear a lot of governors talking about that, to be honest, which I was really inspired by. And why. Why do you think there's so much pushback? Why do you think the left has ceded the mantle of health to the right? It's so bizarre. And what's the vision to fix it in Ohio?
- [49:58]
Vivek Ramaswamy
So, look, I think in the long run, the best way to have a lower healthcare cost in the long run, for the bridge on cost, is just have a healthier population in the first place. So starting at a young age. And I think physical health and mental health are deeply integrated. They're two sides of the same coin. I want to bring back early childhood education. I want to include physical education starting as early as kindergarten. I want to bring back the presidential fitness test, which we got rid of about a decade and a half ago. I think that it's not that everyone's going to pass it or not. It's about setting a standard to aspire to.
- [50:30]
Jillian Michaels
Absolutely.
- [50:31]
Vivek Ramaswamy
And the flip side of that is I think that's going to help mental health issues along the way as well. Why am I focused on it? How could you not focus on it at a time where this is one of the most pressing issues that the next generation faces? Is a rising rate of suicide, a rising rate of depression, fentanyl usage, opioid usage. That's unacceptable. And it's a symptom of something deeper where there is a crisis of purpose and meaning amongst our young people. Really amongst across people of all generations in our country. Going to be a leader in the country. I don't think you're a full leader unless you're actually taking that issue on head on and in a meaningful way. Part of that is I think people are hungry just to be part of something bigger than themselves. Reinstilling a civic pride.
- [51:15]
Jillian Michaels
Absolutely.
- [51:15]
Vivek Ramaswamy
I think it's actually not just about American jingoism. It's about actually giving individuals that sense of purpose we long for to be citizens of a nation that's bigger than us. I've said that I want every high school senior who graduates from a public high school in Ohio to have to pass the same civics test that every legal immigrant has to pass before they become a naturalized citizen. This isn't just about the nation as a whole. It's about the individual purpose that every person experiences in that nation. I think the cell phones out of the schools relates to this. I mean, a lot of young people are distracted. The ADD cycle that they then actually were almost goading them into their add. It doesn't make any sense. The number of ways we goad people to do the thing that then later harms them that by the way we then pay for as a healthcare system is insane. Think about the waivers from SNAP that soda shouldn't be included. So on one hand, soda is actually included in welfare benefits that you're giving people without work requirements. So A, they're not working. They feel more poor about themselves as individuals because they lost that sense of purpose. Increased dependence on the government. But that dependence comes with actually a substance that drives you on a path to diabetes and obesity only to then show up in the Medicaid population. That's then getting that paid for on the other end. Nobody wins in that game.
- [52:30]
Jillian Michaels
No. Can I explain that?
- [52:31]
Vivek Ramaswamy
What I'm going to do is just start with the healthier population in the first place. Here's what policies are set at the states. Yes.
- [52:36]
Jillian Michaels
Okay. The problem is that these big food companies contribute to our politicians campaigns and the guy that or girl that has the most money wins. And this is why SNAP has soda for impoverished families as a nutrition source of nutrition. It's insane. And I wonder.
- [52:59]
Vivek Ramaswamy
I think it's a factor. I think it's a factor, Gillian. I think it's reform and it's certainly the easiest. And would you say, anyway, do you.
- [53:06]
Jillian Michaels
See any potential for reform with campaign finance? Because at this point I think I might start voting for only billionaires because they can't be bought off. You're laughing. I'm seriously looking at.
- [53:18]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Because it's kind of a sad state of affairs. I mean, I spent, you know, I spent what, 30 plus million dollars in my presidential campaign precisely because I wanted to be my. I would speak in an unrestrained way as much as I could. So I respect, I respect the spirit of your point. But just to go back to the content of this, I think that, that there's a, there's room for discussion around that issue. And I've talked about that elsewhere. I think the thing that I want to also focus on, because this is a little more uncomfortable, Gillian, but if you want to fix the problem, and I know you do, you care about it, I think you can't escape the fact that there's also a broader victimhood culture that's spreading across our country where if you take the SNAP benefits away, like the easy thing to do is, and I'm not saying it's wrong, right. To blame the big food companies and lobbying and all of that like that, relatively speaking, is an easier thing to do. I think the harder thing to confront is you're going to have a lot of people who are on the receiving end of that who don't like the fact that soda has been removed from their aid. That, you know what, I was able to get that before and my food stamps don't get that anymore. I think that that's something we have to confront head on. I don't think we can tiptoe around that. I think that there is a broader culture of victimhood laced with dependence on the government. It's a problem with the work requirements, too. I think the same reason we haven't been able to get a waiver for Snap On Soda is intimately linked. For the same reason we can't get a waiver for work requirements. To say that you have to actually have work requirements in order to get that, too. And so again, like I said, my goal is not to score political points. My goal is to solve problems. If you care about solving problems, you got to confront not just the easy thing, but the hard thing. I think the hard thing is we have a spread of a victimhood culture in the United States of America that rewards those who present themselves and even think of themselves as victims.
- [55:08]
Jillian Michaels
Absolutely.
- [55:09]
Vivek Ramaswamy
It's not just limited, it's not a left or right or. It's not a, it's not a one group of people or other group of people kind of thing. It's, it's pervasive in America. And that's not us at our best, America at our best. We're not victims, we're victors. We don't whine, we win. That's who we are at our core. And so a lot of this is going to require not just some sort of one single silver bullet panacea. It's not going to work that way. There are policy solutions and a role for public policymakers to play better than they have right in addressing and tackling some of these issues. But I think a true leader also has to be willing to speak hard truths to the people you're actually leading. It's like a parent who cares about their kid. If you care about somebody, you tell them the truth. If you care about yourself, you tell them what they want to hear. I love this country too much to watch us just go to the regular way that every other country in human history has gone. Now. I think we're the greatest country known to the history of mankind. This is the nation I was born and raised in, the only country I'll ever pledge allegiance to, the country I will die fighting for if I have to. And that means that we're going to have to confront some of the more difficult conversations about the spread of that victimhood culture in the United States of America. Is that related to everything from our educational achievement crisis all the way to that crisis of greater dependence on the government and the fact that we might have a revolt? If you actually say that there's work requirements and soda exemptions from the aid that we're handing out willy nilly from the federal government using money that we don't have, borrowing it, printing money from on high like manna from heaven. It's like showering cocaine on a cocaine addict. Not good for them. But we actually have to step back and ask ourselves what is true and what is right, not just what feels cool to say in the current moment. So I'm not at all, I'm not at all accusing you of that at all, but I'm saying that like, in fact, I think there's a lot of truth to what you brought up. But there's no such thing as a silver bullet without confronting the underlying electorate who votes for the government that gives them the policies that we're sitting here complaining about. I mean, Thomas Jefferson said it, well, is the government you elect is the government you deserve and so I do believe the job of good leaders, especially in executive roles, I think it's true for president and I think it's true for governor. Is that part of the job? Half the job is the policy, but half the job is also to set the tone, the character of who we are. And I think that's in some ways the underrated part of the job as well. And one of the things I love about Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again vision is he's reviving our conviction in America. Part of what I want to do in my home state is to revive our conviction in Ohio and even in a dimension of America that we deserve to revive as well. And so, anyway, that's a whole other topic of discussion for another day. But I think if we're able to get past this, the victimhood culture that I think in some ways held us back for so long, and you could talk about the woke victimhood culture that I've written about, you could talk about it more broadly, that I think is ultimately going to be our path to liberation and our path back to greatness. The great country that I know we are at our core, that's what we're on our way to reviving.
- [58:15]
Jillian Michaels
You know, what you're talking about is what I always practiced when helping people reclaim their health. And it's very easy to default to that victim status of, this happened to me, that happened to me. I'm poor. There's no healthy food. A million different excuses. But the problem is that if you take away somebody's boots, they can't pick themself up by the bootstraps. If you make them a victim, you fundamentally disempower them to make the necessary choices for change. And it's always been an unpopular message. Jillian's so mean. Jillian is such a. On that show, it was always the same story.
- [58:50]
Vivek Ramaswamy
But there are certain people, I get the same stuff. I get the same stuff.
- [58:53]
Jillian Michaels
It's the only way forward. It is. You're absolutely right.
- [58:57]
Vivek Ramaswamy
There's a Victimhood Olympics. There's no gold medalist in the American Victimhood Olympics. The only loser at the end of it is all of us. I'm not going to let that happen. And I do think that we need to revive that sense of pride and conviction in who we are. We're not victims. We're victors. We're victorious. That's our culture. That's who we are. The pioneers, the explorers, the unafraid, the people who will take risks, sometimes fail in the process, but become stronger because of it move westward, move with confidence. The manifest destiny to be an exceptional nation because we're founded on the ideals that make human beings different from animals, is that we can believe in something bigger than ourselves. That's what America is all about.
- [59:40]
Jillian Michaels
Yeah.
- [59:41]
Vivek Ramaswamy
And I think we live in one of those moments where I want to reawaken that, that sometimes sleeping spirit in our country.
- [59:47]
Jillian Michaels
I appreciate you for doing it because it's not a popular position and you do get attacked for it, and it's so much easier to pander and virtue signal. And I respect the hell out of you for taking the other approach. I've got one last question. Cause I know you need to go, but you are well known as an extraordinarily successful entrepreneur. The tariffs, I understand it sorta. I get the necessity of reciprocal tariffs, but part of me is wondering, is this a negotiating tactic? Is it necessary to have a temporary Trump recession in order to be the phoenix that rises from the ashes? You would know this uniquely because you're so extraordinarily successful in business. What are your thoughts?
- [60:31]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Well, look, I mean, I do have views on this, and I have thankfully had a successful career as an entrepreneur. Think about macroeconomics is there's no such thing as an expert in macroeconomics. Okay? But I'll give you my perspective here, okay. In macroeconomics, actually, funny little story. I mean, I went to Harvard for college. I took a basic microeconomics course, and then the spring semester was macroeconomics. I came out of it with an A. And I was just like, that doesn't make any sense because I don't feel like I know anything about what I'm talking about. So then I took a more advanced one. I was like, okay, maybe I need to get this right. And I took the intermediate macroeconomics level. So I wasn't an economics major, but I took the more advanced one and took micro. And I took macro again out of macro. I got like, the top grades in the class, and I come out again. I'm just like, actually, I don't. I don't really understand this at all. But somehow, somehow people think I do. That's what really most macro economists really are. So I think somebody deserves to call that bluff for what it is. It's a voodoo science. And I can say this is somebody who was looked at as somehow being an expert in this. Nobody knows what they're talking about when it comes to macroeconomics. And that's. Just put that somewhere. File that away somewhere. With that being said, I'll give you my view on the policy landscape. There's three schools of thought here, okay? One is what I call the other. Turn the other cheek, economic diplomacy. Turn the other cheek. Economic diplomacy basically says that somebody else treats you unfairly, they apply a high tariff to you, you still pretend like they don't, because at least you would rather live in a free trade utopia, which increases the size of the economic pie. So even if another country has a higher tariff on US Goods than we have on theirs coming in, we're going to pretend like that doesn't exist. You can tell based on the way I frame that, I don't subscribe to that.
- [62:06]
Jillian Michaels
Got it.
- [62:07]
Vivek Ramaswamy
Category number two is even playing field that we actually want reciprocity in whatever direction we go. And ideally, maybe neither side needs to penalize the other, but if you're going to penalize us, then we're going to actually have to apply that in return, because we're not going to apply. We're not going to accept differential standards. We've got to play on the same playing field. That's what I favor. Then there's the third category, which is to say that even if others are applying one level of tariff, we're going to go higher than that and stay there because we want to make it more competitive for domestic manufacturers and whatnot. I think in the end, that latter model isn't ideal for us in the long run. Now the question is, what's the best path to actually get to number two? Because right now it is clear that there are other countries that have not treated the United States on the same terms that the US Treats them. And that's a art of elaborate negotiation. And President Trump has proven himself to be, even in his first term, an excellent negotiator for the United States of America on the global stage. So I'm betting on him to be successful on that yet again to get to an environment of reciprocity. Does that mean there are still other people in the country, not myself, not President Trump, but others who may have different views in one or the other of those categories? Sure. I think there's a range of views on this question, but I'll give you where I'm landing. And I have confidence that President Trump is going to use his style as a great negotiator to hopefully advance the best interests of our country. And, you know, I appreciate you asking about it, but at least that gives you my perspective of where I'm at on it.
- [63:34]
Jillian Michaels
I know you need to go, is there anything I should have asked you that I missed.
- [63:39]
Vivek Ramaswamy
I'm enjoying this too much, so I should probably rock and roll. But I think this is fun and we'll do this again.
- [63:46]
Jillian Michaels
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.