← Next Up with Mark Halperin
Next Up with Mark Halperin
Media Doubles Down on Double Standards, and the Russia and Ukraine Stalemate With No Path to Peace
01:10:00
Loading summary
Transcript121 lines
- [00:00]
Mark Kalperin
NETCredit is here to say yes to a personal loan or line of credit when other lenders say no, apply in minutes and get a decision as soon as the same day. Loans offered by NetCredit or lending partner banks and serviced by NetCredit. Applications subject to review and approval. Learn more at netcredit.com partners NetCredit Credit to the People the rural way of.
- [00:17]
David Ignatius
Life is about making everyone feel at home.
- [00:20]
Mark Kalperin
Tractor Supply chose advanced 5G solutions from T Mobile for Business to transform intelligent customer service. Together we put the power of AI.
- [00:28]
David Ignatius
To work across 2,200 stores, keeping things.
- [00:31]
Mark Kalperin
Running seamlessly inside curbside and countryside. This is elevated customer experience. This is Tractor Supply with T Mobile for Business.
- [00:41]
David Ignatius
Take your business further@t mobile.com now.
- [00:50]
Mark Kalperin
Welcome in everybody. Thanks for coming back to find out what's next up. I'm Mark Kalperin, editor in chief of two Way and your host to Everything. Next up. Very grateful to you for being part of this. Today I'm going to talk a little bit about the media. I don't like doing it, but I'm going to do it again. You'll find out why David Ignatius of the Washington Post is here. One of the most impressive columnists in American history. I don't say that hyperbolically, incredibly skilled journalist travels the world, talks to top officials in the US and elsewhere. He and I are going to try to unpack Ukraine and explain what's going on and what might happen next. And then Jim Banks, senator from Indiana, we're going to talk a little bit NBA Finals, a little bit of culture of Hoosier basketball and then the threat that China poses. It's one of the most important stories the United States is facing now and will likely face well into the future. So that's what we have on tap for you today. Want to start by thanking you for being part of this and help ask you to help build the audience for this program. We're still a new show and we're still looking to grow. So tell your friends and neighbors, your work colleagues and enemies that they should become part of NextUp. You can watch us on YouTube or listen to us anywhere you get your podcasts. Thinking the other day about the importance of building community around this show, making people feel like they're part of something larger than themselves. And that requires a name. So I've come up with a few. See if you like any of these. Nextup Nation. Got a little bit of alliteration to it. Next up Nation. Don't love that one, but putting it on the list. Next Uppers sounds a little bit like a narcotic, so I'm not sure that'll go. Or Nexters. Those are the three I have. But go ahead and put in the comments on whatever platform you're watching or listening to. What should we call the Next up community? Got to have a name. Next Up Nation. Next Uppers, Nexters. Those are my nominees. But by the end of the summer, maybe the beginning of the summer, I want us all to have a name. So let's work on that. As I said, I don't like really talking about the media. This is not a media criticism show and it's not great for any journalist to go around bashing the press because my colleagues don't like it. But I continue to feel compelled to speak up. And this week a few things happened that in the last couple days that make me just bonkers. Angry and annoyed and frustrated because after 2016, when the press helped Donald Trump win by covering him in such a hostile manner, I urged everybody to think through the way he was covered unfairly. Same thing happened in 2020 and 2024. He almost won in 2020 and in 2024 he did win again with a big assist, ironically, from the very liberal press corps who had as their avowed desire to stop him from winning. And in this term, he should be covered tough, he should be covered hard, he should be covered aggressively, but he should also be covered fairly. And what prompts me to talk about the media again today is a few things I said. There's a couple instances, pretty prominent instances in the media that I want to highlight where the anti Trump or anti Maga bias is quite clear. But really what spurred me was a conversation with what people in the press call civilian. I was at a kid's birthday party over the weekend and I talked to someone who, a dad, another dad whose kid was at the birthday party. And he's a civilian, he's not in journalism, he's not in politics, he's got a totally different profession. But he's super interested in the media and he's fair minded. He's not, you know, aggressively pro or anti anything. But he asked me what I often get asked by civilians, which is why is the media so biased and what do people in the media think? What do people in the media, whose work product, whether they're executives or producers or correspondents or reporters, what do they think? Do they think they're biased or they don't think they're biased? It's a difficult question to answer because I talk to colleagues all the time and I listen to them in public and they make various excuses. The big one you hear is, well, there's all sorts of biases. We're this bias, and we love controversy and da, da, da, da. And it's true. I could point out a million ways Donald Trump is not covered hard enough and that people in the White House don't like to hear that. But there are things that he does that don't get enough scrutiny. But part of it is the credibility. Again, if the press wants to cover Donald Trump credibly. If you're someone who doesn't like Donald Trump and thinks the pressure is too easy on him, you should share my desire to restore the credibility of what I call the dominant media. You should want several things to happen. Acknowledge the past mistakes, think about ways to get better, and then change your ways. And this week is crushing, crushing. I could not say to that civilian that I see soul searching or acknowledgment of the truth or a desire to change, to do better. And probably the clearest example was something that happened in California over the weekend. Cory Booker, senator from New Jersey, was speaking to a big gathering of Democrats. And in order to acknowledge the crowd, here's how Cory Booker motioned to speak to the crowd. This is number A104, please. So you see Cory Booker speaking to California Democrats. He clutches his heart to say, oh, my goodness, this is such a emotional experience. And then he raises his right arm. Now, I would look at that and just say innocent expression of his enthusiasm, his emotional reaction to the crowd. I would think nothing of it. I would think nothing of it except what happened last year when Elon Musk made the exact same motion. Okay, here's Elon Musk. This is 101 again. Elon Musk, exact same thing. Moved by the crowds, support for him, once again, you see the same thing. Clutches his heart, raises his hand up. And here, you see, there's Booker raising his hand up in what you could uncharitably say was a Nazi salute. And then Musk, same thing. So what happened when Musk did it? I'll remind you, in case you've forgotten, when Elon Musk did that, there were days of controversy in the dominant media claiming that Elon Musk was somehow expressing sympathy for Nazis. Here's one headline from Vox. Elon Musk doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. Elon Musk, Nazi Trolling Exposes the collapse of America's guardrails against some of history's fallacy ideas. So this is ridiculous on a thousand levels. It was back then. First of all, Cory Booker is not the first Democrat to make the exact same motion. Many had and many, many conservatives pointed out at the time. But the notion that Elon Musk would be interested in in front of a giant audience with live coverage around President Trump's victory would send some sort of secret signal to his secret Nazi sympathizers. It's absurd. It should have passed with that comment, just as the Booker thing should have passed with that comment. But because the press is so hostile to Elon Musk because he's supporter of Donald Trump, he was accused of being a Nazi sympathizer. It's absurd. But this week, when Cory Booker did the exact same thing, you could see in Conservative on X, you could see conservatives pointing out the hypocrisy, but no coverage of it. Cory Booker's spokesperson was asked about it by Forbes, an organization that did choose to pursue the question of how could it be that when Elon Musk makes one motion, it's a national controversy for days, and when Cory Booker does it because he's a Democrat, it's nothing. She said, quote, cory Booker was obviously just waving to the crowd. Anyone who claims his wave is the same as Elon Musk gesture is operating in bad faith. The difference between the two are obvious to anyone without an agenda. I give that 17 Pinocchios, because again, let's look at it again, a 101. Again, here's Elon Musk doing the exact same thing that Cory Booker would do several months later. And once again, there's no difference. Cory Booker's spokesperson can say they both put their, their right arm kind of on their heart, and then they raise it up in a what, what, what someone could say was a Nazi salute, but in neither case was it a Nazi salute. And again, you just can watch them side by side in sequence. It's the same thing, the exact same motion. One, because he's associated with Donald Trump, is a national controversy where he's accused of being a Nazi sympathizer. And the other, according to the spokesperson, is obviously different. No, they're obviously the same, but they were covered differently. This is, this is, you could say it's a small example, but it's a great example of the unfairness of the media because of the bias. Okay, now let me give you another example from this week that really is an egregious failure of the press. This clown in Colorado who decided to attack people who are rallying around the hostages Held in Gaza, Molotov cocktails, accused of a heinous crime. And the portion of it connected to anti Semitism is obviously super important to discuss, and that was widely discussed. But what most of the dominant media ignored was the circumstances under which this gentleman was in the United States here illegally. Now, you can get into debate about whether that's Joe Biden's fault because he came in when Biden was president, or whether Donald Trump should have removed him. But the point is, he's here illegally. And this is now another example of someone in the United States illegally who the press, it takes pains to ignore some coverage of it, but most of the coverage of this case ignores it. Take a look. A suspect now facing 16 counts of attempted murder and federal hate crime charges for allegedly firebombing peaceful demonstrators. Hate crime charges for the man accused of using a makeshift flamethrower, Molotov cocktails and a disguise in an attack that the feds say he planned for over a year. I don't know why people continue to.
- [10:58]
David Ignatius
Do this, but they do.
- [11:02]
Mark Kalperin
And our hearts go out today to the victims of what authorities are calling a targeted terror attack. In Boulder, Colorado over the weekend, at least eight people were injured in a makeshift flamethrower attack while gathering in support of the Israeli hostages in Gaza. All true, but no one there. Highlighting what for many Americans is a critical part of this outrage. Donald Trump talked about victims of crime of people in this country illegally in 2015 and 2016. The media ignored it. They did not put them on the View, the families on the View. They did not write long profiles about the horror of Americans who had to deal with the death or attacks on their loved ones by people in this country legally. It's not an incidental fact for tens of millions of people. It's a, it's a, it's, it's the most crushing and inhumane manifestation of an open border. Again, this guy came under particular circumstances. He came here originally to visit with it with, under legal protection, legal process. But then he stayed and he grievously wounded Americans, including a Holocaust survivor. I don't understand, I don't understand how the press thinks that this is either not a factor or a small factor when not just for President Trump who, who has gone on social media about it, but for tens of millions of Americans, every crime committed by someone here illegally is an outrage. And I said, and as I said, the most painful manifestation of an open border, people say, well, people come here illegally, don't commit crimes at the same rate as others. I don't know if that's true or not. I hear that. I hear it touted all the time. And it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. One is too many. And the people who say that it's stigmatizing or unfair. No, what's unfair is the media that doesn't understand the importance of making it clear that they understand through their coverage what Democrats also seem not to understand, which is for tens of millions of people, there is zero tolerance for this. Zero tolerance. Now, I will say there has been some coverage of the fact that the guy was here illegally, but not nearly enough. It should be front and center, along with the fact that this was yet another anti Semitic attack, another thing on immigration. Here's a tweet from a conservative activist. Strategist Steve Guest points out that several news organizations have done the exact same thing now, using the exact same language and talking about people here illegally, not calling them illegals or illegal aliens or people in the country legally. The term of art now is apparently unauthorized immigrants. And he points out that the Washington Post, New York Times, NPR, and Axios have all started to use this phrase, unauthorized immigrants. They're criminals. Their first act on American soil was to break the law. And they're not authorized. Technically true. But to call them unauthorized is to try to sugarcoat this. And again, it's not the press's business to be an advocate for people who come to the United States and break the law. It's just not. And it's another thing that civilians don't understand, how the press could have that attitude, how the press could be so interested in protecting people in the country legally by glossing over the reality of it. It's amazing. Another thing I talked to the civilian about was 60 Minutes. And CBS News is front and center in this, in this failure of the press to acknowledge errors. And it's ironic because you now hear people from CBS front and center talking about how they're the defenders of the First Amendment, they're the defenders of the integrity of the journalism business. In the last couple weeks, you've had the president of CBS News and the head of 60 Minutes both resign because they are upset that CBS parent company is on the premise, is on the precipice of making a deal with Donald Trump to pay him a lot of money to acknowledge something that they did, quote, unquote, wrong, which ironically was not wrong. Okay? The parent company needs to settle this because they're trying to. They're trying to get the company to sell the company and. And so they need to clear the decks so that the Trump administration doesn't try to hamper the sale. What Donald Trump's upset about is something that in this case was not liberal bias. It's ironic. I know. He's upset that they edited Kamala Harris's answers in a CBS segment on 60 Minutes to make her look better. To. To take a garbled answer, a confused answer, confusing answer, and clean it up. That's not. That's not an example of liberal bias. It's not an example of trying to help Kamala Harris, although they did plenty of that. It's an example of what happens when you edit a news magazine piece on tv. You clean up the sound bites so that the viewer can understand in a relatively compact way, what happened. So now the big outrage at CBS is correct. They're correct to protest this settlement. Proposed settlement. They're correct to be concerned. But then they don't look at their own history of things that they did that were extraordinarily biased. And the one this civilian brought up to me was something that most of you have probably forgotten about, which is when Donald Trump did an interview with Leslie Stahl in 2020 and. And the president brought up Hunter Biden's laptop. CBS did the interview. Didn't focus on this exchange. But this exchange is so telling. It's so telling. And you hear Trump people and civilians bring it up all the time where Leslie Stahl is indignant that Donald Trump is trying to put the laptop front and center because at the time, as you'll recall, the press was colluding with Democrats to claim that the laptop was Russian disinformation or clearly tampered with. Listen to how Donald Trump tries to convince Leslie Stahl to focus on Hunter Biden's laptop.
- [17:22]
David Ignatius
I think it's one of the biggest scandals I've ever seen. And you don't cover it. You want to talk about.
- [17:28]
Jim Banks
Because it can't be verified.
- [17:29]
David Ignatius
We want to talk about insignificant things.
- [17:32]
Mark Kalperin
I'm telling you.
- [17:32]
David Ignatius
Of course it can be verified. Excuse me. They found the laptop. Leslie, listen.
- [17:38]
Mark Kalperin
What can't be verified? The laptop.
- [17:40]
David Ignatius
Why do you say that?
- [17:42]
Mark Kalperin
Even the family hasn't. The family on the laptop. He's gone into hiding for five days.
- [17:50]
David Ignatius
He's gone into hiding.
- [17:51]
Mark Kalperin
He's preparing for your debate.
- [17:53]
David Ignatius
Oh, it's taken him five days to prepare.
- [17:54]
Mark Kalperin
Fair. I doubt it.
- [17:55]
David Ignatius
I doubt it.
- [17:58]
Mark Kalperin
So you can't prove it. But there are a lot of people on the right who say that if the laptop had been covered not for the pictures of Hunter Biden, you know, in, in, in compromising personal situations. But if the laptop had been covered for what it said about Biden Inc. And not censored by social media, dominant media and the Democrats, Trump might have won the election. A lot of people who believe that, I don't think he can prove it, but a lot of people say it. And here's Leslie Stahl, one of the senior most correspondents at the granddaddy of them all, 60 Minutes not trying to investigate the laptop and find out what Donald Trump's concerns are, but fighting with him as if she's a spokesperson for the DNC saying, oh, the laptop's not real. You can't verify it. CBS has never, to my knowledge acknowledged the professional failure on display, on vivid display in that interview, never gone back and tried to explain to the public how such a thing could have happened. And again, until you acknowledge past failures and change your ways as an industry, we're reluctant. We're unlikely to get people to believe us when we try to do things like hold Donald Trump accountable. Here's another 60 Minutes moment. Scott Pelley, a recent graduation speech in which he, without naming Donald Trump, gives a catalog of things that he is worried about in the Trump era. And I will tell you as you listen to it, everything he says people on the right would say occurred under Joe Biden, every example, every, every worry he raises, people on the right would say happened under Joe Biden. Let's listen to Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes. But in this moment, this moment, this.
- [19:45]
David Ignatius
Morning, our sacred rule of law under attack. Journalism is under attack, universities are under.
- [19:56]
Mark Kalperin
Attack, Freedom of speech is under attack. And insidious fear is reaching through our schools, our businesses, our homes and into our private thoughts.
- [20:19]
David Ignatius
The fear to speak.
- [20:22]
Jim Banks
In America.
- [20:24]
Mark Kalperin
The Wake forest class of 1861, they did not choose their time of calling. The class of 1941 did not choose. The class of 1968 did not choose. History chose them. And now history is calling you, the class of 2025. Now, to be clear, the concerns that Scott Pelley raised there as they applied to the Trump administration are legitimate and should be debated and discussed. And the press should be aggressive about them in every respect. But to ignore the fact that it's not just the MAGA view, but any objective view that every one of those concerns was also implicated by the actions of the previous Democratic administration is to once again send a signal to my civilian friend and tens of millions of others that the press is not concerned about holding Democrats the same standards. You would never Hear a CBS correspondent unfortunately deliver a speech like that to a commencement during a Democratic administration. And that's why the press needs to think about it. They need to go back to say, well, how did we cover the Hunter Biden laptop? And then more recently, how did we cover Joe Biden's mental decline? We've talked about this here before. I keep waiting for the press to come clean. All the discussion around this book by Alex Thompson and Jake Tapper is about the so called Democratic Party cover up, the White House cover up. And once again we have a prominent Democrat going on camera with CBS News and being asked the wrong question. I can't say this enough. Stop asking Democrats, did you see privately Joe Biden display cognitive decline? Because I can tell you what they're all going to say. Not you got me. I admitted I saw cognitive decline in private and I never disclosed it. What they're going to say is I never saw it. It's not the right question. The right question for Democrats is since you saw the cognitive decline in public the way we did, what did you do about it and why didn't you do anything about it? And then the question for the media is what role did our news organization play in the COVID up? Here's Bill Clinton being interviewed by CBS News. He's got a new book out, a new spy novel. But here's Bill Clinton being asked once again the wrong question.
- [22:55]
David Ignatius
Did you ever have a moment with.
- [22:58]
Mark Kalperin
Him where you thought maybe he was.
- [23:00]
David Ignatius
Unfit to run for president?
- [23:03]
Jim Banks
No, not the right. He was a good president.
- [23:07]
Mark Kalperin
The only concern I thought he had.
- [23:09]
Jim Banks
To deal with was could anybody do.
- [23:13]
Mark Kalperin
That job until they were 86 and we'd had several long talks?
- [23:17]
Jim Banks
I had never seen him and walked.
- [23:20]
Mark Kalperin
Away thinking he can't do this anymore. He was always on top of his brief. Again, it's possible that whenever Bill Clinton saw him in private, he was on top of his brief. But Bill Clinton watches C SPAN and cable news and he saw the same things that you did and I did. Stop asking Democrats if they saw it in private. No one's going to confess. Ask them why they didn't do anything in public. And then if you're in the media and you want to restore credibility, stop trying to run at the clock. The press is trying to run at the clock. And never acknowledge failure, massive failure, epic failure. What I've called the biggest scandal in American media history and blame it all on a few Biden aides for covering it up and sort of semi blame other Democrats for not admitting that they saw it in private. This is why the guy I talked to at the birthday party is turning to programs like this, which I'm grateful for, because how could you watch a place that calls itself a news organization and expect them to cover Donald Trump? Fairly tough, but fair. If not only did they cover the previous administration with their head in the sand because they didn't want to help Donald Trump win and they were intimidated by the Biden team, but won't acknowledge that what they did was wrong and won't think about how to explain to people how they're going to do better. It's just, it's just, it's, it's appalling. And it, and it's going to happen unless people start to say to news organizations, you need to explain yourself. If you want my business, if you want my eyeballs, if you want my subscription money, if you want me to patronize what you're selling, you have to explain the failure and you have to come clean about it. Leslie Stahl, never come clean about the laptop. Scott Pelley, never come clean about the abuses of all those same issues under the previous administration. These news organizations continuing to not be straight about the damage that people in this country illegally have done, including in some cases, violent acts against American citizens whose families have a right to expect the government to secure the border and when mistakes are made, to express outrage about it rather than to pretend it hasn't happened or grudgingly acknowledge what happened. That's what people have a right to expect. And for the media, I'll say again, you want to be in business, you want to survive, cover everything fairly and don't cover Democrats different than Republicans. It's pretty simple. All right, next up, we'll talk to David Ignatius about Ukraine and the tough choices that the world faces there. And then a little bit later, we'll talk to Indiana Senator Jim Banks about both China and about the NBA Finals and Hoosier basketball, which is one of the great traditions in all of America, sports and otherwise. Stay with us for more of what's next up. Hey, everybody. Tax day may have already passed, but for millions of us, the real trouble is just beginning. If you miss that April 15th tax deadline or you still owe back taxes, the IRS is ramping up enforcement. Every day you wait, it only makes things worse. With over 5,000 new tax liens filed every day and tools like property seizures, bank levies, and wage garnishments, the IRS is applying pressure at many levels that we haven't seen in quite a few years. Look, increased administrative scrutiny means collections are moving fast. But here's the good news. There's still time for Tax Network USA to give you a hand if you're self employed or you're a business owner. Even if your books are a mess, they've got it covered. Tax Network USA specializes in cleaning up financial chaos to get you back on track quickly. Even after the deadline, you can still regain control. Your consultation is completely free, and acting now could stop penalties, threatening letters and surprise levies before matters escalate. Call right now 1-800-958-1000 or you can visit them@tnusa.com NextUp. You may have missed that April 15 deadline, but you still have not run out of options. Let Tax Network USA help you before the IRS makes the next move. Again, that's 1-800-958-1000, or you can visit tnusa.com NextUp in the summer, all of Oregon is our playground, thanks to our incredible park system. That's why it's so cool that Oregon Lottery gameplay, like video lottery or cash pop, helps support tons of parks projects statewide, like accessible trails at Silver Falls State park or upgrades to your favorite dog park in Newburgh. It's just one way A little lottery play from Mitchell Many Oregonians can add up to a lot of good the Oregon Lottery. Together, we do good things. Lottery games are based on chance and should be played for entertainment only. Must be 18 or older to play. Next up, we're going to talk about what's going on between Russia and Ukraine, and I'm delighted to have someone who I consider to be singular. At least in America there are a lot of people who produce content of various kinds of but there's no one quite like David Ignatius. He's a columnist. There are a lot of columnists, but he always tells his readers something new in every column. And he does that in part because he's a reporter. A lot of calmness just right off the top of their head or out of a different part of their body. But David knows people around the world, around the country, and he makes sure that he's not wasting his 800 or so words by always telling folks something new. He's not wedded to old think. Too many columnists write the same column over and over. David doesn't do that. And finally and again, all too rare. Unfortunately, David puts country over party over ideology. He cares about the things he covers, and it comes through in every word. And couldn't be happier to have David Ignatius make his nextup debut. David, thank you for Being here.
- [29:22]
Jim Banks
Thanks. Couldn't say anything nicer.
- [29:23]
Mark Kalperin
Mark meant it all. It's true. You are singular. I want to just start with Russia and Ukraine and talk about it from the perspective of the three leaders. But first, facts on the ground. I keep reading that Russia has gone on offense. They've mount. They're planning to do a big spring offensive. We've had the. The drone attack by. By Ukraine, but that's in the face of a lot of Russian aerial attacks. So where does the war stand in terms of does Russia have more territory than it's ever had since the start of the war? Less are they poised to maybe make a breakthrough? Where does it stand on the ground?
- [29:58]
Jim Banks
So, just to briefly summarize, I'd say we're still in a war of stalemate attrition. Russia has not, after three years, managed even to conquer all of Donetsk Province, one of its basic targets when the war began. It's making slow, incremental gains. It has been for at least a year in the war in the east. And Russia is said to be poised to make a significant new offensive from the northeast, heading toward Kharkiv and other targets that have been long in its. In its sights. I think the question really is, what's the psychological balance in the war? When I was in. In Ukraine in the fall, I felt that they were really reaching a level of demoralization that was dangerous. That was, for me, the moment at which the Biden administration strategy of as long as it takes became obviously inappropriate. They were, as I wrote, bleeding out. I was just there two and a half, three weeks ago, and I found a quite different mood. The worst has happened for Ukraine. Donald Trump is President. Donald Trump is leaning toward Moscow. Ukraine feels on the verge of being abandoned by the United States, and yet even so, it's still holding its ground. And I think it's in the interests of more the morale of the country and the forces at the front that it's undertaking these very daring, audacious moves, like the attack on the bombers on Sunday that caught the world's attention. I don't think that's a game changer in terms of the order of battle, but I think it's a significant morale boost. So just to come back to where we were, it is still a stalemate. I think Russia will make gains this summer. The thing that worries me and most people, I think most, is the danger to Ukraine's cities. As Ukraine's air defenses begin to run out, there just aren't enough interceptors in the world to keep Firing at the number of missiles and drones coming in and then the level of destruction for Ukraine, that's beyond anything we've seen. That's my fear that by September those cities will be in much more ragged shape.
- [32:30]
Mark Kalperin
This seems to me the biggest question questions go to Putin. What incentive does he possibly have now to negotiate a settlement?
- [32:38]
Jim Banks
Almost none. I think we. The only possible incentive is that he thinks he can get so many benefits from President Trump that he doesn't want to make him angry and will agree to make some concessions so as to keep good relations with the US and have the Merkel in effect on Russia's side in this attempt to rebalance Europe. But as we often say, Putin isn't interested in peace, he's interested in victory. He remains obsessed with this idea that Ukraine has become an anti Russia, as his propaganda says. He feels this is a part of Russia that was pulled away at the end of the Cold War. He began rooting about it in 2007 in speeches. If you read Bill Burns memoirs. When he was stationed in Moscow, he repeatedly heard from Putin complaints about Ukraine. Putin attacked in 2014, as we remember, just took Crimea. Nobody did anything about it. So it's continued. He hasn't really lost any of that passion. And surprisingly to me, Mark, he's managed to convince the Russian people that this is a just cause. It's a catastrophic war in terms of casualties, the bleed on the Russian economy. But Russians seem to be behind him.
- [34:07]
Mark Kalperin
Yeah, the three things that were cited from the beginning that argued for standing up to Putin were Russian public opinion running out of able bodied men to put on the front line and, and the destruction of the Russian economy. And Putin seems to have finessed all three of those, correct?
- [34:26]
Jim Banks
I would say correct. He has not fully mobilized Russia and the war hasn't really touched cosmopolitan Russia in Moscow and St. Petersburg yet. And you could see a break in elite opinion if that happened. If boys were being swept off the streets of Moscow and sent to the front lines. What Putin has done smartly is to offer so much money to often ethnic Russians, Chechens, Dagestanis, the, the bonuses for enlisting are so great that it's said that a family that's got four or five boys says, hey son, you know, head off to the recruiter and gets to buy a new apartment and gets all the things it wants. And so the manpower problem that people expected hasn't happened. It's Ukraine that has a manpower problem. The morale problem that we, some of us thought might be ahead hasn't happened. And for some reason, whether it's poorly managed sanctions or Russian resilience, the Russian economy is holding up.
- [35:34]
Mark Kalperin
So even if the President of the United States is able to convince Putin to accept a deal at a time when he wouldn't get everything he wanted but give, give him a lot, it just doesn't seem to me that there's a, there's an overlap in what Putin would accept and what Zelenskyy could accept. And so although Zelenskyy makes noises about wanting a deal, I think under pressure from the United States, particularly after the Oval Office clash, I just don't, I don't see any more what the deal is I did a year ago, but I don't see what the deal could be now. Do you see the outlines of a deal that Putin and Zelenskyy could both accept?
- [36:07]
Jim Banks
No, I don't. I, I think there is a level of physical punishment that could change the decision calculus in, in Ukraine. But I, I think the truth is that no matter how long this work lasts, Putin has created precisely what he wanted to avoid in Ukraine. I think that's the important takeaway for people. Putin's obsession has been that Ukraine had become an anti Russia on his border. How could that be? Ukraine is our heart. It's the heart of our church, it's the heart of our culture. And Ukraine now will be aligned with the west in its soul, in its military stance as far ahead. As you can see, no matter what happens, Europe's going to come in to help them. Europe, this war may spread, but the point is Putin is, is going to fail in what was his initial war aim. You can be pretty confident of that. Even if there's a nominal political arrangement that seems to have a neutral Ukraine. The hatred just when you go to Kiev, it's palpable. You hear it and feel it everywhere you go. So in that sense, I think, I think Putin can't escape the mistake that he made.
- [37:30]
Mark Kalperin
Before we get to President Trump and where he is at Europe, there seems to be a more muscular attitude in Europe, not just towards this war, but in terms of building up defense capability. NATO commitments, at least on, on rhetorically, are growing larger. There seems to be a, a recognition that NATO and the EU need to, the European part of NATO need to be more independent of the United States, that they can't rely on Donald Trump the way they felt they could rely on past presidents. Do they have, the European leaders have the will and the material and the funding to step in if they decide they want to help to Give Ukraine what it needs to continue to fight the war. If the United States steps away.
- [38:15]
David Ignatius
The.
- [38:15]
Jim Banks
Honest answer is we'll see. But they're certainly talking as if they're ready to stand tall with Ukraine. I've been amazed that the new German chancellor, Friedrich Merck, is Talking about a 5% of GDP commitment to defense spending is astounding. It's more than double, far more than double what Germany used to spend. He's talked about creating a German army that's the most powerful in Europe. Once upon a time, that would have scared people, but now it's a welcome buffer against Russia again if Russia continues threatening the Europeans. Russia's been waging what amounts to a paramilitary covert operation against European countries in NATO, blowing up warehouses, threatening to assassinate people, operations across Europe. If that intensifies, as it could if the price of resisting increases, you know, Europe may lose this newfound courage. But for the moment, I've been genuinely impressed that the Europeans, after decades. Trump was right. After decades of ducking, their responsibilities are stepping up.
- [39:28]
Mark Kalperin
It's ironic because they're stepping up under pressure from Donald Trump, and they may execute what he may not be willing to do, which is robust support for Ukraine. If you want to be. I think.
- [39:38]
Jim Banks
One sec, Mark. So I think it's important because Trump often claims credit for this European turnaround. They're stepping up because they're afraid of this aggressive, expansionist Russia. They're frightened to Putin. They're not doing this because Trump told them to.
- [39:56]
Mark Kalperin
Well, interesting. How do you know that?
- [39:59]
Jim Banks
I don't. But. But I, you know, Trump was hectoring them through his first term, and he didn't, he didn't get much. I just am describing the change that I've seen in European attitudes, especially in Germany, about the nature of the Russian, the Russian threat. I mean, the Green Party in Europe, no friend of Donald Trump's, is among the most hawkish about defense. And that's because of a fear that Germany, what it represents, is under threat from this authoritarian Russia. So they're not pro Trump, but they're pro defense.
- [40:31]
Mark Kalperin
What a European say German, French intelligence and defense officials. What's their worst case scenario if Putin really goes on the march? Are we. They talking about tanks on the Champs Elysees? What are, what are they concerned about?
- [40:45]
Jim Banks
So I haven't heard detailed discussion of contingencies. I've heard about concerns about, you know, actions that, in effect, compromise NATO's commitment, euro's commitment to defend itself. A move on one of the Baltic states that doesn't trigger an enormous reaction that's just accepted, you know, that the stronger Russia's now going to, going to operate in Lithuania is going to, is going to take a little bit of Finland. You know, I don't, in truth, I think Europe, both those states backed by NATO, by Germany and Britain will react. Just add one more interesting bit to the mix here in this crisis with the US Pulling back from Europe and Russia becoming ever more aggressive, Britain is finding its way back into the European defense community as a leader, as a kind of strong outbreak in a way that I think reassures Sweden, Finland, Pol, Poland, all the key frontline states are happy to have Britain. Britain's commitment in Ukraine on the ground in terms of special forces operations that aren't disclosed but are widely known has been greater than anybody else's.
- [42:10]
Mark Kalperin
Yeah, I mean, it's a hugely undercovered story. I agree. The fact that Britain and Germany and to some extent France have all stepped up in a way we haven't seen really since, you know, Since World War II in terms of how assertive they're being and with a great deal of purpose and putting some money behind it. If you want to be generous to President Trump, you could say his, what his current posture towards Ukraine is opaque. Less generous is there's no policy and he's either making it up as he goes along or doesn't have one because he's paralyzed. What's the, what's the best interpretation you can put on the current statements he's made and Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, what's the best case you can put on what their vision is to how to deal with the war?
- [42:51]
Jim Banks
So I've been supportive of Trump's statements through the campaign and after about making ending the war priority. I think the seeking peace in this conflict is a worthy goal for the United States. And you could argue that Trump, because of what he imagines is his special relationship with Putin, could do what Biden couldn't. So I've been supportive of that. My biggest problem, Mark, has been that they have been so disorganized. They have different envoys, you know, Witkoff handling Russia, Kellogg handling Ukraine, but not communicating very well. They have different strategies. One week they're seeking ceasefires that will be expanded, and then Russia says no, and they drop that. And then they have another approach that's to set up term sheets and they try to narrow the different term sheets and then they say, no, we'll abandon that. And then its high level meetings. So they've gone from strategy to strategy. And my conversations with people who were involved in the teams who are doing the work, says that the disorganization is something they feel viscerally. They don't know who's supposed to be on the plane to the next set of negotiations. There's literally no designation. We're going to have this one and this one, and staffed by these people. Witkoff's undertaken an enormously difficult, important negotiating role. He's pretty much disdained any kind of staff infrastructure, but doesn't want a lot of CI briefing. He doesn't take people with him on his airplane. So that's been my biggest disappointment. They've taken on a big, worthy goal in making peace in Ukraine, but they got to take it seriously and be systematic in following through this stuff. We're just going to walk away? Well, I may. What they don't realize, I think, is if they walk away, Ukraine's going to keep fighting. They think walking away is tantamount to ending the war. It isn't. It's the opposite.
- [44:59]
Mark Kalperin
If the United States walks away, whatever European efforts there are, is it possible that the facts on the ground could change and Putin could effectively win the war? Is that a possibility?
- [45:10]
Jim Banks
It's certainly possible that Putin could drag it out so painfully, you know, over several years that an exhausted Ukraine has to sue for peace. I don't see that happening quickly, so I wouldn't, I wouldn't predict it. I think my takeaway from my last visit and conversations with Ukrainian friends since I got back is that they are prepared to fight on and that Europe is prepared to step up enough that in terms of most weapons, most support, Ukraine will be able to keep going in terms of key enablers, especially intelligence, the ability to see over the horizon, see those, those bombers coming with the cruise missiles underneath, to see the ballistic missiles and gauge the trajectory and know what's going to be hit in Ukraine that they won't have. And that's, that's what their biggest fear is, is without intelligence, they'll be, they'll be in this war, to some extent, flying blind.
- [46:07]
Mark Kalperin
What's the history of your interaction with Putin?
- [46:10]
Jim Banks
0.
- [46:11]
Mark Kalperin
0. Do you think you understand him?
- [46:17]
Jim Banks
Well, I mean, I understand the cartoon version of Putin. I don't know whether there's a deeper one. I know the little boy in St. Petersburg, you know, his parents were victimized in the war. I, I know the KGB officer sees the world coming apart. I, I know the, you know, the, the, the, the little guy who learned that, you know, the only way to fight bullies is to be one yourself. You know, in a sense, those are the cliches about Putin. Whether there more complicated person beneath that, I don't know. I've grown to respect his ability to use power. I made a study once, just looking at everything he did over the course of a couple weeks. You know, every meeting or he keep videos of everything. Just watch him through a couple weeks. And he's very energetic. I mean, he goes to all these goofy committee meetings and, you know, forum for the advancement of such and such, and there he is. So I think he keeps all the balls of running this complicated, vast federation in the air pretty well. People who sneer at him miss how good he is at being this kind of, you know, tough little guy. He does that.
- [47:33]
Mark Kalperin
Well, if you were invited to Moscow to interview him, what factors would you consider deciding whether to do it or not?
- [47:41]
Jim Banks
Safety. You know, I'm on the Russian ban list. I have no idea why, but the first list that they put out after the war started, the people who were banned from traveling there, I was on it. And a lot of my journalist friends said, you know, what's so special about you? We want to be on that list. It's like the Nixon's enemy list. I used to like to go to Russia. I was planning my last novels, lead characters of Russian. I was planning to go to city of Magnetogorsk, east of the Urals. I planned the whole trip. Then the war began, and I was on the band list. So in theory, I can't go. I'd. I'd actually like to go if I was invited to interview Putin. He's very good at handling Western. And when I say handling, I mean, you know, putting him in, in their place. So I don't think I'd get much out of it, but, you know, message to Moscow, invite me.
- [48:40]
Mark Kalperin
What would be a question you would ask him if you had an interview with him?
- [48:47]
Jim Banks
So I'd ask him the famous Dave Petraeus question. And I'd ask, tell me how this ends.
- [48:53]
Mark Kalperin
Right.
- [48:54]
Jim Banks
And I. And I'd ask him a corollary to that. You know, isn't it true that you've created the very thing that you wanted to avoid? Isn't that the consequence of what you've.
- [49:05]
Mark Kalperin
Done, which, which is being encircled by the West?
- [49:08]
Jim Banks
No. Well, no, more specifically having a Ukraine that rather than embracing its Russianness as you imagine it is embracing its Ukraine ness, you know, rather than looking east to you and Moscow will now look, I think, forever, you know, indefinitely toward the west and this, this west that is coming to its aid Europe. I mean, this war is about whether Ukraine gets to be European. And if the US Walks away, Europe is going to take Ukraine to the extent it can in its arms, hold its hand. So you Putin, there it is. Putin lost.
- [49:48]
Mark Kalperin
David, thank you. So grateful to you for making time and again I read every word you write and I recommend that to everybody. If you don't want the Washington Post for any other reason, you should subscribe to read David's work. David, thank you.
- [50:00]
Jim Banks
Thanks for having me. Mark, it's great to talk to you again.
- [50:03]
Mark Kalperin
All right, we'll take a little bird break and have more of next up right after this. And now I'm going to tell you a story about a guy named named Leo Grillo. While on a road trip, Leo came across a Doberman. This Doberman was severely underweight, clearly in a lot of trouble. Leo rescued that dog and he named the dog Delta. Sadly though, Delta was just one of many animals that needed help, which inspired Leo to do something really important. He started Delta Rescue. It's the largest no kill, care for life animal sanctuary in the entire world. They've rescued thousands of dogs and cats and horses from the wilderness and they provide their animals with shelter, love, safety and a good home. This dedication and everlasting love to animals, that's Leo's mission and it's Leo's legacy. Delta Rescue relies solely on contributions from people like all of us. If you want caring for these animals to be part of your legacy, speak now with your estate planner because there are tax savings estate planning benefits too. If you give, you can grow your estate while letting your love for animals live well into the future. Check out the estate planning tab on their website to learn more and you can also speak with an advisor. We all call dogs man's best friend for a reason. You can help those who need it most. So please visit deltarescue.org today to learn more about how you can give. That's Delta Rescue.org when summer vacation calls, it matters where you stay. And Hilton and Sirius XM are teaming.
- [51:33]
Jim Banks
Up to bring you the music that.
- [51:34]
Mark Kalperin
Matters to you too. Because this summer check in to select Hilton luxury business and extended stay properties and press play on your perfect getaway with free in room access to SiriusXM. Get the ultimate summer soundtrack with ad free music plus podcasts, talk shows, sports and more.
- [51:50]
Jim Banks
Stay closer to your favorite artists and.
- [51:51]
Mark Kalperin
Hosts when you stay at your favorite.
- [51:53]
Jim Banks
Hilton Hilton for the stay.
- [51:59]
Mark Kalperin
Next up, the gentleman from Indiana, Senator Jim Bank Banks, who won his seat in the Senate last time and after serving in the House and is now, as I like to say, a member of the House of Lords. And he's a bit of a basketball fan, too. So we'll start there. Senator, welcome to next up.
- [52:14]
David Ignatius
Hey, great to be with you. Mark.
- [52:17]
Mark Kalperin
I've looked at recorded history. I don't see another time where Indiana beat Gotham City. So congratulations to you. Although I will point out you said in five and it was not in five. So how are you feeling about the, how are you feeling about the Finals?
- [52:29]
David Ignatius
It was, you know, the Eastern Conference finals was tough series. I mean, it was fun to watch. It was great for the fans. You go back to the, the Reggie Miller days. It's been 25 years since the Pacers have gone to the Finals going back to the Reggie Miller era. And back in that era, the Knicks were the, were the evil rivals of the Pacers. So it was, it was fun to close out that series and beat the Knicks. But it was a really tough series and Oklahoma City is a really tough team and to face in the Finals. But the Pacers are peaking at the right time and the team, they've been the underdogs in every series so far. They're the underdogs in this series. But I'm going to go back to.
- [53:08]
Mark Kalperin
My.
- [53:10]
David Ignatius
I'll give it another game and say the Pacers and six is going to be a great series to watch. They come to Indianapolis next week. I'm hoping to be there on Friday the 13th for game four in Indianapolis. And it's going to be a lot of fun for Indiana, but I think it'll be, it'll be really good for NBA fans all over the country to, to watch a series of, of two teams matching up that I think will be a, a great matchup.
- [53:32]
Mark Kalperin
Yeah, they're two exciting teams. Your state is a as basketball mad as any other. I maybe put Kentucky in the league and, and post Bobby Knight, IU has not been the powerhouse it once was. So how much is, how much are the Pacers now kind of giving the state a new basketball obsession as compared to, you know, the things that built the culture originally?
- [53:57]
David Ignatius
Yeah, it was not. I went to Indiana and I, I bleed. Indiana basketball is one of the reasons that I went to college at Indiana University was to go to games and I was there when, at the end of the Bobby Knight era. I was a student when Bobby Knight was, was fired. And since then it's been a IU basketball has been a mess. We're not, we're now at football school. I Mean, Indiana football had the best football season we've ever had last, last year. And it was a lot of fun to, to cheer for something I've never cheered for before, Indiana football. But Purdue has had a great run in college basketball. I went to the championship game a couple seasons ago with Zach Edie and you know, you had the Butler Bulldogs not that long ago. They went to the Final Four two seasons in a row. And, and you're right. I mean, Indiana, in Indiana basketball is, is religion. I mean, it's, it's a big part of our culture. And for. The Indiana Pacers have never won an NBA championship before. I mean, those Reggie Miller years were tough because they always had to get through Michael Jordan and the Bulls to, to go anywhere and they never did. They went to the finals after, after Jordan retired and, and, and got beat in a tough, tough series 25 years ago. So. But this team is so much fun. I mean, and they're so, Mark, they're so classy. I mean, Tyrese Halliburton and that, that whole team, they're just, they're so classy, they're well coached. It's a lot of fun for, for the fans and for our state. And, and, and nobody predicted that they would go this far. So that's, that's a fun part of the story too. I mean, they, they truly are the underdogs. They've been the underdog in every series. They're the underdogs going into the championship series. And I think that makes it a lot more fun for Indiana too, because we always kind of feel like we're the underdogs. So, you know, you go back to the, the great, the Greatest Sports Movie in History Hoosiers. I mean, about Indiana high school basketball. I mean that, that underdog culture in our state that the Pacers embody that and it's going to be a fun series. I think I'm, I think I'm crafting a bet later today with James Lankford, the senator from Oklahoma. I can't even name a single player on the Oklahoma team, on the Oklahoma City team. So it's going to be, it's going to be fun to, over the next week or so to watch this series play out and hopefully, hopefully I win the bet and Lankford has to wear an Indiana Pacers his jersey on the floor of the Senate if they'll let him.
- [56:17]
Mark Kalperin
Are there any Indiana delicacies at bet at stake here or just the jersey wearing?
- [56:21]
David Ignatius
I think he just wants to do the jersey. I mean, we Know what the delicacy in Oklahoma is, right? It's barbecue and, and red meat in, in Indiana, I suppose to be a pork tenderloin or, or, or something a little more down home, but, and, and Langford doesn't, he doesn't drink. I, I, I do. So I can't, I can't bet him Indiana craft beer or something fun like that. Even though I would be, hopefully I would win the bet. But, so I think, I think he wants to bet the, the, the, the traditional jersey humiliation. Wear the jersey on the floor of the Senate if you lose. And I'm hoping he'll be wearing the Pacers jersey.
- [56:58]
Jim Banks
All right.
- [56:58]
Mark Kalperin
I can't go to on the 13th, but if you want to invite me after that to a home game, I'm available to fly in.
- [57:03]
David Ignatius
You got it. Let's do it.
- [57:04]
Mark Kalperin
Last basketball question. Caitlin Clark. How much has she captured the imagination and the passion of Indiana basketball fans?
- [57:12]
David Ignatius
It's so much fun. I have three daughters. They're all teenagers. They love basketball. They've been to games to watch her play, when she plays. They sell out the, the, the, the, the field house every single time. Right now she's injured, she's not playing. And the, the revenue for the WNBA is way down. It just goes to show just like, just like Michael Jordan back in that era in the NBA, Caitlin Clark is that to the wnba. I mean, she's the best thing that's ever happened to women's basketball and inspiring another generation of players. And it's created a lot of, of rivalries with Angel Reese and other players. So it's, it's a lot of fun. I mean, going to WNBA basketball games wasn't something that was, you know, all that popular for a lot of people to do before, but it is now because you bring so much excitement, excitement to the game. There a little bit of controversy though, in the last few weeks with Angel Reese accusing Indiana Fever fans of being racist. WNBA did a investigation and found that the fans weren't being, weren't being racist toward her. It's a little disappointing because these fans are my constituents. They're, they're my people. They're Hooers. And I, I know that they weren't, I, I know they weren't being, being racist. I mean, they, it's a heated rivalry between her and Caitlin Clark and I, I wished, I wish that would have been handled a little bit differently, but that intrigue and that controversy makes, makes it even, even that much more fun for the fans and get, get them fired up. And Caitlin Clark has, has brought Indiana to a whole, a whole new level when it comes to, when it comes to basketball. And it was fun to see her in the front row cheering on the Pacers in game six when they, when they closed out the, the Knicks in the Eastern Conference championship. And she's, she's, she brings so much excitement to our, to our capital city and our state. And, and it makes it a lot more fun.
- [59:06]
Mark Kalperin
Yeah, I would say the Pacers this season, and Clark in general transcend basketball and sports. They really become a cultural phenomena and not just in the state, but nationally. And all I want is a Halliburton Clark three point shooting contest.
- [59:18]
David Ignatius
That'd be a lot of fun.
- [59:20]
Mark Kalperin
All right, let's switch from basketball to talk about China, something you focus on a lot. What are you, what most worries you now? If you look at diplomacy, economics, military, spheres of influence, what are your top concerns now in the very complicated relationship between the United States and China?
- [59:37]
David Ignatius
Well, you gotta, you gotta go back eight years ago at the beginning of the first Trump term. And, you know, it was me and Mike Gallagher who, who was in my freshman class in the House, and Tom Cotton, maybe a few others who were. And President Trump in that first term. President Trump was the first candidate for president, Republican or Democrat, in my lifetime, who was speaking out about the China threat and actually called China an existential threat to the United States of America. Republicans and Democrats before him, they never spoke, they never used the words that President Trump did. Remember eight years ago, when the first Trump administration rewrote the national security strategy for the military, they named China and Russia as great power competitors to the United States and started that process of revamping our military and the focus of our national security apparatus more geared toward the China threat than it ever was before. So, Mark, I'm more optimistic today because when Gallagher and I and Cotton and others eight years ago with President Trump were speaking about the threat, we got smacked down a lot, and a lot of our colleagues didn't agree with us. Wall street has largely been in bed with China interests and selling out our jobs and our economy in a big way and entangling our economy even more with China's economy. And President Trump has brought not just the Republican Party to a new place that we haven't been before, but I think he's brought the country to a place the awareness, especially with the, with COVID and the pandemic and recognizing that our medical supply chain is so wrapped up in China, that awareness is there today more than ever before. So fast forward to right now and what President Trump is doing with the tariffs is so important. And I call it. He doesn't like to use this terminology, but what I tell Hoosiers at home is that this is short term pain, but the long term gain for our kids, for our country to disentangle our economy from China and diminish China's overall global economic stature is really good for America. And I think the tariffs are doing that. There's good evidence of it, whether it's, I know President Trump wants Apple to make iPhones in the United States of America and I do too. But just the mere fact that they're moving iPhone production out of China to India, who is an ally of the United States, that's a good, that's a really good step. And there's a lot more of that happening. Eli Lilly, which is a great company headquartered in Indiana, the largest pharmaceutical company in the world, a $27 billion announcement pulling, pulling pharmaceutical manufacturing out of China, bringing it back to the United States of America. Roche Diagnostics, a medical device company, also in Indiana. Big, big investments in our state. Honda Civic announcing that they're moving the next generation Honda Civic production to the state of Indiana, not to Mexico or Japan, but to the United States. All of that, the global supply chain and manufacturing, that economy coming back to the United States is really bad for China. It's really good for America long term. And there's been a lot, a lot more good news coming out of the, the tariffs that I think we might not feel all of it today, but in the long run, we're going to it. It's going to help America get back on its feet and control our own destiny instead of China controlling our destiny for us. That, that's what it's all about.
- [63:17]
Mark Kalperin
Mark, let me ask you about a couple ways in which the United States has been entangled, coupled with China, and ask you what your point of view on that, what you think the right thing to do is. Should American companies be making investments in China? Should they be doing deals in China? Should they be opening banks, should they be buying factories, should they be partnering? Or would you like to see all of that end?
- [63:39]
David Ignatius
Well, of course I'd like to see all that investment in the United States or in places that are beneficial to the United States. But the bottom line is that there should be no incentive for American companies to sell out America and do business in China. Look at Nvidia. I mean, of all people, I mean, I got to the United States Senate. I never thought I would I never thought I would find anything that I agreed with Senator Elizabeth Warren on. But. But last week we sent a joint letter, Senator Warren and myself, to the CEO of Nvidia, calling out Nvidia for opening up a research and development facility in China to, quote, help close the AI gap in China. Why would an American company that's built on American ingenuity and all of that investment in the United States of America want to help our biggest adversary close their AI gap to the detriment of the United States? There should be no incentive for an American company to do that and we should call it out when we see it. And in this case, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Jim Banks, the far left and a senator on the right, coming together to call out this type of investment in China that's not good for America. I think you're going to see a lot more of that to come as the parties realign and recognize that China is the biggest threat to America militarily and economically, to the working class men and women of this great country. That's what we should be calling out and incentivizing those companies to make those investments in the United States of America instead. And that's what President Trump is largely doing through the, through the reciprocal tariffs. And it's been, in my view, it's been very effective so far.
- [65:20]
Mark Kalperin
Did you get an answer to that letter?
- [65:22]
David Ignatius
We sent it last week. Haven't heard from the CEO yet. But we'll keep pushing. Senator Warren is the ranking member of the Banking Committee. I'm a new freshman member on the Banking Committee. We have oversight of export controls and the Ex IM bank and some of those federal jurisdictions. So we're going to keep pushing. We're not going to let up on them.
- [65:43]
Mark Kalperin
What about Chinese students, graduate students, undergraduate students in higher ed coming to the United States? Should they get any slots in American colleges and universities? Or would you like to see no Chinese students studying here?
- [65:53]
David Ignatius
Well, I think America is the most generous country in the world and we welcome foreign students at universities. In Indiana, for example, Purdue University is a large Chinese student visa based, student based population at Purdue University. But what President Trump is doing I think is really important and cracking down on Chinese students with ties to the Chinese Communist Party. And I think that is a common sense step to prevent our students from coming to the US and stealing our intellectual property. Being involved, those students should, should never be involved in sensitive national security related research that goes on in a lot of these universities. We shouldn't allow that to happen. So those are the things be cracking down on if President Trump is doing that.
- [66:45]
Mark Kalperin
All right, none of us want spies here. But what about students? We don't have any reason to believe our spies. I'd say almost any Chinese student who comes here has some ties to the Communist Party, I think, just by definition. But would you want to see no Chinese students be allowed to study United States or just one who the government says are spies?
- [67:03]
David Ignatius
Actually, I don't. I think many of these Chinese students are. They recognize the authoritarian nature of their government just like we do. But there are students that you can directly tie to family members of the Chinese Communist Party. And for way too long, Mark, we've allowed those students to come to our universities. I worked on this issue for eight or nine years, stopping those students from being involved in our research at these universities. And right now there, there are so few controls on that. We, we should definitely crack down on that more.
- [67:35]
Mark Kalperin
But again, you're not against all Chinese students, just ones who you think pose a danger.
- [67:39]
David Ignatius
That's right. I, I, and there are, there are simple and common sense ways that we can prevent those students from giving a visa to a, a child of a Chinese Communist Party member is something that we should never do. But for too long that's happened.
- [67:52]
Mark Kalperin
All right, let's assume that your, your concerns are, are realized and that we lose this existential struggle with China. What does that look like? What does the world look like? What does the United States look like if we lose this fight?
- [68:05]
David Ignatius
Well, I, you look at, look at Hong Kong. I mean, look at the, look at the people of Hong Kong who overnight became controlled by the authoritarian government of, controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. I mean, their, their rights were taken away. Their, their free speech was infringed upon. And in a world that's controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, that will happen in places like the United States of America when our economy is so built up and dependent on those forces in China from our enemy, our adversary. That tells you what you can and can't say, that what you can speak out about, what you can't speak out about. That's what I fear for my kids. This is the greatest country in the history of the world. But it will cease to be if a foreign power, a foreign adversary tells us what we can and can't say. I mean, look at what they do to their own people, the Uyghur Muslim population, slave labor in their own country, and how they round them up using sophisticated artificial intelligence type surveillance technologies to round up Uyghur Muslims because of their religion and put them in detention camps and use them for slave labor. That's what I fear for the US and the rest of the world. But a world where China is not the dominant superpower and one where, first and foremost, that America controlling our own destiny is good for the rest of the world, too. I mean, that's the type of world that Europe should hope for. And this is my message to Europe and recent months, is to step up and do more, to focus on the Russia threat so that America has the threshold and the resources to step up and do more about the China threat. And that means the whole Western world is going to be more free and better off if we cooperate in that type of way together. But I'm optimistic, Mark, that we're on the right track of President Trump's tariffs, his approach, his tough approach on China and our adversaries around the world is going to leave us in a better place in four years when he leaves office.
- [70:15]
Mark Kalperin
Senator, last question. I don't like to talk about the media, but I feel compelled to. I did earlier in the program. You're one of the smarter students of the media in, in the Congress. What's your advice to organizations like CBS News, the New York Times, about how to be a successful business and to live up to their professional responsibility?
- [70:33]
David Ignatius
Well, to tell the truth and, and provide the news. I can't tell you, Mark, how many times my constituents asked me, where do I go to get the news? Because they're so sick of the ideological slant of mainstream media. And I know they're finding it in places like with you and reading your newsletter and watching you on this podcast and following you. They're looking for the news. They're hungry for it. Truly, my constituents are hungry for the news. And the more, the more that you tell. Tell them the news and tell them the truth. I think that that's the business model that's going to prevail. Otherwise, it's just noise and it's, it's ideological. It's, you know, mouthpieces for one party or the other. That that's not what they're looking for. They're looking for unbiased news. I mean, I hear it every single day.
- [71:24]
Mark Kalperin
All right, Beat China, beat Oklahoma City. That's the lesson of this segment. Senator Banks, grateful to you. I'll see you out there, maybe. But I wish you luck. And I'm an Eastern conference guy, so I'm all behind Indiana for this series.
- [71:39]
David Ignatius
Go, Pacers.
- [71:40]
Mark Kalperin
Go Pacers. Thank you, Senator. All right, more next up in just a bit. Real businesses rely on Spectrum business. Get the fastest, most reliable Internet, starting at 40amonth. When bundled and backed by the Spectrum commitment. Find a plan that's made for your business@spectrum.com business restrictions apply. Service is not available in all areas. And that's commercial break. Nice.
- [72:05]
Jim Banks
Ooh.
- [72:06]
Mark Kalperin
Hear that?
- [72:06]
Jim Banks
My neck cracked.
- [72:07]
Mark Kalperin
So satisfying. Speaking of satisfying, I just used a Clorox toilet Wand. Ooh. With the cleaner already in it. Yes. All in one. The brush just clicks on. Click.
- [72:18]
David Ignatius
Then you swish. Swish, swish.
- [72:20]
Mark Kalperin
Ah. And pops right off into the trash. Just click, swish. Bop. Clorox. Clean feels good. Clean feels good. Oh, we're back. Use as directed.