Loading summary
Transcript166 lines
- [00:01]
Scott Galloway
Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to. Don't know the difference between matte, paint, finish and satin or what that clunking.
- [00:12]
Jessica Tarlov
Sound from your dryer is.
- [00:14]
Scott Galloway
With Thumbtack, you don't have to be.
- [00:16]
Preet Bharara
A home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see.
- [00:20]
Scott Galloway
Price estimates and read reviews all on the app. Download today. As marketing channels have multiplied, the demand.
- [00:29]
Preet Bharara
For content has skyrocketed.
- [00:31]
Scott Galloway
But everyone can make content that's on.
- [00:33]
Preet Bharara
Brand and stands out. With Adobe Express, you don't have to be a designer to generate images, rewrite text and create effects. That's the beauty of generative AI, that's commercially safe. Teams all across your business will be psyched to collaborate and create amazing presentations, videos, social posts, flyers and more. Meet Adobe Express, the quick and easy app to create on brand content. Learn more@adobe.com Express Business.
- [01:04]
Scott Galloway
Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Scott Galloway.
- [01:06]
Jessica Tarlov
And I'm Jessica Charlev.
- [01:07]
Scott Galloway
Jess, how are you?
- [01:08]
Jessica Tarlov
I'm great, yeah. I'm refreshed from my vacation.
- [01:12]
Scott Galloway
How was that? You were in Italy, right?
- [01:13]
Jessica Tarlov
It was really good. Well, Spain, traveling with a three and one year old is brutal.
- [01:18]
Scott Galloway
Yeah.
- [01:18]
Jessica Tarlov
And I have many thoughts on how much nicer it is in Europe vis a vis having little kids. Like, they don't make you feel terrible about it. And at the airport there's a special line for families that are just like covered in strange strollers and diapers and you feel at one with those of you who've taken the little kid plunge. But it was a, it was a great trip. How was your week?
- [01:42]
Scott Galloway
Really nice back in London. And it's sunny here. So London, when it's sunny, is the nicest city in the world. So for a good like 15, 18 days a year, it's a fantastic city. But what you said about family in Europe, it does really resonate. The example I would use, it kind of typifies what I'll call a more focused concentration or respect for families is in Germany there are these beer gardens everywhere, but they also have trampolines and carousels. So it's like there's something for everybody. You go get a beer and then your kids go crazy. And maybe it's because the cities I've lived in is pretty segregated. It's like people who are cursed with families and paying that price. You need to go over here and then adults only over here. And it seems like Europe does a much better Job of integrating. Or of a hybrid model, if you will.
- [02:28]
Jessica Tarlov
Yeah. You know, you bring your kid out to dinner no matter the time, and they fall asleep in the stroller and there's stroller parking, and no one's giving you the side eye. It's the kind of stuff I know in life. Everyone's talking about these falling birth rates, but I was like, do we want a third? Like, am I ovulating? We could do this. And then no dice. There is no third baby.
- [02:48]
Scott Galloway
Tables for five are much harder. Four is much easier. And by the way, just along those lines, I'm convinced that you'd get much more passive hostility if you bring your kid to a restaurant where I live in soho, than a dog. Yeah, because dogs are cool, right? It's like, oh, we have water bowls, but no children allowed. No children allowed.
- [03:06]
Jessica Tarlov
I totally agree.
- [03:06]
Scott Galloway
Anyways, today we're discussing Biden's cancer diagnosis and a new book about his cover up the future of the GOP's mega bill. And we have Preet Bharara. Preet, my good, good friend. My one call. Also, I got a story about Preet. Do you know that scene from Tootsie? You're probably too young to have seen the movie, too.
- [03:25]
Jessica Tarlov
I love Tootsie.
- [03:25]
Scott Galloway
And Bill Murray is like, just got such a great rap. And all these people are surrounding him, enraptured and rubbing his shoulders, and all these women are just like, looking fondly and adoringly at him. Vox had this, or was it a code conference, something Kara pulled together where she got Tim Cook and Jeff Bezos and I don't know, everybody just casually.
- [03:44]
Jessica Tarlov
Got Tim Cook and Jeff Bezos and.
- [03:46]
Scott Galloway
There was a party afterwards, and I saw this semicircle of people enraptured by this guy. And I walk over and there was Pred in his suit and his dreamy blue eyes swirling around a glass of wine. I'm not exaggerating. It was like that scene. Everyone was just hanging on his every word. I don't know. He's like the sexiest man alive. Or the sexiest former Southern District head of the Southern District. Anyways.
- [04:10]
Jessica Tarlov
Well, that's a much more limited group. I would give him even bigger than just sdny. But he is a. For people who are attracted to intelligence, there's like a. Elaine, what's it called?
- [04:21]
Scott Galloway
People attracted to smart men.
- [04:24]
Jessica Tarlov
No, that's like everybody. But there is like, oh, sapiosexual.
- [04:28]
Scott Galloway
Sapiosexual. Okay. I. I would. We could have spent two years with this uncomfortable pause and I wouldn't have gotten to sapiosexual, so I'm fascinated by mating. Just a quick review. The three things that women find most sexually attractive in a man are, one, his ability to signal future resources. Not even just current resources. You have to have a plan. Two, Intellect. To your point, you know the fastest way to communicate? Intellect, Jess?
- [04:49]
Jessica Tarlov
I. I don't know.
- [04:51]
Scott Galloway
Humor. Oh, humor is the fastest way.
- [04:53]
Jessica Tarlov
Is that why you're so funny?
- [04:54]
Scott Galloway
It's the only way. I had game. If you can make a woman laugh, yeah, she will have coffee and go.
- [04:59]
Jessica Tarlov
On a date with you and laugh in bed, too.
- [05:02]
Scott Galloway
I get that.
- [05:02]
Jessica Tarlov
When people are like, oh, it's supposed to be so serious, I'm like, what is funnier than sex? Or, like, the weird stuff that goes on around it 100%.
- [05:10]
Scott Galloway
And then the third thing, as I try and dig my way out of this hole, the third thing is kindness, which is the most underrated. It's the thing that men don't realize is actually very attractive. Is how you treat service people. Your clear commitment to your parents. Because women at some point know deep down that they might be vulnerable during gestation or raising kids, and they want someone who's kind anyways, has nothing to do with anything. We're talking about today.
- [05:37]
Jessica Tarlov
Well, kind of. I mean, we're talking about humanity. And this is humanity.
- [05:40]
Scott Galloway
There we go. All right, let's get into it. It's been another wild week in politics. While Trump was overse and getting the oral treatment from the Saudis during his Middle east trip, his legislative priorities were falling apart. Back home in Washington, conservative hardliners and the House Budget Committee sank a key vote on Trump's domestic bill, only to reverse course late Sunday after GOP leaders promised changes. Those include stricter Medicaid work requirements, cutting Biden era green energy tax credits, and removing Medicaid access for undocumented immigrants. But of course, Trump wasn't about to let the chaos back home steal the spotlight. During a business stop in the uae, he pivoted back to one of his favorite topics, tariffs. And not just this talk. He announced his administration plans to skip negotiations entirely and slap new tariffs on dozens of countries, a move that could rattle global markets and strain relations with key US Allies in Europe and Asia. And if that were enough political whiplash. On Sunday, it was announced that Joe Biden was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer. The news comes just days before the release of a new book by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, which raises fresh questions about what the public didn't know and what insiders didn't did know about Biden's physical condition during the 2024 campaign. According to the reporting, Biden's health was deteriorating so rapidly that aides feared he might need a wheelchair if he won reelection. But they kept it quiet, taking every possible step to keep him upright until he eventually dropped out. Jess, let's start with Biden's tragic news for him and his family. What do you make of it all?
- [07:08]
Jessica Tarlov
Well, it's incredibly sad to hear that he has cancer. It's something that touches all of our lives. Lost my dad to cancer and reading that, it's a very aggressive form that's already permeated the bones. That's terrible news all around. And I hope that he and his family are able to spend some time tuned out from what is to be a savage week in politics because of the release of this book and the Robert Herr special counsel tapes that came out as well. And a lot of people are jumping on that bad wagon. So I hope that they can find some time for themselves and I trust they're getting great medical care. It also is opening up this Pandora's box even further about coverups and how it's possible that he has progressed so far without telling the public what's been going on. Was he sick while he was in office? Dr. Zeke Emmanuel, one of the Emanuel brothers, was on Morning Joe Monday morning and said his expectation would be that he would have had this for 10 years. I didn't know a lot about prostate cancer and I'm not going to pretend that I'm any sort of expert, but I didn't even know that you it's now advised that you not get checked your PSA levels after you turn 70. He's an 82 year old man. So has he been not checking this? He has a gleason score of 9. It goes from 2 to 10 which seems very advanced. They found out that he was sick through a uti. Has he not had a UTI for the past several years? A lot of open ended questions and I mostly want him and his family to feel good and secure and get the care that they need and also for this week to not be as ugly as I expect that it is going to be. What about you?
- [08:54]
Scott Galloway
Yeah, look, he's a good man and anytime you hear about someone who gets this kind of news, you have empathy for them and their family. I go more to what it means for the nation and sort of what we can draw from it. An 82 year old diagnosed with prostate cancer is not an unusual diagnosis. I mean, basically what was strange here and is a bit of a wake up call is that it had gotten so advanced, you'd think the president would have, I just joined one of these high end medical concierge clinics and basically they just scan you all the time. And I'm just shocked that it would have gotten that far, that a Gleason of nine, if anyone should catch stuff early, I would have thought it was the President. It's a terrible diagnosis. I'm not a doctor, but it just doesn't, you know, this is very bad news for the Biden family. I think on a larger level, I think we need age limits. If he had been reelected, he will probably spend the next one to five years severely impaired, not only because he's going to be 83, 84, 85, but he's going to be fighting a devastating illness. And let's hope that he survives and maybe even beats it. But what would that have meant if he was the President? It would have meant that he couldn't take foreign trips. It would have meant that no one trusted him to make decisions. It would have meant constant lying. There would have been a full time spin protection, lying circle, an informal cabinet doing nothing but trying to protect him and continue to lie about his faculties and abilities.
- [10:23]
Jessica Tarlov
Well, it would have been President Kamala Harris.
- [10:25]
Scott Galloway
Would it have been, do you think? See, this is what I'm not sure of, Jesse. I think the guy is a good man. I also think he's a raging fucking narcissist, as is many of the people who get to D.C. do you think he would have handed over the mantle? I'm not sure he would have.
- [10:38]
Jessica Tarlov
I think he would be more likely to having at least clocked that he won the second term and beaten Donald Trump again. But people are doing a lot of reassessments of who they think Joe Biden is. And yes, fundamentally a good man. But even the people who love him the most. Like there was a very moving piece by Steve Shale, longtime Democratic consultant, Florida work for the Biden campaign, 2020, saying, like, it's a special kind of ego to run for president and to do it multiple times, right. And then to do it even in the face of the headwinds that we're seeing when you are 78, 79, 80 years old. The best thing that he can do is kind of recede from public life at this point because every interview makes it worse for the rest of us. Like the session on the view where Dr. Jill is still, you know, hopping in when necessary because HE TRAILS OFF or whatever's going on is really bleak.
- [11:36]
Scott Galloway
But as someone caring for a dad who's about to be 95 and has also had to had very uncomfortable conversations with CEOs who've done an amazing job for a company for 20 years and have to say to them, you're too old, we're asking you to step down. And they see it as, all right, you're basically telling me to go home and die. That's how they see it. You have to sort of almost shove all this goodwill and loyalty aside and do what's best for the shareholders. You know, these are really uncomfortable conversations. Anyone who's had an aging parent, they're under the impression, and they're not bad people, that, no, I can continue to live on my own. And this is people much younger than President Biden. And then when you have people around you enabling it, you can absolutely see how this happens and that it's not. I don't wanna say it's not their fault, but you can understand how an individual believes. With the right people around me, I can continue to do the best job. And I beat them once, I'll beat them again. And that's why we need age limits on both sides. There are 34 year olds I know who are incredible, who would be, in my opinion, have the neurological, physical, emotional and mental strength to be president. And yet they're not eligible, though we've decided their body of experience, their brain development, their judgment and reasoning and their faculties are not up to the task of the highest office in the land. But an 85 year old at the end of his term is. I don't know anyone who's beat biology. Biology is undefeated. And the notion that we're just going to ignore it on the high end, we need, we need age limits for the Supreme Court and we need. Okay, you cannot be an elected office beyond. I would pick 70, but okay, maybe 75. And here's the thing, it's also the kindest thing to do because what I've seen at corporations is when they have mandatory retirement and they have mandatory tenure limits on the directors, you want to talk about people who have fucking nothing going on, but occasionally they get to show up to a board meeting and have a free dinner and think big thoughts. And you gotta tell these people whose companies kicked them out a long time ago, no, you can't be on this board any longer. That is such an uncomfortable conversation that nobody wants to have it. So what's great is you have boards that have tenure limits. You can be on this board for no more than 8, 10 or 12 years. Not only will it be best for the country, but I think the kindest thing to do is not make it a question or an issue. Once you hit 70 or 75, you go home a hero and you spend time with your grandkids and we're done. And I think that's the conversation we should be having instead of like it was some sort of malicious coverup. No, we're all covering for our old aging parents. We're all trying to pretend and talk ourselves into believing that they're okay, that they're better than they are. And you see them at their best moments. So I hope this inspires a productive conversation where we say, okay, Britain has age limits on their Supreme Court justices. Here, most countries, or a lot of countries have them. Let's have an age limit on the presidency, our senators, our Congress people and our Supreme Court justices. It puts the country at risk when you have people this old with literally their finger on the button. Your thoughts?
- [15:01]
Jessica Tarlov
Yeah, I agree with you. And I've had multiple conversations around this issue and people push about, oh, you're being ageist, et cetera. If we're talking about 75, I don't think that's that ageist. If I said something like, oh, you know, you can't even be 60, that would be ludicrous, Chris. But if you're talking about people where there is biology very clear about how your brain changes, how your body shuts down, that this is what we can expect at that stage in your life, why would you want that person as the leader of the free world? Or why would you want that person as one of the nine most important legal minds in the country? I think that people will come around to those kinds of conversations. The issue is, will the folks who are still filling those positions get out of the way? Because there are all of these older Democrats that are retiring, like Dick Durbin, right, Who's, you know, passing the torch, Jean Shaheen, et cetera. And then you have someone who has the stamina and energy of a 30 year old like Bernie Sanders, but in his 80s, who's not slowing down or stopping. The inconsistency on this issue is what's really difficult for me. Because there are people that you can point to, like a Joe Biden who seemed very fit, right? He's out riding a bike, he goes for jogs, etc. And then you read some of the coverage from Original Sin, from Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson's book, and you see moments of a completely different Biden. And I've been struggling with this personally because I, I do feel guilty as someone with an important role in the media. And I defended Joe Biden. I certainly was honest about what I was seeing. You know, like if he was falling or going in on a weird direction I never got into. That's a cheap fake or a deep fake, for instance. But certainly once that State of the Union speech came around where he went like an hour and a half and then he was doing the rope line and making fun of Marjorie Taylor Greene and owning the room, I was like, biden is back. And that's when Ezra Klein changed how he felt. Matt Ecclesias, et cetera. But perhaps I shouldn't have thought that Dean Phillips was out of his mind or been part of a chorus. More like what you were talking about where you said it's okay for somebody who might have a serious chance at winning the nomination or at least inspiring the Democratic Party to open their eyes and do some real self reflection to get in there. Phillips was clear that he didn't think that he was supposed to be the guy he wanted. Gretchen Whitmer, Gavin Newsome, Wes Moore, these people that we talk about for 2028 to get in there earlier, but no one was raising their hand. And some of that was probably that Biden wasn't bad all the time, that you could have a meeting with him and he would be the same that he was 20, 19, 2020, when he won the presidency. Decidedly. But a lot of it seems to have been just abject terror.
- [17:54]
Scott Galloway
That's exactly right.
- [17:55]
Jessica Tarlov
About the wrath of the party and the establishment when it turns on you.
- [17:59]
Scott Galloway
Yeah. So I'm the original ageist. Bill Maher called me an ageist and I said, yeah, and you know who else's ageist? Biology. I think my 14 year old makes really bad decisions and I think my dad, left to his own devices, would make even more bad decisions. And at some point we had to tell him he could no longer drive because he was gonna kill someone. Do you realize that people, I think it's people over the age of 75 are dramatically more dangerous behind the wheel than a brand new 16 year old. We always talk about how dangerous new kids are and they drink and well.
- [18:31]
Jessica Tarlov
Their reflexes, right, are just completely gone.
- [18:34]
Scott Galloway
Yeah, they're really fucking old. My reflexes aren't what they used to be. I'm like, I can't get over the fact that how my reflexes are degrading anyways. In addition, the Other benefit of having age limits is that we need to clear out more room for younger voices. I see this every day in higher education. There are so many young, outstanding academics who can't get traction in their career and oftentimes end up leaving the profession because some 84 year old who was the bomb in GAAP1 accounting in 1973 won't get the fuck out of the way because of tenure and won't go home. And it creates more uncomfortable conversations. I mean, Goldman Sachs and McKinsey are great at this. And that is once you literally hit 45, they start politely nudging you out of the firm. A the firms are incredibly profitable, but they start creating basically retirement funds and you can access them once you retire. They want you out because the only way they can continue to attract the type of human capital it continues to make their organizations perform at the highest level is it creates room for young people. And one of the nice things about DC is it does attract a ton of young incredible talent at a staff level. But there are too many great young people in the Senate and the House who are thinking about running, who don't run because some fucking 85 year old won't get out of the way, who just shouldn't be there. But because they've been taking money from special interest groups forever, because the party will always support the incumbent, because the incumbent does have the biggest chance of winning, we end up with a cross between the walking dead and the golden girls deciding public policy. So I hope this inspires a more serious conversation. Not about, oh, the Biden family is they did something wrong. No, they didn't. They do what every family does. They were trying to protect their loved one and they saw the best side of him. Them. But we need to have an honest conversation around age limits, which won't happen.
- [20:42]
Jessica Tarlov
We also have to have a serious conversation around the political strategy for navigating the fallout from this book and the continued conversations around the Biden era. Because it is not going away.
- [20:54]
Scott Galloway
And well, you think it's a big deal. So I think it'll come and go.
- [20:58]
Jessica Tarlov
I work at Fox News. This ain't going anywhere. It will lead every newscast until there's some feedback that the viewers aren't into it anymore. And the viewers are not going to not be into stories about Joe Biden not knowing who George Clooney was, even if that's disputed by some people or that they were going to use a wheelchair or whatever else is to come. And I haven't read the book. I've Only read excerpts of it. If you have people like Van Jones saying this is a crime against the republic, like the shouts are coming from within the House or whatever the term is for it, I firmly believe that this cannot be allowed to become the main narrative. It just absolutely can't. Like, we have a moment where Trump is tanking our economy, where they're pushing through this bill that's going to cut $880 billion to Medicaid. Americans are pessimistic about the economy. We do have an election coming up in 2026. It feels like forever away, but. No, it really does feel like forever away, but it is coming. And Democrats and myself included are always up for self flagellation. Republicans do no inward thinking. Right. There's, oh, we lost, let's move on sometimes. Let's just even continue doing the same exact thing.
- [22:12]
Scott Galloway
We didn't listen. The election was rigged.
- [22:14]
Jessica Tarlov
And we'll sit there and browbeat ourselves into oblivion. And that's what fills me with fear at this moment, that we're going to, you know, not just take the book for what it is, you know, read it, consume it. Maybe you go tapper speak live or whatever. I think he's gonna be at the 92nd Street. Why next month. But that we allow this to become the narrative and don't own our own election campaign because Republicans get to set our agenda. That's freaking me out.
- [22:42]
Scott Galloway
Well, here's the thing. This is a pretty safe prediction. Age and cognitive decline is not linear. And Donald Trump presents as more robust. The next three and a half years are not good years for people that age. Yeah, if you just look at actuarial tables, an obese, what is he, 78 or 79? There's like a one in three chance he dies while in office. So the same things they were trying to cover up, the Democratic machine and the Biden family are likely going to show up in this White House because guess what, folks? Biology always wins. Okay, let's take a quick break. Stay with us. This episode is sponsored by Friskies. Who would like to tell your cats hi.
- [23:28]
Jessica Tarlov
Now, if that didn't get your cat's.
- [23:29]
Scott Galloway
Attention, there is one thing that always does the trick. Just pour some Friskies crunchy food in the bowl and you'll hear those paws come running.
- [23:38]
Jessica Tarlov
Works every time.
- [23:39]
Preet Bharara
With so many Friskies choices, you can.
- [23:41]
Jessica Tarlov
Always bring your cats running from their secret napping spots.
- [23:44]
Scott Galloway
There's always more to explore.
- [23:46]
Jessica Tarlov
See for yourself@friskies.com or visit your local store.
- [23:51]
Preet Bharara
The Hoover Dam wasn't built in a day and the GMC Sierra lineup wasn't built overnight. Like every American achievement. Building the Sierra 1500 heavy duty and EV was the result of dedication. A dedication to mastering the art of engineering. That's what this country has done for 250 years and what GMC has done for over 100. We are professional grade. Visit GMC.com to learn more. Assembled in Flint and Hamtronic, Michigan in Fort Wayne, Indiana of US and globally.
- [24:21]
Scott Galloway
Sourced parts at Athletic Brewing. We love the sounds of summer, but also and but most importantly the summer sound that goes with everything. The crack of an ice cold. Athletic Athletic's great taste Non alcoholic beers pair with all of summer's greatest moments so you don't have to miss a beat. Choose from a range of styles to pair with your sounds of summer. Visit athleticbrewing.com to find athletic near you or to order online. Right to your door near beer. Welcome back. Let's turn to Congress. What do you think is the path forward for Trump's mega bill? Or is there a path forward?
- [25:00]
Jessica Tarlov
There's always a path forward in Donald Trump's Republican Party because they only care about pleasing him. So they have a very slim majority, five votes. It was a big setback on Friday when the bill failed out of the Budget Committee. Chip Roy and four other GOP hardliners voted for the Democrats against it. But lo and behold, Sunday night, now they're for it. Or they voted present. Chip Roy has his moments and then he caves. And that's the story for basically everyone in the Republican Party, save for Thomas Massie, who usually means what he says. They're going to move forward with this. They're going to increase the deficit by 3 trillion if it gets passed the big cut to Medicaid. I already mentioned now that the CBO has actually had time with the bill. Some of these stats that are coming out would send you reeling. You actually can't process how somebody could be for a bill like this. Like people making between 17k and 51k could lose an average of $700 in after tax income. Those making 4.3 million or more would gain an average of $389,000. The bottom 60% of taxpayers would get an average tax cut of 700 under the plan. But over 10 million would lose their health insurance. And I'm pretty sure that your health insurance is worth more than $700 in your pocket. And I guess in a bright spot, if you take them at your word, which is always difficult, this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate, you know, Josh Hawley had a New York Times op ed saying you can't cut Medicaid. Ron Johnson wants more cut. That's my favorite. The people who are like, no, I can't be for this because it doesn't cut, know I'll take it. Susan Collins, Jerry Moran, all the rural hospitals are going to be gone. Is going to wipe out rural medical care in this country. And every once in a while, it's a good time to be a Democrat. And in this case it is because you have all of these Republicans whose feet are going to be held to the fire because they represent rural states and they've got millions of constituents that are saying, I'm going to have nowhere to go. A won't have health care in the first place, but then if I do get sick, I can't even get to a hospital to get the care that I need.
- [27:06]
Scott Galloway
Yeah. And I think that's the correct framing. What I have seen is that it's a tax cut for the top 5% and it's a tax hike for the lower 95. And in addition, the thing that I harp on about is it's going to add what I've seen about four and a half or five trillion dollars to the deficit. I've seen numbers that are much bigger. I'm taking the more conservative one. That's about $30,000 per household. And keep in mind the deficits that we're racking up are not being used to fund education or fund technical development or make investments in infrastructure that could ultimately pay off for future generations. It's essentially to extend corporate tax cuts and increase defense spending. And they're trying to minimize some of that deficit reduction by cutting social services or, you know, as you said, Medicaid. I uploaded my W2s from last year into three different LLMs and said, how does the proposed Trump tax bill going to affect me? And they came back with things. I'm going to get wealthier. And one even started off with good news. So essentially this is young people get to borrow money, $4.5 trillion. Because the thing is, our credit is fine for probably 10, 20, maybe 30 years. People are crying that, oh yeah, interest rates will go up. They already are. We just lost our AAA credit rating from. I think this was Moody's.
- [28:33]
Jessica Tarlov
Moody's, yeah.
- [28:34]
Scott Galloway
So we saw the 10 year go up, which means student loans, mortgages, everything. Company's ability to borrow money to pay for additional factories. So basically everyone in America is going to pay slightly more money for everything that's what an increase in interest rates do, such that we can fund a tax cut for the top 5% and where credit will be fine for a while. I don't think that there's going to be a failed treasury auction for a while. But effectively what this is is people under the age of, call it 40, have to borrow an additional $5 trillion to pay for tax cuts for the old and the wealthy. And people say to me, always the time, Scott, it's not young versus Old, it's poor versus rich. They're the same fucking thing. Because if you look at the people who would benefit most from this tax cut, yeah, they're the rich, but they usually are people in their 60s and 70s. I think the Democrats need to do a better job of. You realize this is like a household that's taking on right now. The household makes 50 grand, spends 70 grand, has 370 grand in debt and is about to take on another 50 grand in debt. And by the way, when mom and dad die, they'll have spent all that time going to Cabo and partying and buying Alexis, but that debt is going to be inherited by their children. It strikes me as just such a criminal act against the young. And we don't frame it that way. We say, okay, we need to lower taxes. And also, I think if you came to the table and said there are really some hard decisions to be made around our biggest entitlement program, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, you know, we have to make really ugly, severe cuts and we're going to match those cuts proportionate or 2 to 1 with tax increases on corporations who are paying the lowest taxes since 1929, or in the very wealthy who continue to see a regressive or enjoy a regressive tax rate. I think you could make a moral and an economic argument for making those types of really deep, terrible cuts and then said, okay, because there's some hard decisions to be made and we're going to start a path towards fiscal responsibility which will ultimately lower the interest costs on our debt, which will ultimately lower the costs of for everybody. But folks, we can't afford to keep spending the way we're spending and we can't afford to not bring in more revenues. I think I could have gotten on board with that. But instead they're like, no, let's cut people's healthcare such that we can give the top 5% tax cut. And the Republicans pushing back on this thing for their TikTok moment, they did talk about the deficit, but it was all through the lens of the cuts don't go deep enough. And I'm like, jesus Christ. Yeah, you don't think these cuts are going deep enough. That's where you're going with this.
- [31:17]
Jessica Tarlov
The cruelty is the point. In every aspect of Republican policy making, the cruelty is the point. And you're totally right. Contextualizing the deficit in real terms would be an enormous public service that if any of these politicians would like to get on board with, I would certainly amplify it. I want to know about what it means for my mortgage rate. I want to know what it means for my grocery bill. I want to know what it means for, you know, how fast my529, for my kids so that they can go to college is going to grow or, or be slowed by the deficit, et cetera, all of that stuff. But I think that you really need to make it as simple as possible. Like, if you do this, you lose this. We can choose a tax cut for the wealthy or nutritional assistance. We can choose a tax cut for the wealthy or your Medicaid coverage. We can choose. I mean, remember, I mean, we were sold so many lies during the confirmation hearings, but all this talk about we're going to actually do an audit of the Pentagon now Secretary Hicks has told us that, and lo and behold, there are no cuts to the Pentagon. They're increasing the budgets. Republicans are never going to cut defense spending. That is a lie that they tell you every single time, along with, we actually care about the debt and the deficit as well. So I really want Democrats to get like, super simple, like pretend you're telling my 3 year old what's actually in this bill and draw that straight line from the tax cuts to the loss of services that matter to the lives of the average American. And that's not to say that the Americans aren't getting it. Trump is underwater in terms of how he's handling the economy. This bill is hugely unpopular. But. But they live only for the day, right? They love the one you're with. They're not thinking about what happens in 26 or in 28. They're just trying to cram as much junk down our throats as possible as quickly as possible, and then they're going to worry about the repercussions later.
- [33:17]
Scott Galloway
Yeah. So just let me cement my reputation as an ageist. It really is old people fucking this country. I mean, first off, if passed, this tax bill would be the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single law in U.S. history. And it's much More fun to create a class war. But who are the rich again? There aren't a lot of 26 year olds thinking, wow, this tax cut's gonna be great for me.
- [33:41]
Jessica Tarlov
Yeah.
- [33:41]
Scott Galloway
If you look at who owns shares, who benefits from these tax cuts, it's the old. And here's the problem. The old continue have figured out a way to vote themselves more money. Oh, and guess what? We're talking about cutting Medicaid, but we're not talking about cutting Medicare or Social Security. Right.
- [33:58]
Jessica Tarlov
Cause that's old people and old rich people.
- [34:02]
Scott Galloway
Old rich people.
- [34:02]
Jessica Tarlov
Because old rich people still use their Medicare.
- [34:05]
Scott Galloway
Well, yeah, they still love their Medicare. It's great healthcare at a low price. They still want, you know, I paid into it. By the way, the majority of people who, once they take out Social Security, take out more than they put in. And it's not called a Social Security pension fund, it's called a Social Security tax, meaning it may not benefit you directly. And then people say, scott, but it's not a deficit issue. Well, of course it's similar. It's a tax on young people. When Social Security was initially conceived, there were 12 young people supporting every retiree. Now it's three to one. And people are working and living 20 or 30 years longer. And Jessica Tarlov and Scott Galloway should not get Social Security. And here's the problem going back to we need age limits in Congress. Say we're able to continue to live irresponsibly and live beyond our means and continue to take advantage of the full faith and credit of the US Government, which has been earned through hard work and fiscal responsibility over 225 years. In 30 years, 75% of Congress will be dead. See above. They're too fucking old. So they don't have a vested interest in the future of America. I'll be dead by then. I mean, I know this firsthand. I believe where I live in Florida will probably be underwater at some point, but it's probably gonna be 50 years. And I've done the math, I'm just not that damn worried about it. Whereas a 25 year old is more concerned with climate change. I understand that. And we need more 25 year olds in Congress such that we can be a little bit more future forward, such we can be thinking about the requisite long term investments to ensure our kids and grandkids have the same types of opportunities we do. So what is the incentive for people in Congress who are really fucking old? Well, whatever. Future generations will deal with warming oceans and an unsustainable debt load. As long as my credit card continues to be accepted and I can continue feeding at the trough until I'm dead, I'm down with these ridiculously short term policies, these tax cuts which largely benefit the wealthy. Republicans aren't cutting defense spending, Social Security or Medicare, all which would be unpopular with the constituents. Instead they're going after the health and nutrition programs for the poorest Americans, which again is Latin for the youngest Americans. So I've again, this is the bill just, it goes from bad to worse here. The bill proposes cutting snap spending by 30%. I can't imagine a better investment than snap. Okay, stop a kid from being obese such that he doesn't have to spend a thousand bucks a month for Ozempic, is not clinically depressed, is able to make more money. People who are obese make less money. They're more likely to need knee and hip replacements and be on kidney dialysis when they get older, which is really, really expensive. SNAP beneficiaries only receive about 2 bucks per meal. The federal government spent 113 billion on SNAP in fiscal year 2023. Making the 27 increased AMT exemptions permanent will reduce revenues by 140 billion a year. So you could essentially, if you just made the AMT exemptions, if you said they're not permanent, if you had an alternative minimum tax such that wealthy people had to pay at least a certain amount, by the way, that amount isn't high. It would fund snap. And the thing about it is distinct of the moral argument, you know, distinct of the SOB argument which Democrats scream at a TikTok about we'll have more money, we won't have to spend as much money if we have a semi healthy populace. I'm done with the morality argument. They're just stupid. We've literally decided, okay, guys, give us your credit card, we're gonna run up. It's like that film Leaving Las Vegas where Nicholas Cage says, I'm such a fucking raging alcoholic. I am so addicted to alcohol that I've given up any, any hope of rehab. I'm just gonna cash my last check for my severance pay and I'm gonna hang out with a prostitute and party like there's no, you know, like it's 1999 because I'm gonna be dead soon. That is how we are approaching our government right now. We are Nicholas Cage and, and leaving Las Vegas.
- [38:11]
Jessica Tarlov
Elizabeth Shue was my dad's number one crush in the entire world.
- [38:15]
Scott Galloway
I feel so old. Me and your dad.
- [38:17]
Jessica Tarlov
Well, Andy's dead. On top of that. Right.
- [38:20]
Scott Galloway
So she made a comeback.
- [38:22]
Jessica Tarlov
He was much older. Not much older. He would have been.
- [38:24]
Scott Galloway
That's bringing a conversation down. She just did make a comeback, though, in the karate. What's it called? The Karate show with refund.
- [38:31]
Jessica Tarlov
I didn't see it. But you're totally right about the investment part of it. Like, just make the economic argument and you know, I love the cruelty is the point. I go back to it all the time. Like when Republicans oppose school lunches and you think, like, how is that physically possible, that you could say it's a bad idea for kids to have food in their bellies? Just make the argument then you're so concerned about how well we perform. Guess when you can't do any learning and you can't function when you're hungry, so just give them a sandwich and let them do better in school. It's always the easiest stuff, like the simple things. And because they're morally bankrupt, they won't go with it. It's a really boring detail, but I just wanted to note that in the Energy and Commerce Committee last week, they went 26 hours straight, like overnight, and Democrats introduced 33amendments and all of them failed, which they knew because we didn't have the numbers. But they brought in all of these people who are on Medicaid to tell their stories about what would happen to them or the people who are close to them if the programs got cut and watching. I didn't stay up all night for it. C SPAN had great coverage of it. But watching democracy actually happening live in front of us and people using the process, I thought, A, this is a way that Democrats are fighting back and at least getting these stories out there to amplify. But B, if they. If we have that kind of energy across all of these committees and in the press and on all of the social media posts surrounding this reconciliation bill, maybe it gets through the House, but it will be impossible for it to get through the Senate, at least in its current form.
- [40:14]
Scott Galloway
Our producer David gave us some great data here. So essentially, one study found that children with access to Medicaid grew up healthier and less dependent on government benefits. Medicaid spending delivered a 2 to 7% annual return on investment as few of the children ended up receiving disability payments. And studies also show an association between SNAP participation and a reduction in healthcare costs by as much as $5,000 per person per year. So, in sum, these are great investments, good business. And then on the other side, the other thing that really pisses me off and people Just don't, just don't grasp. The estate tax exemption is going to be increased from 15 million to 30 million for married couples next year. What that means is if you're wealthy, you put stuff in an estate and it transfers tax free down to your heirs. And one of the things that distinguishes America from Europe is that we've always been somewhat against dynastic wealth. And we tax estates such that we can make forward leaning investments to give a ton of young people incentive to work hard, such that they can make it because the government is able to make great investments in technology, whether it's the Internet or GPS or education, that give them a shot at being rich. And Europe's always been about kind of inherited family wealth. Europe is now less dynastic on many levels than we are. And the thing that is so insane about this is that if you look at studies on the relationship between money and happiness, once you get above, call it $30 million in wealth, you have no incremental happiness. And what people don't understand about these trusts, they value it at 30 million based on the value when it goes into the trust. If it grows to be worth $100 million over 20 or 30 years, which isn't unlikely, it all transfers tax free. And here's the thing, and there's empirical and anecdotal evidence here, I know a lot of rich kids in New York. Trust me, folks, they're not any happier than wealthy kids. So as someone who's worked really hard and has aggregated some economic security, one of the things I want as a reward for my good fortune and my hard work is I want to give my kids a better life than the average kids. Let me just come out of the closet. I want to give my kids enough money so they can have a house and know that they don't have to worry about education costs. All right, you can easily do that, easily do that with $10 million. You don't need 30. You don't even need really 10 million to give your kid a head start. Because you think I've worked so fucking hard. I want to give my kids advantage. I think that is a natural instinct. All my friends who talk a big game about, well, I'm going to pay through their college and then they're on their own. None of them do that. Their kid is a good kid. They can't pursue their dreams without help from mom and dad. Mom and dad want them to live near them. Inflation. They end up giving their kids money. Fine. I think that's one of the Benefits in what we work so hard when we're parents is such that we can help our kids out. But anything above, call it 5 or 10 million, not even that much. You think that gives your kid incremental happiness? It doesn't.
- [43:15]
Jessica Tarlov
Well, a lot of people feel like it hurts them in the long term. Like the Bill Gates is of the, obviously we're talking billions of dollars now, but he's not giving them anything. Right. Or they each get a million dollars or something like that.
- [43:26]
Scott Galloway
Yeah, I mean there's different ways to cut the cat there. I mean my guess is they're getting indirectly a lot of Bill Gates kid gets a leg up on a lot of levels economically. But anyways, my point is let's call it a million bucks. You know, the kid's not going to go hungry. You know, the kid can afford education. Probably that's going to help in terms of a down payment towards the House. Right. Anything above that, you get no incremental happiness, you get none. So. And it goes back to the notion I think there should be an AMT tax of 50 to 70% on anything above $10 million because it's not going to get you any incremental happiness. Whereas making forward leaning investments with that capital to give younger people more of a shot, that gives a lot of people a lot of happiness. But all of this shit is not only giveaways, but it doesn't create any incremental value for anybody. The difference between holding onto 11 million of your 15 million in earnings versus being able to hold on to 9 million of your 15 million in earnings, no incremental benefit to you or your family. There's nothing you're going to be able to do that you weren't able to do before. It's not going to increase your health, your well being, it's not going to lessen any more of your anxiety. You're just going to be richer, you're just going to have a bigger number. What I find so disappointing about this tax bill is okay, I understand that the top 1% and in most instances the 0.1% want a bigger number. But you're not gonna increase the well being of anybody, you're not gonna increase the happiness. All you're gonna do is create tremendous anxiety and despair among those people losing their Medicaid and create additional costs for everybody through higher interest rates. Cause it's irresponsible racking up deficits and increase taxation or reliance on government services and nonprofits when all of these people, you know, start getting their toes and their fingers cut off because of full blown diabetes that wasn't arrested earlier in their life or that they didn't get for so we make the moral argument all the time as Democrats. I think we need to start making the economic argument that this is just going to cost us a lot more down the road. All we're doing is creating a fiscal disaster for the government and for the people who are still going to be around, I. E. 25% of Congress will still survive, still be around. And we don't do that. We just scream and cry about the morality of it all. We need to move to the economic side.
- [45:47]
Jessica Tarlov
Yeah. And also emphasize that we're talking about a difference in a tax rate from 37 to 39%. Right. This isn't like we're suddenly gonna be raiding your coffers at a level that you can't withstand. And I wish that more rich people would talk about these issues the way that you are. Or like, you know, Ro Khanna represents the most billionaires of any district in the country. He says constantly we need to tax the rich more, tax rich more. And they still send him back. These are not people who are stupid. These are not people who are economically illiterate. They're obviously see something more to the story and maybe we should, we should get them on a road show to talk about why it's important to support policies that are more evenly distributed across different social classes.
- [46:33]
Scott Galloway
Okay, let's take a quick break. Stay with us.
- [46:38]
Preet Bharara
This podcast is supported by Progressive, a leader in RV insurance. RVs are for sharing adventures with family, friends and even your pets.
- [46:45]
Jessica Tarlov
So if you bring your cats and.
- [46:46]
Preet Bharara
Dogs along for the ride, you'll want Progressive RV Insurance. They protect your cats and dogs like family by offering up to $1,000 in optional coverage for vet bills in case of an RV accident, making it a great companion for the responsible pet owner who loves to travel. See Progressive's other benefits and more when you quote RVInsurance@progressive.com today. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates pet injury is an additional coverage and subject to policy terms.
- [47:08]
Jessica Tarlov
Hosting season's Here are your windows Guest.
- [47:10]
Scott Galloway
Ready Early access to Blinds.com's Memorial Day Mega Sale is on now. Blinds.com invented a better way to shop for window treatments completely online with upfront pricing. No showroom markups, no salespeople in your home. Choose from classic shutters to outdoor shades and more.
- [47:26]
Jessica Tarlov
All backed by our 100% satisfaction guarantee.
- [47:29]
Scott Galloway
Shop blinds.com's Memorial Day mega Sale. Early access now save up to 40%.
- [47:34]
Jessica Tarlov
Site wide plus a free measure. Blinds.com rules and restrictions may apply. Your snacking routine can get a little dull. Time for an Oikos Remix like a.
- [47:46]
Preet Bharara
Crunchy storm of sea salt, praline pretzels.
- [47:48]
Jessica Tarlov
Dark chocolate and butter toffee showering down into a smooth, creamy yogurt. Enjoy. Three Oikos Remix varieties with EPIC mix ins and 11 grams of complete protein per 4.5 ounce serving. See remixyogurt.com.
- [48:07]
Scott Galloway
Welcome back. Joining us today is a former federal prosecutor and host of the Stay Tuned with Preet podcast. Welcome to the show, a good friend and my one. This is true. This is. Here we go. Look at Preet. Okay, my one phone call when she gets real for the dog, which it will at some point and I find myself in a very unfortunate situation. I have one call and I have told Preet that he is my one call and that if he ever sees my phone or my caller ID come up, he is to answer immediately.
- [48:38]
Preet Bharara
Must take it.
- [48:39]
Scott Galloway
He is both a sharp political or sharp legal mind, I should say, but also just very smart, very calm kind of guy you want in your corner. Anyway, good to see you, Preet.
- [48:47]
Preet Bharara
Good to see you. I have to apologize, given that introduction that I'm not in my usual barrister uniform. Little casual today.
- [48:55]
Jessica Tarlov
Oh, that's good.
- [48:56]
Preet Bharara
Yeah. If and when you should call upon me for my legal duties, I will, I will have the proper attire.
- [49:02]
Scott Galloway
I appreciate that.
- [49:03]
Preet Bharara
What's on your mind?
- [49:04]
Scott Galloway
So the reason I reached out to you, well, we're good, good friends and in addition, we've been talking a lot about how to more effectively push back. I think like a lot of Democrats, we share real frustration that there is more robust push back. And one of the ideas, I won't say we that I've suggested is that if you are essentially shipping people to black sites or what in my opinion fits the definition of concentration camps outside, sending people outside of a to a place where they're no longer subject to the same rights they would have on their domestic territory or where they're shipped off from that you are subject to criminal prosecution and that people who engage in illegal incarceration or corruption or fraud are still subject to at some point prosecution. And I have said this with absolutely no legal domain expertise.
- [49:56]
Jessica Tarlov
Why should that stop you ever Scott There you go.
- [49:59]
Scott Galloway
There you go.
- [49:59]
Preet Bharara
Perfect for 2025.
- [50:01]
Scott Galloway
There you go. So you are that domain expertise. Is this a viable strategy or am I just barking at the moon here?
- [50:09]
Preet Bharara
So a couple of. I'm a lawyer. So a couple of Prefatory things. It depends on what you're talking about. It depends on what the conduct is. It depends on what an investigation reveals. I was just thinking, as you were speaking literally about black sites, there was a lot of debate after the second Bush administration about whether or not people who were acting on orders literally to take people to black sites, whether CIA officers should be subject to investigation and prosecution. And Barack Obama, you know, Democrat, liberal, decided in consultation with his aids that that would not be an appropriate use of the Justice Department's resources. And people can debate that and go back and forth on that. There's not a profoundly deep history in recent times of doing that sort of thing. The other thing I'd point out, it sounds like from what you were postulating in your question, is something that's going to take place in three and a half years, something that would take place in a future administration that doesn't do a lot to solve the violations of not just norms and not just regulations, but statutes that may be going on. The third thing I would say is to the extent people want accountability and fairness and the rule of law to be back in the seat, that's all well and good. I will say that to the extent people are thinking about that, as some people listening to this might be, as a political strategy, that has been not borne out. Right. Donald Trump was, in fact, subjected to multiple criminal investigations. He was subjected to two impeachments, and it didn't stop him politically. So I guess it depends on what, you know. If we're talking about proper rule of law, accountability, that's one thing, which would be not for a while. And we can talk about the particulars of that. But the idea that there are some parties now given the Justice Department, that's in the full control more than it's ever been in the hands of a sitting president, those things are not viable for a while. And as a political matter, they can backfire, as I think there's a decent argument that they did with respect to the prosecutions of Donald Trump, even the one that was completed and successful by the Manhattan DA's office. So have I. Is that enough cold water?
- [52:13]
Scott Galloway
Let me just.
- [52:14]
Jessica Tarlov
Scott's depressed. He's going to start crying any moment now that you've.
- [52:17]
Scott Galloway
Well, it is a weekday. Let me just double click on that or push. The only place I would offer pushback is that I think it's a political strategy reminding people that many of the crimes that may or may not being committed right now under the, the prosecution of the full letter of the law probably have a statute of limitations that is greater than three years and nine months.
- [52:34]
Preet Bharara
Yeah.
- [52:34]
Scott Galloway
And there's a political consideration and I've suggested that at some point if we retake control of Congress, that we draft legislation that probably won't pass or be vetoed that says, you know, El Salvador, Keep in mind when the House flips back or when governments change, if we find that you in fact are incarcerating US Citizens, regardless of, of whether you thought it was a good deal with the president that you'll be subject to economic sanctions, I would outline that right now that I think a certain reminder that the America's memory is long and our reach is far might actually temper some of what I believe is extraordinarily unethical at a minimum and likely illegal, that it actually might be effective. But what you're pushing back on is. No, to date it hasn't been, it's been the opposite. It's been ineffective. Is that accurate?
- [53:25]
Preet Bharara
Yeah. But like, you know, hope springs eternal. I will say also, just a couple, just a couple more things. One, people should stand up for the rule of law and call out potential violations and transgressions where they see them. Point one is these guys act like they're always going to be in power. They act like there's never going to be a next administration and it's certainly not going to be a Democratic administration. And that is just not, not so we'll see what happens in 2028. But there is a, you know, mathematically speaking, a 50 chance that he succeeded by a Democratic administration and all the precedents that he has set and his people have set for the threshold and the standard for not just prosecuting but opening up a difficult and aggressive investigation are fair game for the other side. Right. I'm not saying that there should be a tit for tat and that, that if there was over aggressive weaponization of the Justice Department, that the next folks should do the same thing. But people are human beings and people might want to do that. And that's a distinct possibility. If you look at the standard set by the Trump administration for when they see fit to send FBI agents or ICE agents or Secret Service agents to someone's door and look at someone, whether it's Ed Martin, the departing U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia or a cabinet secretary, you know, a cabinet level position like Dni Tulsi Gabbard, the way they're talking about what prompts a criminal investigation and more than that, what, what prompts a declaration that someone is guilty before Being investigated before being charged and before being convicted is quite low. I mean, just take a look at the example of. Since we're in. In the wake of the controversy over former FBI Director Jim Cohn.
- [55:05]
Jessica Tarlov
Seashell Gate.
- [55:05]
Preet Bharara
Seashell Gate, Yeah. That's a great name. I hadn't thought of it.
- [55:09]
Jessica Tarlov
A gift to you.
- [55:10]
Preet Bharara
Thank you. Was it a dumb thing to do? Should he have thought better of it? Should he have been aware of the fact that some people would interpret 86 to mean something other than, you know, get rid of somebody who's in public office? Sure. But you had Tulsi Gabbard, who is a Senate confirmed, considerably important, powerful person in the Trump administration, who says outright, based on that ambiguous Instagram post, that Jim Comey must not only be investigated, but has already declared and decided that he should be imprisoned and should go to jail. You know, tells you what their standards are, and if that's the standard for investigation. There are a whole host of people already, and I would be willing to bet a lot of money, if not all my money, that there'll be further targets on the other side, on the Trump side, who have said and done things that constitute less ambiguous threats. Trump himself has used violent imagery, violent language. Donald Trump's son has used violent imagery and language with respect to, among other people, Nancy Pelosi's husband, who was brutally beaten within an inch of his life. You have other supporters of Donald Trump who have themselves used the 86 term with respect to Joe Biden. So what's fair for one is fair for the other. And so I don't see a problem with people raising the specter of that, given the low, low standard that's being set for investigation and prosecution by the Trump folks.
- [56:27]
Jessica Tarlov
I know Scott is very interested in kind of the personal revenge tour of this or what could be coming down the pike.
- [56:35]
Preet Bharara
I'm not advocating that.
- [56:37]
Scott Galloway
That's not how I would frame it, Jess. But go ahead.
- [56:39]
Jessica Tarlov
No, like, what could happen to these people?
- [56:42]
Scott Galloway
Like, we finally grow up here and start pushing back. We start thinking like them. That tour.
- [56:47]
Jessica Tarlov
That tour. And I'm buying a ticket for that tour, no matter how much it costs.
- [56:52]
Scott Galloway
You've made me defensive, Jess.
- [56:53]
Jessica Tarlov
Sorry, sorry.
- [56:54]
Scott Galloway
Go ahead.
- [56:54]
Jessica Tarlov
I apologize. I feel like this is our first.
- [56:56]
Scott Galloway
I'm calling Preet. I'm calling. My one call.
- [56:59]
Preet Bharara
But if you're calling right now, I'm busy. I'm already here.
- [57:02]
Jessica Tarlov
Well, he's already here.
- [57:03]
Preet Bharara
Take advantage.
- [57:04]
Jessica Tarlov
A couple things that I'm curious about, not so much on the individual front, but I hear a Lot of the courts are doing their job right now, at least when it comes to policy issues, especially in the realm of immigration, where it feels like, like, you know, every level from local judges up to the Supreme Court are saying, no, you can't do this. Right. You can't be using the Alien Enemies act, etc. How would you rate the level of pushback or effectiveness that we are seeing from the courts right now? On the policy front, I think pretty.
- [57:35]
Preet Bharara
Good, but it depends on, on how you're grading them. It's like saying, you know, a math teacher is holding ground by telling a student that two plus two does not equal five. Right, Right. Yeah. We should applaud that in a Norwellian environment in which there are schoolteachers teaching and accepting an answer of five being the sum of two plus two. Judges saying otherwise are doing a great job and it's important. But let's not lose sight of the fact that we're in a crazy time when people have to explain that we're at a crazy time when the Supreme Court that's loaded with conservatives, three of whom have been appointed by Trump himself, have decided, you know, not literally, not so fast. If you're going to deport someone, you got to look at what the law says. And Supreme Court case after Supreme Court case has interpreted the Constitution to mean there's got to be some due process. It doesn't have to be a full blown trial like we're being scared with, but some due process to make sure that you got the right person and the person is deportable and is deportable to the place where you're saying, and it's got to be more than 24 hours. So, you know, that, that I think is a good sign and I don't mean to, to denigrate it or downplay it at all, but it's a little bit like two plus two equals five. And it's refreshing in a black is white, fake news, up is down universe for people to say, no, you know what, math is math and the Constitution is the Constitution. It's good.
- [58:56]
Jessica Tarlov
Good. We have some good news. I'm just curious, I imagine you're still close with, certainly in touch with people still at SDNY or from your, her former life. How do people who are in the business of doing justice, which is what your book was called, feeling right now about getting up and going to work and figuring all of this out in the Trump era.
- [59:19]
Preet Bharara
Yeah, there are two sides to the coin. I still think it is the case that the massive work being done by federal prosecutors in the country and Department of Justice lawyers, whether in Washington, in or in the various U.S. attorney's offices, is apolitical, continues apace, whether it's violent crime prosecutions or fraud prosecutions and the like. You know, there are different priorities and emphases that Pam Bondi has put forward in various memos since she started. But the bread and butter of the office is probably the same now with respect to certain fraud prosecutions and investigations that get a lot of outsized attention, like of people who are or may be in the president's ambition it or who are elected officials. Maybe it's a little bit different and everyone can feel unhappy, even if it's not one of their cases, if they think there's a thumb on the scale or they think that people are being unduly harassed. I think there's a certain amount of trepidation on the part of a lot of people at the Department of Justice. But I still think that the majority of folks are just keeping their heads down and doing their job, even if they're not so thrilled at what's going on at the top.
- [60:28]
Scott Galloway
So I have a question that requires more political judgment and legal expertise, although it does involve the law. And you referenced earlier, Jess called it Seashell Gate. I love what Yuval Noah Harari said that democracies thrive on trust while dictatorships are built on fear. My sense is this is a perfect example of that, that this will be swatted away under any sort of responsible legal scrutiny, you know, free speech. I just think this is a ridiculous attempt to intimidate and create an atmosphere of fear such that people do not speak out and they silence any criticism of the president.
- [61:09]
Preet Bharara
Yeah.
- [61:09]
Scott Galloway
What are your thoughts around that notion, Preet?
- [61:12]
Preet Bharara
I think that's exactly correct. I've been saying for some time that the only logic behind, or at least one of the principal pieces of logic behind bringing completely ridiculous, stupid, unprecedented, unconstitutional two plus two equals five claims, which is what Trump has done under the Alien Enemies act under these executive orders against law firms. And there's a whole bunch of other issues along these lines as well. They're doomed to failure. Nobody on the right or the left or the middle who is schooled in the law or wears a robe, really, with very, very, very small exceptions. Think otherwise. Birthright citizenship is another that I left off the list. But the point is to have the fight, to have the political debate and to chill the actions of other people with the law firm executive orders in which my firm was a subject. The point seems to Be. Even though every court that's addressed it has issued an immediate temporary restraining order, one court has issued a permanent injunction, it's not going to fly. It violates the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, various provisions of some of those amendments. The point is to make people think twice. Should I spend time and energy and represent a cause or a person who is adverse to the President of the United States or the president's party? That's just one example. And it goes to exactly what you were saying. If you can broadcast to the world that it may be the case that even if you're born in this country, you will not have the privileges and rights that the Constitution has said from the beginning are due and owing to you, maybe you won't come here. So they're fighting a political battle, a policy battle. They're trying to beat their chests and say, we don't care what the courts say up to a point, and we'll see what happens when we get to that point. We don't care. Our view is the right one. We have the army. The courts don't. And so that is going to have a chilling effect on reasonable people to do that which they have always understood was constitutional, lawful and proper.
- [63:12]
Scott Galloway
So in addition to being a federal prosecutor, you've worked with really prestigious law firms. Yeah, and something that was really chilling and disappointing, quite frankly. And maybe it's been misrepresented in the media, and I'm very open to learning here because I think you have more insight into actually what went down here. So I've been really disappointed in what I'll call this domino of cowardice. And that is corporations have said, okay way. It's easier for, with respect to shareholder value to just give a million bucks the inauguration campaign and pay $40 million for some lame documentary for the first lady and basically just kiss his ass to stay out of his way. I can sort of empathize with that viewpoint. What was even more disappointing, though, was certain really prestigious law firms doing what I would loosely categorize as bending a knee and saying, all right, we'll do pro bono work for the family or we won't take on certain clients. It just seemed so. So such an entire, like, puncturing or rupturing of the legal system and what it's supposed to stand for in terms of justice. Being blind. Am I exaggerating what happened here? Give us your thoughts on the context here and whether I'm being, as always, overly emotional here.
- [64:24]
Preet Bharara
So I want to be careful because I am in the legal firmament. I work for a firm that did not. It's not just your phrase. It's the phrase that Donald Trump uses which makes you more than wince if you're a practicing lawyer or if you're anyone who cares about the rule of law. We did not bend the knee. And I'm very proud of that fact. And I continue to work there as a partner in part because of that fact. I don't want to be impolitic or impolite about saying anything disparaging about the firms that did. In your phrase, not my phrase, in the president's phrase, not my phrase, bend the knee. You can imagine how I might think about that given my first statement. These are tough decisions. There's a lot of force and power on the side of the government. There's a lot of force and power on the side of the President of the United States. I think that what you have said is not outside of the mainstream of thought of people both in the legal profession and outside the legal profession. On its face, as has been evidenced by the court decisions that were rendered very quickly that I mentioned a minute ago, the executive orders are unlawful, unconstitutional, and I always like to add to that un American. They will never pass muster. They'll never be a thing in the future. It's another example of this is 2 plus 2 equals 96. And I think that the better and more correct and more righteous course, not just the right course, but the more righteous course, if we can use that word still in 2025, was to fight. Because these executive orders are, I don't think it's too strong a word to say tyrannical, legal and abusive and should not be allowed to stand. So I'm glad that my firm and some other firms are taking that approach.
- [66:02]
Scott Galloway
And Preeta is much more polite and gentlemanly than I am. The Demand justice site has this article called Standing up to Big Law Cowards. And this is law firms that have pledged almost a billion dollars in free work to Trump. And they include Anno, Shearman, Cad Wallader, I believe the name is Kirkland, Latham and Watkins, Milbank, Paul Weiss, Simpson, Thatcher, Scadden and Wilkie are all firms that have decided to do pro bono work and legal work to appease Trump.
- [66:34]
Jessica Tarlov
And I don't know how much you can say about this from a personal perspective since you're working in this field actively, but how legitimate do you think individual lawyers or firms fears about continuing on with the good work that they're doing are are warranted or justified in this environment? I Have a very good friend who represents undocumented immigrants here, mostly Venezuelans, a lot of Ukrainians. And she's very scared to continue her work as they, you know, set about essentially criminalizing practicing law.
- [67:10]
Preet Bharara
Well, kudos to your friend. I think that's important work. Look, I, I, I think we still live in, in America. We said before that the judges are doing a good job of holding the fort all the way up to the Supreme Court. I think it does take a little bit more courage now and resolve to do that kind of work than it may have taken before. And I don't think we're at the point yet where individual actions will be taken or could be taken. Although, you know, check back with me in six months or 10 months, that work can continue. Certainly it's the case that certain kinds of representations are probably less likely to be blessed and green lighted at firms that have decided to settle with the President. The fear will always exist that you don't want to further upset the apple cart or upset the person at the top of the government. I mean, that's what got you in the soup in the first place. Right. Like my firm, once upon a time, we had as our partner someone I greatly respect, Bob Mueller, former FBI director and special counsel, and had the temerity to hire one of the great lawmen of the past century in our office. That's the thing that put us on the wrong side of Donald Trump. And so there's a natural tendency for there to be a chilling effect if you're going to do things that are going to put you on the wrong side of Donald Trump. So all I'm going to say is good luck to her and all the people who are doing that. You can't let up in the face of that kind of intimidation.
- [68:35]
Jessica Tarlov
Well, she's a huge fan and she's definitely listening, so she'll be excited to hear your encouragement.
- [68:40]
Preet Bharara
Good.
- [68:40]
Jessica Tarlov
One last question. We ask all our guests this. What's one issue that makes you rage and one thing that you think we should all chill out about?
- [68:47]
Preet Bharara
Oh, gosh. I mean, obviously the rule of law stuff makes me rage. Everything we've been talking about, I, I speak, I try to speak in calm, measured tones, but the attacks on law firms enraged me because I'm a member of the profession and I'm an officer of the court.
- [69:03]
Jessica Tarlov
Court.
- [69:04]
Preet Bharara
And it's a manipulation of, you know, the psychology of people who are not just lawyers and officers of the court, but also members of businesses. Right. These are not charities. And, and I hate the fact that Trump and his people are deviously clever enough to put people on the back foot. And again, not speaking about any particular person or entity in particular. What causes me rage is if this were a play or a novel, one of the lessons you would learn from it, that if you have someone who is as devilish and unprincipled and amoral, not just immoral, but amoral, as Donald Trump come to town, the sad truth is that he often, and we've seen this again and again and again, will often reveal the lack of courage, the lack of principle, and the lack of virtue in his rivals. And that is a fact of life. And if this were just a story or an allegory, that would be one thing, but I think about that a lot. His opponents are often shown to be maybe, if not as impure and unprincipled as him, but wanting, wanting. And that's why people who fight back and have the courage and the tenacity to fight back in this environment, like your friend and others, are to be valued and encouraged and supported more than ever before. Oh, and what do we, what, what should we chill out about? Yeah, you know, a lot of the dumb stuff that Trump does in the first term, I tell the story about how I, I, I tweeted after Donald Trump said that the White House was a, or some such derogatory term. Lots of people took offense. Lots of people who were quote, unquote, members of the resistance said, that's, you know, horrific. He shouldn't talk like that. And I posted a tweet back when Twitter had some people on the other side of the fence on it that, you know, of the top 50 things we need to worry about from this president, his insult to the White House is not one of them. And in response after response after response, people said, that's not true. We can multitask. It's all important. It's not. Proportionality is a word that I've been using more lately. You know, attention is limited, resources are limited. I hate the phrase pick your battles, but, you know, order your priorities. He's going to say a lot of stupid shit that can occupy five minutes of airtime. It's not worth the five minutes of airtime. Think about what the kinds of things that you folks are talking about and Scott was talking about earlier, the rendering of people over the objection of actual judges rulings, the distortion and disrespect of the Constitution by the people who keep pointing to the Constitution and say they revere the Constitution. They don't. Those are the things that we need to focus on and keep our eyes on.
- [71:45]
Scott Galloway
Prevara is an American lawyer and former federal prosecutor who served as United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 2009 to 2017. As of 2025, he's a partner at the Wilmer Hale Law Firm. He's also the host and founder of Stay Tuned with Preet Bharara. Preet, I always love hearing from you. And for those of you I, I. It's not easy to make a podcast about the legal profession interesting. And I actually listen to your podcast.
- [72:16]
Preet Bharara
Thank you, sir. And you know what? Guess what? Can I plug something else?
- [72:19]
Scott Galloway
Sure.
- [72:19]
Preet Bharara
As of one week ago today, Stay Tuned with Preet is now on Substack too. As I as I know lots of people are so amazing. Check us out there. Check us out everywhere.
- [72:28]
Scott Galloway
Good. Always appreciate your time, Preet.
- [72:30]
Preet Bharara
Thanks, folks.
- [72:31]
Jessica Tarlov
Thank you.
- [72:31]
Scott Galloway
All right, Jess, that's it. That's it for this episode. Thank you for listening to Raging Moderates. Our producers are David Toledo and Eric. Eric Genicus. I mangled that. I'm sorry, Eric. I'm old. I shouldn't be president, and I can't pronounce the name of all these wonderful new employees we have. Our technical director is Drew Burrows. Only took me seven years to figure that one out. You can now find Raging Moderates. Put my finger on the button. My brain's shrinking. I can absolutely validate. My prostate is the size of a grapefruit. You can now find Raging Moderates on its own feed every Tuesday and Friday. That. That's right. It's own feed. That means exclusive interviews with sharp political minds you won't hear anywhere else. This week, we're talking with Larry Sabato about Trump's threat to democracy. Make sure to follow us wherever you get your podcasts. You don't miss an episode. Just have a great rest of the week.
- [73:19]
Jessica Tarlov
You too.