Trump’s Trying to Squeeze Canada on Trade AGAIN. Here’s Why it Will Backfire

Summary

Podcast Summary: Raging Moderates with Scott Galloway & Jessica Tarlov Episode Title: Trump’s Trying to Squeeze Canada on Trade AGAIN. Here’s Why it Will Backfire
Original Air Date: July 21, 2026
Host Network: Vox Media Podcast Network

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Raging Moderates centers on the Trump administration’s renewed attempt to impose heavy tariffs on Canadian goods, exploring the rationale, economic missteps, and potential fallout. Hosts Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov critique the administration’s approach, spotlight America's damaging use of tariffs as blunt instruments, and highlight the wider geopolitical and economic consequences. The episode also features an interview with Senator Mark Kelly, covering moderate politics, military service, and potential 2028 presidential aspirations.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Trump's Tariffs on Canada: Rationale and Repercussions

• Background Context:
  After the Supreme Court struck down emergency tariffs, the Trump administration falls back on a 10% global tariff under Section 122—but that authority expires July 24, igniting a scramble for alternatives. Trump’s response: 50% tariffs on Canadian goods, including culturally symbolic items like hockey sticks ([01:35]).

• Justifications Cited by Administration:
  Scott Bessant (White House) claims Canadian trade discrimination, especially on dairy and beverages ([02:23]).
  Scott Galloway’s Take: The argument is “pretzeling”—the real trigger was Canada’s removal of U.S. goods in retaliation for American tariffs ([03:04]).

• Economic and Diplomatic Backfire:

  • Tarlov: “It's really hard to push Canadians to the point where they will boycott you ... you have aggravated the nicest people on the planet.” ([03:14])
  • She highlights how Trump’s tariffs are failing: payouts to affected companies exceed tariff revenues, and even the administration admits tariffs aren’t boosting U.S. aluminum supply.
    “They admitted that the 50% aluminum tariffs aren't working. ... It's not working and no one believes you.” ([04:16])
  • Galloway: Tariffs damage American interests far more than Canadian ones, hurting U.S. businesses due to reciprocal tariffs and undercutting our largest export market.
    “Canada buys more US goods ... than UK, France, China and Japan combined.” ([05:42])

• Trade Asymmetry Debunked:
  Galloway explains the U.S. actually benefits more from trade, selling high-margin goods to Canada vs. Canada’s low-margin commodities:
  “If there's any asymmetry ... it wildly skews towards the benefit of Americans.” ([06:26])

• Political Self-Destruction:

  • The hosts compare the tariffs to repeatedly “stabbing yourself in the gut” ([08:56]).
  • Tarlov notes the political whiplash from North America’s World Cup unity to “deep rot” in U.S. leadership, with administration insiders privately worried about poll impacts and midterms ([09:20]).
  • “Liberation Day for Trump was basically the Afghanistan withdrawal for Biden—approval rating went down and never came back up.” (Tarlov, [10:04])

---

Discussion on the UK’s New Prime Minister & Global Cost of Living Politics

• New UK Prime Minister:
  Andy Burnham promises a “cost of living government” ([11:19]), drawing parallels to global struggles with stagnating wages, flat productivity, and repeated leadership shakeups ([12:24]).

  • “Anyone who is winning an election is saying the same thing about cost of living. The question will be who can actually fix it.” (Tarlov, [12:24])
  • Galloway argues UK populism is weak sauce unless accompanied by actual productivity reforms and rejoining the EU ([13:38]).

• Brexit as an “own goal”:
  Galloway: “At some point there's going to need to be a leader that says, we screwed up with Brexit, we need to reincorporate.” ([14:28])

  • Tarlov floats “Backsit” as a popular platform given surging Brexit regret ([17:49]).

---

Interview: Senator Mark Kelly (Arizona)

Major Topics:

1. The State of Moderates & Party Dynamics

   • Kelly reflects on the growing economic anxiety fueling political extremes and why moderate voices matter ([22:27]).
   • “If you're a young person in the country today, what opportunity do you have to buy a home? ... That's not in the world of possibilities for them.” ([23:11])

2. Legislation for More Male Teachers & Mentors

   • Bipartisan bill to recruit and train more male teachers, and expand mentorships for young men ([25:22]).
   • “Young men and boys need good male role models. ... We need more male teachers.” (Mark Kelly, [25:22])

3. The Case for Public and National Service

   • Galloway asks about the type of person suited to military service ([26:54]).
   • Kelly: Service is transformative for individuals, not just the nation; mandatory national service, through programs like AmeriCorps or caregiving, would strengthen civic fabric ([31:09]).
   • “It doesn't have to be serving in the military ... it could be caregiving ... I think it would make us a better country.” ([31:09])

4. Foreign Policy: The Iran War

   • Kelly criticizes Trump’s “flailing” strategy, lack of plan, and overreliance on unqualified advisers.
   • “Air power is not the solution to strategic problems. ... If the thing you're doing is not working, do something else.” ([34:40])

5. Presidential Ambitions

   • Galloway (joking and serious): “Raising $25M and giving $10M to other candidates is a precondition for running for president…” ([35:12])
   • Kelly, methodically: Still undecided, driven by data, family, and the facts—not by lifelong ambition ([36:12]).
   • “Some of these people who run for president have been thinking about this since they were in the third grade. That is not me.” ([36:12])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Tariffs and Economic Policy:

  • Galloway: “…the first ballot hall of fame head up your ass decision … would be a pretty elegant way to do that.” ([05:26])
  • Tarlov: “This is the height of absurdity ... now on a monthly basis, they are paying more out to companies that suffered from the tariffs than you’re taking in from revenues.” ([04:30])

• On U.S.–Canada Relations:

  • Galloway: “Why would you decide to stick up the middle finger to your largest customer over and over and over?” ([06:15])
  • “This is absolutely baffling how we could be this stupid … taking a country that's simultaneously our largest customer, our largest ally ... and deciding they're our biggest villain.” ([08:31])

• On the Political Climate:

  • Tarlov: “There’s a deep rot in this man … where he was clearly enjoying himself … to then say we’re going to hit you with a 50% tariff feels even more insane.” ([09:20])

• On UK Politics:

  • Galloway: “Britain keeps changing prime ministers because it’s easier to replace the CEO than fix the business model … the disease is stagnant productivity.” ([13:38])

• Senator Mark Kelly Interview:

  • “The 1% now owns as much of this country as the middle class. Think about that for a second. That is not a healthy place.” (Kelly, [24:10])
  • “Air power is not the solution to strategic problems. … At this point I would suggest we just stop killing people.” (Kelly, [34:40])
  • Kelly on a possible presidential run: “I haven’t made a decision yet, but I do things rather methodically.” ([36:12])
  • Tarlov: “Gabby would be an incredible first lady … your example in service and also in love and humanity is an incredibly important one.” ([37:58])

• Closing Reflections:

  • Galloway: “…the most accretive thing about his [Kelly’s] presidency would not just be that he seems like a reasonable guy … but that he wouldn’t be in our goddamn face every day.” ([41:40])
  • Tarlov: “…his fight with Pete Hegseth is the stuff of social media dreams … he’s not scared of anything.” ([42:11])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [01:35] — Start of Canada tariffs discussion
• [03:14] — On Canadian retaliation and Trump’s missed off-ramp
• [05:26] — Economic analysis on trade, impact of tariffs
• [09:20] — North American World Cup juxtaposed with tariff escalation
• [11:19] — New UK Prime Minister, cost of living politics
• [13:38] — Galloway on UK’s productivity & Brexit
• [22:27] — Start of Senator Mark Kelly interview (moderation and party dynamics)
• [25:22] — Bipartisan legislation for male teachers/mentors
• [31:09] — National service discussion
• [34:40] — Kelly on Iran, foreign policy, and Trump administration
• [35:12] — Discussion of Kelly’s presidential prospects
• [41:40] — Reflection on what type of president Mark Kelly would be

---

Tone & Style

The episode retains the hosts’ signature sharp, candid, and analytical tone, blending quick wit with substantive, fact-driven argument. Both Galloway and Tarlov are direct and often sardonic, especially in skewering policy failures and the dramatic swings of U.S. and allied politics.

---

For listeners or readers new to the episode, this summary covers the key political and economic debates, provides critical color and context, and surfaces the most memorable exchanges from an episode that interrogates the consequences of reactionary trade policy and the role of moderates in a polarized era.

Transcript

[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

[Mark Kelly]

paint finish and satin or what that

[Scott Galloway]

clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app. Download Today Megan Rapinoe Here this week on A Touch More the Beautiful Game, I am talking with US Women's national team in Denver. Summit captain Lindsay heaps about her journey from Denver, Colorado over to Lyon, France and now back to Denver and her hopes for 2027 as the U.S. women's National Team captain. I'm also weighing in on the biggest moments and controversies from the World cup quarterfinals. Check out the latest episode of A Touch More the Beautiful Game wherever you get podcasts and on YouTube.

[Mark Kelly]

What does the ideal presidential candidate look like?

[Scott Galloway]

Donald Trump has shown you that to be not boring, to be a showman, can get you really, really far in this environment. I'm Preet Bharara and this week the

[Mark Kelly]

Atlantic staff writer Mark Leibovich joins me to discuss the latest chaos out of Washington and what to expect from the upcoming elections. The episode is out now.

[Scott Galloway]

Search and Follow Stay tuned with Preet

[Mark Kelly]

wherever you get your podcasts.

[Scott Galloway]

Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Scott Galloway.

[Jessica Tarleth]

And I'm Jessica Tarleth.

[Scott Galloway]

Please make sure to tune into Raging Perspective tomorrow at noon Eastern time. Jess and Aaron will be live streaming on substack and YouTube every Wednesday. Make sure to hit subscribe to get access to all of our content and help our show reach more folks. All right, let's bust into it. The Trump administration is racing toward a deadline. After the Supreme Court struck down Trump's emergency tariffs in February, the White House fell back on a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act. But that authority expires July 24, leaving the administration scrambling for new ways to keep tariffs and the revenue they generate or the revenue they lose. One place they could find it Canada. Trump signed orders Monday imposing 50% tariffs on a range of Canadian goods, including wine, cement and get this, hockey sticks. That one hurts. Here's Scott Bessant explaining the rationale.

[Mark Kelly]

What is the trade discrimination that is at hand cost causing the president to

[Jessica Tarleth]

hike tariffs here on Canada?

[Scott Galloway]

Well, I think it's something that we've discussed with our Canadian colleagues for a long time and they haven't done anything about it. They're highly discriminatory on dairy products. U.S. u.S. Alcohol and beverages have been Canadian shelves. So this is really just reciprocity in terms of what they've done to our great US companies. You got to feel bad for Scott

[Jessica Tarleth]

70 the talking points mid, mid sentence.

[Scott Galloway]

Let me pretzel myself. They're taking our stuff off of. What he missed was they took our stuff off of shelves after we decided to declare war on our ally.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Your thoughts are just, you know, it's like really hard to push Canadians to the point where they will boycott you like what they did with Kentucky bourbon. But we've found the way, right? Like you have aggravated the nicest people on the planet basically. And such a good opportunity to take the off ramp. Right. Like the Supreme Court is giving you the way. Right. Just take the win, you know, and then walk away. Maybe the tail between your legs a little bit. But this continual obsession with a tool that can be useful, used in small increments. Right. For specific reasons, to make it this blunt instrument that is not eliciting the kind of results that you want is the height of absurdity. And I, I say it, I guess, about a lot of things that this administration does. I just don't get it. Like now on a monthly basis, they are paying more out to companies that suffered from the tariffs and you're taking in and revenues, it's double in double in June is what they saw. And they're quietly doing these updates to the White House website. Like yesterday they admitted that the 50% aluminum tariffs aren't working. They wrote the domestic production and supply of primary aluminum, which is critical to the U.S. economy and defense industrial base is still in insufficient supply. It's not working. It's not working. And no one believes you that we have been taken advantage of brutally at this level by Canada, we or Brazil. And they certainly don't believe you when you say that you have a problem with forced labor practices. Right? Like we haven't done anything about what China does. And we talked about this yesterday, like there are a million people that live in a concentration camp there. Nobody cares. So it's just hard to take them seriously. And usually Scott Besson is decent in these interviews, but the pretzeling was notable on that one. So they'll probably have to send Jameson Greer, the trade representative in to clean up there. But no one likes the tariffs. Even the staunchest Trump supporters like a Stephen Moore or Maria Bartiromo, people who are, you know, economically literate understand that this is not a Good idea.

[Scott Galloway]

Yeah. And granted it's a high bar, but if you were looking for the first ballot hall of fame head up your ass decision that weakened or reduced the size of our potential market to sell our goods into meanwhile, or while raising the cost of goods for households, sclerotic, inconsistent, irrational tariffs on our largest customer would be a pretty elegant way to do that. What people oftentimes don't realize is that Canada buys more US goods. They're a bigger customer of US products than uk, France, China and Japan combined. We obsess over how much China buys. Canada dwarfs China in terms of being our biggest customer. And if you're think of America as a business we, why would you decide to stick up the middle finger to your largest customer over and over and over? About $900 billion in annual goods and services cross the border and every tariff ultimately ends up in a reciprocal tariff which decreases the potential market for American business products and increases the cost of the products we bring in. And their claim is that trade with Canada asymmetrically benefits Canadians that they've been taking advantage of us. Here's the math. They sell low margin products into the US timber, unrefined oil, low margin, call it 20 to 30 points of gross margin products. They sell $100 of timber into us, they hold on to 20 or $30. We sell iPhones and services. We sell Apple and JP Morgan things that have 60 plus points of gross margin. In addition, every dollar of gross margin that American companies receive from Canadian purchases of American goods translate to 20 or $30 of shareholder value. Apple trades at a PE of 31. Timber and oil companies trade at high single digit multiples. So when we sell a dollar of iPhones into Canada, an American company will recognize about $12 in shareholder value. When they in turn sell a dollar of timber into the United States, they get about $2 in shareholder value. If there's any asymmetry in the trade with Canada, it wildly skews towards the benefit of Americans. And to give it reminds me of that Animal House line where Otter says to his fraternity brother or the pledge who was stupid enough to let the brothers borrow his parents car and they trash it. He says you fucked up. You trusted us. That is effectively how Canada must feel right now because 80% of their export market was going into the US. Why? Because they fucked up and trusted us and thought okay, we share the largest undefended border in the world. We look, smell and feel like each other. We like each other. We go to Disneyland, you watch Maple Leafs and Raptors Games. We followed you into every war or were there before you, including World War II or Afghanistan or Iraq or Gulf Wars 1 and 2. We thought we were close friends and now you are basically taking a knife and going for our jugular. But before that stabbing yourself in the gut. This is, it is just, it is absolutely baffling how we could be this stupid that we have taken a country that's simultaneously our largest customer, our largest ally, perhaps our most loyal ally, and then all of a sudden for no reason decided that they're our biggest villain.

[Jessica Tarleth]

The transition from, oh my God, we put on this incredible World cup as North America, right like this. This was the unified front to the day after we hand over the trophy to the Spanish team. And there's, I think unilaterally good vibes and good press about what just transpired. To then say we're going to hit you with a 50% tariff feels even more insane like that. There's a deep rot in this man. And this man, I'm talking about the President of the United States brain that he could go from such a high point moment that where he was clearly enjoying himself right on that reception line with the Canadian and Mexican PM and President respectively. So that transition feels like a bit of whiplash. And I was interested in the FT reporting on the new tariffs where apparently officials within the administration are very concerned about this because they know that Liberation Day for Trump was basically the Afghanistan withdrawal for Biden, where the approval rating went down and it never came back up, that they dug this hole that they can't get out of. So it'll be interesting to see if they have any sort of sway with him on this. They're paying attention to the polls, they're looking at the midterms. Laura Ingram last night used her monologue to say Republicans need to get out of the war in Iran. The gas now on a national level above $4. You can't win a midterm under these circumstances. So the, the battle is beginning with the internal pushback, I guess, against President Trump as he sits there gleefully signing away our economic future and pushing Mark Carney even further into the loving arms of Europe.

[Scott Galloway]

We have a new prime minister, our seventh in just a decade. In Britain, Andy Burnham is officially the new Prime Minister. During his first cabinet meeting today, he declared, we need to be a cost of living government. President Trump took to Truth Social to support Burnham's plan to accelerate oil and gas exploits, exploration of the North Sea, but also called the UK a poverty stricken disaster. Let's listen To a bit from Burnham yesterday on his first day.

[Mark Kelly]

In the 1980s, Britain took some wrong turns. Political power was centralized, economic power privatized. Large parts of the country de industrialized and they still haven't recovered. Many feel as though they're still in decline and they don't have the ability to turn things around. And that's why we will change politics and we will take power out of here and carry it into every postcode in the land so that they can do more and in doing more, build a new economy.

[Jessica Tarleth]

It's kind of amazing how no matter which country you tune into, they're having the same conversations right now. Right. Like anyone who is winning an election is saying the same thing about cost of living. The question will be who can actually fix it. I did love that he started off his first day as Prime Minister at a homeless shelter making breakfast for the folks who are there. And this is a cause near and dear to his heart. He donated 15% of his salary every year when he was mayor of Birmingham to homelessness charities. And his big thing is that he's going to end rough. They call it rough sleeping our homelessness. And the first policy that he's enacted is a VAT cut for domestic energy bills. So a cost of living focus all to the good. I just, I wonder if you're coming seventh in a decade, how do you think you would be thinking about it? Because there's a part of me that thinks you just, just have in the back of your mind, I could be another 6 or 12 month notch, right? Or I could really be the one to break this streak and this pattern and deliver for Britain's and I mean it certainly seems from his speech that he wants to do these big things and to make this massive change.

[Scott Galloway]

But yeah, if it feels to me like that is all weak sauce and populist, blah, blah, with no actionable strategy. And Prime Minister Starmer, Keir Starmer had nice vibes, said the right things and couldn't outline what he stood for, principles or actual programs that were going to enact. And Britain is desperate for the type of. First off, he just historically gets it wrong here. The 80s and 90s were actually arguably boom periods. I've been going to the UK since the 70s. They want to return to the glory of the 60s and 70s when they were just a meddling power in what felt like an inexorable downward spiral. It was Thatcher and I would argue Tony Blair with strong private property laws that attracted a lot of outside capital. And London had a boom and if he wants a demon in terms of a moment, he should go to Brexit, which arguably was the greatest own goal in the history of Europe. I mean, at some point there's going to need to be a leader that stands up and says, we screwed up with Brexit, we need to reincorporate, we need backsit and we need growth again. Britain is a case study on what happens when a country loses productivity growth. UK productivity growth has been essentially flat for a decade. GDP growth is projected below 1%. Real wages are about the same as they were before Brexit. Public services are under pressure despite historically high tax burdens. Britain keeps. It keeps changing prime ministers because it's easier to replace the CEO than fix the business model. And the political instability isn't the problem here or the disease, it's the symptom. The disease is stagnant productivity and somebody is going to have to actually take an unpopular view and say Brexit was stupid. We need to reintegrate into the EU and expand our market while lowering the cost for our consumers. We need to jumpstart growth or invest in technology or find, find ways to attract more business and more capital here. And also the non dom tax policy is just sort of so indicative of England and Europe. In Europe they'd rather be more equal, even if it comes at the cost of the whole. And in the us, loosely speaking, we're comfortable with inequality as long as, as a whole we're doing better. And I would argue that's no longer happening, that inequality has gotten so out of control that it's actually now eating its own tail and costing the whole. But the non dom tax policies that were enacted, I think it was 24 months ago, they want to tickle the sensors of the upper middle class and understandably say the rich should pay their fair share. And if you've, if you've relocated from Hong Kong at some point you need to help, you need to pay your fair share. That theoretically makes all the sense in the world. The problem is the treasury is going to collect less receipts this year than they did before because these millionaires are mobile. And just as they chose to relocate to London, they're now choosing to relocate to other places. But the European and British people would rather feel good about themselves and about these principles than, than have the revenue for the NHS and food stamps for the poor. This is just the story of Britain, just a series of own goals, whether it's IPOs that they decide are not ethical, so they find other markets to go public. In whether it's an inability to maintain tech companies because of regulation. It's such a tragedy because the UK has all of the underpinnings of what could be one of the most robust economies in the world. Incredible intellectual property, fantastic. Some of the best educational institutions in the world. An incredible culture. And culture does compound people. People do move to a place they want to live in and yet they can't get out of their own way. And cost of living, he wants to call himself the cost of living. Government cost of living isn't solved by speeches, it's solved by productivity. And there's absolutely no programs he's proposed that would result in capital formation or, you know, something resembling an increase in productivity.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Let's give him more than 24 hours.

[Scott Galloway]

Fair enough.

[Jessica Tarleth]

So we'll see what comes. I mean, big shakeups in the cabinet as well as to be expected though, you know, keeping some like the Home Secretary is staying on. So we'll see what comes. I thought that the, you know, change in approach to oil and gas was notable. President Trump likes it. He's already on Truth Social saying people are dancing in the streets because the new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, has stated that he'll be opening up all the way the invaluable North Sea oil. We'll see what that is. Keir Starmer, at least by the time he was leaving, had figured out how to deal with Trump. It will be interesting to see what Burnham does there, but I love the idea of him coming out and saying we're going to try to unravel Brexit. I like backs it, but however you want to do it, I think it would be such a relief to the Brits to hear that there is someone focused on this now that it's, I think about 60%. It was like 53% regretted it right after it happened. And I think it's up to 60% now and be hard pressed to even get a good conservative defense of it. And the implications. There are obviously immigration issues in all of these countries and they're paying attention to it. But I think that that would be a very smart hill to die on if that's what happens or just, you know, something to anchor yourself in and make you very popular from the get go. But a new era,

[Mark Kelly]

there's a civil war happening in the Democratic Party. And if there's one place that that's playing out most clearly, it's in Michigan. A crucial Senate primary battle in Michigan that could determine control of Congress in November. Congresswoman Haley Stevens and Abdul El Sayed, a progressive Democrat and a moderate Democrat. In the end, it all comes down to the dreaded E word electability. But in Michigan, one candidate is trying to turn the electability concept on its head. If we think that voters walk around asking, where do I sit on some theoretical left right spectrum, then in theory the bulk of the voters are somewhere in the middle. The problem though is that that model hasn't really accurately predicted our politics for

[Scott Galloway]

a very long time.

[Mark Kelly]

If Michiganders wanted moderate, why would they have elected Donald Trump twice? Dr. Abdul El Sayed is making the progressive case for America first, and he's trying to settle the Democrats ideological battle in the process. This is about the many versus the money. I'm Esteed Herndon and this is America. Actually, catch us every Saturday on YouTube or wherever you get your podcast. 1, 2, 3. I'm stand up comedian John Marco Cerese.

[Scott Galloway]

And I'm actor penis model Russell Daniels.

[Mark Kelly]

The downside is our podcast where we bring on guests to talk about how miserable their lives are because let's face it, things are not getting better. Every episode we talk about what's wrong with our lives. Our guests lives the world, but in a fun way. Bottom line is you're going to walk away feeling better about your life. We've had so many cool guests. Caleb Huron, Busy Phillips, Stavros Halkias, Laverne Cox, Hasan Piker, Alana Glaser.

[Scott Galloway]

I promise you're going to have a good time.

[Mark Kelly]

Now on the Vox Media podcast network,

[Scott Galloway]

this is the Downside. We're joined now by Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona. So Senator, thanks for being here on Raging Moderates.

[Mark Kelly]

Good to be here.

[Scott Galloway]

So today's primary day in your state. We're now 105 days out from the midterms. What are the Trump endorsed Republicans running on your neck of the woods? What are you expecting to see tonight?

[Mark Kelly]

Well, we've got primaries on our side, primaries on their side. There are some Trump endorsed candidates, two House members. I think they're trying to out maga each other here and then see if they can get through a general election, which I find very unlikely. Our governor Katie Hobbs has done a good job. She's solving the problems that the people in Arizona are dealing with. But we have House primaries as well. There's a candidate that I endorse in CD1, Marlene Galan woods, who I think is the right person to solve some of these really tough problems that we have in this country. She's an experienced journalist, so she has experience holding people accountable, politicians accountable locally in General, But I think it's the right moment for somebody like her to serve in the United States Congress.

[Scott Galloway]

The kind of, the big story in New York has been the rise of the democratic socialist wing of the party. Are you seeing, and to be fair, there's that, that feels like. While the energy right now is on the Democratic side, are you seeing any sort of similar trends in your home state, Senator?

[Mark Kelly]

We haven't seen a ton of it. Not like, you know, what we've been seeing in other places though. I think when you see that in places like New York City and, you know, other, you know, maybe in the, in the Midwest, I think you're seeing a reaction to just the challenges that regular people have right now and that the government just isn't stepping up to meet their challenges. And what we see with this administration is they're looking out for the rich people, for billionaires, for Donald Trump's friends, for the people who have written the million dollar check to be a member of Mar a Lago or the bigger check to fund his ballroom. Those are the people that get taken care of. And hardworking middle class people are just left behind. And if you're a young person in the country today, I mean, what opportunity do you have to, let's say, buy a home? Last October, I took my 30 year old daughter to see the house that we lived in when I was 30 and she was one. She doesn't remember the place. It's near the Navy base where I was stationed. Four bedroom house, nice neighborhood, end of a cul de sac. We knock on the door. The guy I sold the house to in the 1990s, he was still there and he recognizes me, excited to see me. We go in. I think your show the Five was on on Fox, but he was happy to see me. We walk around the house and we get in the car and the first thing my 30 year old daughter says to me is, she says, dad, I don't understand. I mean, you were able to buy that house in that neighborhood and you were my age and you were in the Navy. Yeah, like, what the hell happened? I mean, that's not for, for her and her friends and her husband. People who have done everything right, that's not like in the world of possibilities for them. And you can multiply that, you know, a million times across the country. So this government, and it's not just Donald Trump, it's governments before them have failed, hardworking people. And the 1% now owns as much of this country as the middle class. Think about that for A second. That is not a healthy place. So I think what you're seeing is a reaction to the reality of the lack of opportunity in our country today.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Senator, it's great to have you been obviously following your work for a while, and I do want to dig into that, a lengthy Atlantic profile, which was an incredible read on a number of levels. But I want to talk first about your new legislation. This is, you know, right up Scott's alley. Could you talk a little bit about the legislation and how you formed the bipartisan group to get this done? Because you don't hear that term very often that something bipartisan is actually happening.

[Mark Kelly]

Well, it's two specific pieces of legislation, and it's actually directed at solving the problem of too few men in the classroom. I had a male teacher in the fifth and sixth grade. There weren't a lot of male teachers back then either, but there were more. It was like 35%. Now it's 25%. The number's going down. Young men and boys need good male role models. I had them in my life, coaches, teachers. When I got in the Navy, my department head or commanding officer, I think one of my first commanding officers in a Navy squadron was a great role model for me. His name was Terry Toms. So I've had great role male role models. So we need more male teachers. So one piece of legislation provides training where you can be paid to get training so you could become a teacher for men. Similar thing in mentorships, having programs like AmeriCorps as an example, prioritize the recruitment of men. There's a long list. I mean, the list of young boys or boys and young men signed up for mentors is much longer than the one where. Where girls are signing up for mentors. So we have this lack of mentorship. So it solves those two problems. The one thing on the, the. The mentorship side, not the teaching side, is bipartisan. We're working on getting Republicans on board with the other piece of legislation as well.

[Scott Galloway]

We have a lot of young people especially. Well, and a lot of young men and women who listen to the show. And I saw that for the first time, the armed services met its recruiting targets for the first time in about a decade. I'd just be curious if when someone approaches you, Senator, and says, you know, I'm looking for something to do, quite frankly, I'm looking for purpose. I'm looking to advance my skills. I'm looking for a place to be, a place to make some progress as a young man or woman, and they Say, what kind of person is the armed services suited for? And just as importantly, what kind of person is it not suited for? What advice do you give to young people regarding service?

[Mark Kelly]

Well, I think public service is so important, and it's not just about helping your country. I think often it helps the individual to have that experience, to do something and be involved in something that's larger than themselves. You know, I experienced that in my 25 years of active duty. You know, multiple jobs that I've had in the, in the United States Navy, including, you know, going to war for our nation in 1991, the first Gulf War. So I think. I think people get something out of that kind of service. I encourage people to go into the military. I am not a supporter of a lot of the actions that the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, is taking within our military. I find a lot of it very troubling and concerning, but I still encourage people to serve. I was recently talking to a young guy who was about to graduate from Yale University that because he spent some time in England, he was thinking about maybe going into the British military. And I told him, hey, we need you. We need people like you in the US Military. As a US Citizen, he's got dual citizenship, and I convinced him to stay on the path. He's about to go to infantry school. He just finished basic graduate of Yale. We need smart people who are mission oriented and mission focused. That's the kind of folks we want in the military. One problem we have now in recruiting, and you do say the numbers are up, and that's the numbers reported by the military right now. And I do to some extent believe that one of the challenges we had previously in recruiting is, you know, a lot of, you know, MAGA kind of folks and Republicans were just over inflating this whole wokeness within the military. I never saw that. I think it's a bunch of crap. But I think it did to some extent, extent depress, you know, recruitment. So the recruitment numbers are up. That's great. We want people to serve. One of the challenges we have is how many people are eligible to serve in the United States military. We got folks that can't pass the physical, can't pass the medical, and can't pass the written exam because they can't read well enough. You have to be able to read at a decent level to pass the asvab, which is the exam to get in the military. And one way we can solve that, and we've tried to address this before, I've brought it up in the Armed Services Committee a number of times is pre K, because if you go to pre K, you're more likely to be able to read in the third grade. And if you can read in the third grade, you're probably going to be able to read at a high school level and graduate from high school.

[Jessica Tarleth]

That's a really good point that you're making about depressing military signups in the era before this. And it is a good thing, obviously, when people are signing up and want to serve our country. And I certainly share your critiques of what's going on at the Department of Defense, by extension of what you were just talking about, what service did for you and for so many others. What do you think about a system of mandatory national service for the country? Not necessarily that you have to go into the armed forces, but, you know, some give back function and some, you know, call it our gap year or our, you know, our two years before you go off to college where you do something that supports the country.

[Mark Kelly]

I think we should do it whether it's. And it doesn't have to be serving in the military, that that should be one of the options. It could be AmeriCorps, it could be Teach for America. It could be maybe we create a program where people go into, like, caregiving. We've got a lack of, you know, well trained, sufficient, you know, caregivers for an elderly population. So that's something we could do as well. And what I've noticed about this is it does seem to have strong bipartisan support, but we've never been able to get the appropriate legislation across the finish line. But, you know, thank you. I think it's a reminder that we need to continue to focus on this because I think it would make us a better country.

[Jessica Tarleth]

We're also deporting a lot of our best caregivers with revoking the TPS programs. For instance, the Haitians are incredible caregivers. I'm curious, what do you think is going to happen with the war in Iran?

[Mark Kelly]

Hard to say. I mean, because Donald Trump got himself into a position he's finding it very hard to get out of. We don't know for sure why he started this thing. Initially, he said it was about regime change. We're going to bomb for a few days. There'll be new. A new government. They're going to be friendly to us. He doesn't listen to people around him, and I don't think he thinks very strategically when it was obvious to him that that wasn't. Wasn't going to happen after the first few days. Then he transitioned to this is about enriched uranium and nuclear weapons. The Iranians were not racing to get a nuclear weapon. That they say about. Well, that he says about in two weeks they were going to have a nuclear weapon. That is not true. Then it became ballistic missiles, then the Navy. So he is flailing on this and either he didn't hear it or they didn't tell him or he didn't take it seriously that the Iranians can shut down the straight of Hormuz pretty easily right now. So now he finds himself in a spot where he's got to evaluate like bad choices. Probably the only deal he can make that they would accept is something that was better than the one he tore up in 2018. And I don't think this president's going to want the criticism he's going to get from that. That he tore up the JCPOA, it had enrichment below 4%. I think he would like to go back to where we were in February. The problem is it's very hard to put the ship back in the donkey. And you can't like just, you can't just like undo this stuff, right? So now he could walk away from it, but then they have control of the Strait of Hormuz. The other option is he could escalate this and invade Carg island or do some ground invasion over the Iranians. Here's the problem. Presidents like Donald Trump and people that go into this government often think you drop a bomb on something and that solves your problems. Air power is not the solution to strategic problems. It just isn't. And the addition of ground troops, we'd be seeing thousands and thousands of dead Americans. I don't think that's the answer either. But I'll tell you what definitely isn't. The answer is having his son in law and his buddy negotiate this thing. Find people that have experience. It's not just this coincidence that the best person in the country to negotiate it happens to be his son in law. We need experienced and serious people doing this. And then the other thing I think he could do would be figure out what levers you have to put more economic pressure on him. And at this point I would suggest we just stop killing people. I know Pete Hegseth, he's made it very clear he likes to kill a lot of people. He ran around on a stage saying maximum lethality, we're going to kill people and setting records on bombing stuff. But that is not working. So if the thing you're Doing is not working. Do something else.

[Scott Galloway]

Senator, you've become one of the Democratic Party's top fundraisers, raising roughly 25 million and contributing about 10 million to other candidates, which shows a remarkable ability to raise money, which is a precondition or a criteria for running for president. I'm trying to think of an elegant way to get to whether or not you're running.

[Jessica Tarleth]

Just do it. Just say it.

[Scott Galloway]

Follow me here and see if this works. As someone who is constantly mentioned on a short list of people who, who would get a decent amount of support to run for president, invite us into the decision process of someone who is obviously called on a lot, has the ability to raise money, is seen as a viable candidate, has, you know, you're out of central casting to, to be a candidate. What is the decision process that someone goes through when evaluating, obviously, what is a pretty, a significant decision for you and your family? Like, let us. If to the extent you're willing to let us. What is your decision process around this?

[Mark Kelly]

Well, usually I give a very short answer to this, and I know you're not looking for that because you asked a long question I haven't decided, which I'm famous for. I'm a science, data, facts person. I'm a little bit unusual in this whole political world. You know, I think there's two or three engineers in the United States Senate. I'm one of them. You know, I've always made decisions based on what are the facts, you know, what are the numbers show. I care a lot about numbers. So we're, we're taking a look at, you know, whether there's, there's a path, whether I'm the right person for the job right now. And then the family thing is a big piece of this. You know, I, I take this stuff very seriously. I, I really do. It, it is a lot different than making a decision to run for Senate, which, by the way, is not something I, you know, I had, you know, thought of my entire life. People used to talk to me about it after Gabby was injured and I was living in Arizona. But it wasn't something I really took seriously until I had this young woman who came up to me who had a kid with down syndrome, and she told me she thought, she thought her kid was going to lose his health insurance. And she asked me if I would consider running for the, for the U.S. senate. So I told her I would. And four months later I was a candidate. So it's, it's kind of like that. I, I think some of these people who Run for president, have been thinking about this since they were in the third grade. That is not me. You know, I wanted to go to. You know, I wanted to be the first person to walk on the planet Mars. I failed miserably at this. I didn't get close. There is still time. So I haven't made a decision yet, But I do things rather methodically.

[Scott Galloway]

Jess, last question for the Senator.

[Jessica Tarleth]

It's not really a question, more of a statement. I just wanted to say that I think that Gabby would be an incredible first lady if that is a decision that you choose to make. And I think that your example in service and also in love and humanity is an incredibly important one for us here in America and globally. And I'm just very appreciative of what you two have done for the country.

[Mark Kelly]

Thank you so much. I really appreciate that. Thank you.

[Scott Galloway]

All right, well, let's leave it there. Amongst other things, Senator Mark Kelly succeeded at the Highest level in three elite professions. Navy combat pilot, 39 combat missions during Operation Desert Storm. NASA astronaut who flew four space shuttle missions in command of the final flight of Endeavor, and a US Senator from one of the country's premier swing states. I always describe you as one of the few people, I think, the only person in the Senate who has captained a vehicle at 30,000 miles an hour. Senator Kelly, we very much appreciate your time today.

[Mark Kelly]

Hey, thank you, guys.

[Scott Galloway]

Jess, thoughts on Senator Kelly as a

[Jessica Tarleth]

presidential candidate worthy of being on that stage for. For sure. I like that he said, you know, I'll look at the facts and I'll look at the data. And the data is that this guy wins a state that we need to win the same calculation. We'll be going through Josh Shapiro's mind, right? Like, there's no. No route without Pennsylvania or very limited. So. Liked him a lot. And we're, you know, we co host a show called Raging Moderates, and that's what Mark Kelly is. So it was very cool to have him. I've wanted to talk to him for a long time. What were your thoughts?

[Scott Galloway]

Well, I'm a big fan of the centers, and I'm really excited about this legislation to try and get more males in the teaching profession. I think that it's just nice to see. I think the dialogue has come so far, and it's nice to see our elected leaders actually proposing specific programs and legislation to address the issue instead of acknowledging it or not acknowledging it or turning it into a culture war. So I'm appreciative that the senator is a person who Listens and then says, all right, what can we do about it? I think that if he doesn't ultimately become the nominee, he's probably going to be number one or number two on everyone's short list to be their VP pick. Because of the reasons you stated military service, swing state America has a tendency to go in a very different direction from a personality and political leaning standpoint when it goes from one president to the other. So military service. I think the most accretive thing about his presidency would not just be that he seems like a reasonable guy who has, you know, good relationships in the Senate, but that he wouldn't be in our goddamn face every day. I feel like the biggest tax cut would be an emotional tax cut where we didn't have to hear from the fucking President every goddamn day on everything. It just feels like a pollutant that we're gagging on. And he doesn't strike me as someone who needs, who's always jonesing for the camera or needs to comment on the Taylor Swift tour. So I think that would be. I, I, I hope and wonder if the American public is ready for literally a 180. Not even from a political standpoint, from just from a complexion or a personality standpoint. The difficult thing is that, I don't know, Senator Kelly strikes me as someone who just does not have the desire to be big on social media. And that's just not him. And I wonder if he has what I'll call the social media or the new media. Riz, he's not prone to dramatic statements. He's not prone, he's not good with 15 second sound bites. He's the kind of guy who's a thoughtful, measured adult and I wonder if our media ecosystem has left that behind or if that person can, can, can be a small donor recipient. That's my only, that's my fear around handicapping the race, that on one end maybe America will be very much drawn to a different type of person. But I wonder in this era of a clip economy if he's, if he's cut out for it.

[Jessica Tarleth]

I think he'll be cut out for it if he has a great editor who can splice this stuff up. I mean, and just in talking to us, he dropped a couple well timed bullshits. I mean, his fight with Pete Hegseth is the stuff of social media dreams, right? That is not only, you know, pointed and accurate criticism, but that he has the bona fides and the swagger to back it up. I mean, I referenced that profile in the Atlantic of him, which is worth everyone's time profile. But it's all about how this guy's not scared of anything. Like, how do you think that you're gonna scare the. The pilot. Right. The combat veteran pilot or the astronaut, or the guy who was told that his wife was dead and had to live with that for 20 minutes and then wait for a week for her to wake up and is still being asked things like, do you think America is ready for a disabled first lady? There's a tough guy thing going on with him. That and how much is bottled up in that person, how many dimensions there are to his level of expertise and to his personality. I think he could thrive. It will not be as inherently oozing out of him as, like a Gavin Newsom, but I think that people who are looking for swagger will see it in Mark Kelly and he will be an interesting entrant if he is going to. On the, you know, more moderate side of the field, squaring off against, if it's AOC or whoever, will be the progressive standard bearer.

[Scott Galloway]

Yeah. And I now wish I brought it up, but it just seems so insane and it seems pretty obvious. And I would argue Fox does this, that they assess in the Republican Party, assess who the most likely or most viable candidates are for president. And then it's one thing when Fox attacks them every day, as they did with Secretary Clinton, as I believe they're doing with Governor Newsom now, but when the administration goes after basically a combat veteran who is. Whose life sort of is synonymous with service, and accused them of sedition, which is a crime punishable by death. I'm just really shocked that more Republicans and veterans didn't come out and say, okay, this has gone way too far. You are probably following this more closely than me. What did you see as a reaction there?

[Jessica Tarleth]

I saw, you know, Republicans treating Trump with kid gloves, but also not piling on. Right. Because it was the group, the Six, the Seditious Six, are all veterans. So I think that they were basically like, this is going to be better if we back off of it. And you didn't see the usual, oh, he's got a point. They shouldn't have done it. And it was coming. I mean, we don't talk about that story that much anymore. But this was right after the taking down of the fishermen in the Caribbean. Right. That we were blowing up Venezuelan boats and claiming that they were narco terrorists and that the admiral in charge of Southern Command left his job, Resigned. Right. Yeah. So I think that there are moments where certainly the veterans in the Senate and the House on the Republican side think that it's better to say nothing to get it to go away, rather than inflaming it into a bigger kerfuffle. But it would have been interesting to ask him also what kind of private support he was getting during that, because they got tons of death threats. Alyssa Slotkin was saying that her dad, a week before he died, was swatted, actually. But he said he wanted to come back, so we'll ask him next time.

[Scott Galloway]

Sam.