Hegseth: Unleashed and Unhinged

Summary

Talking Feds – Episode Summary
Episode Title: Hegseth: Unleashed and Unhinged
Date: March 16, 2026
Host: Harry Litman
Guests: David French (NYT columnist, former JAG officer), David Graham (Atlantic staff writer), Juliet Kayyem (Harvard Kennedy School, Homeland Security expert)

---

Episode Overview

This episode dissects the rapidly unfolding Iran war, critiquing the Trump administration’s lack of strategy and growing domestic/political fallout. The roundtable highlights the dangerous disconnect between official rhetoric and reality, U.S./Israeli policy divergence, growing oil and global security crises, and the alarming rhetoric and mismanagement from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. In the second segment, the panel shifts to Republican efforts to pass the SAVE Act, a voting restriction bill, and its unintended political consequences.

---

Major Discussion Topics & Insights

1. War in Iran: Disarray and Lack of Strategy

Timestamps: [05:01]–[15:14]

• Opening Diagnosis:
  Host Harry Litman frames the current U.S. posture towards the war as "flying blind," with confusion about both objectives and exit strategy ([05:01], [15:14]).

• Unprepared National Security Process:
  Juliet Kayyem explains that it wasn’t just a lack of knowledge, but willful blindness—White House disregarded inconvenient intelligence, only listening to those who would confirm escalation ([06:08]).

  • Quote: “The guy on the couch knew that this was a possibility. … The material was there, it was silenced. No one confronts the President with anything that conflicts with it.” — Juliet Kayyem [06:08]

• Regime Change as a Fuzzy Rationale:
  David Graham highlights the inconsistency of the administration, noting Trump didn’t even do his usual “salesmanship.” There’s a policy void: “I'm really confused by that sort of contrast … he hasn't done the salesmanship and he hasn't done the policy.” [09:27]

• Divergent U.S./Israeli Interests:
  David French draws a clear line between U.S. and Israeli objectives:

  • “What we're doing is sort of pursuing an Israeli plan... Israel wants just to hammer this regime ... but all of the things that don't impact Israel as much do impact us.” [10:16]
  • U.S. faces oil shocks, destabilized allies, potential refugee crises—unintended, uncontrollable knock-on effects.

• Procedural Short-Circuiting, Political Damage:
  French stresses that circumventing Congress is not just a “technicality”—it’s constitutionally corrosive and weakens the U.S. war effort at home ([13:48]–[15:14]).

  • Quote: “A military that is fighting in defiance of the will of the people ... is extraordinarily weak. ... What Trump did by just springing the war upon us was actually create conditions for failure.” — David French [13:48]

---

2. Lack of Coalition, Gulf State & Global Fallout

Timestamps: [17:01]–[19:50]

• Estranged Allies & Unmanageable Fallout:
  Juliet Kayyem: Gulf states now more angry with U.S. than Iran; Europe scrambling for carve-outs on oil passage. “I think I get [Iran’s] strategy much more than I get ours.” — Juliet Kayyem [17:01]

  • Iran’s goal is deterrence and demonstrating that regional commerce takes priority over confrontation.

• Recommended Sources for Regional Perspective:
  Kayyem recommends Al Jazeera's YouTube stream and outlets like WSJ, the Atlantic, and CNN for diverse viewpoints ([19:28]).

---

3. Historical Parallels, Perils of Overreach & Phantom Strategy

Timestamps: [19:52]–[24:23]

• History Lessons (Iraq 1991 & 2003):
  David French invokes past U.S.-Middle East interventions, fearing a repeat of “pound the military, create chaos, no follow-up support, and then resentments/terrorism grow anew” ([19:52]).

  • Quote: “If a miracle happens and the Iranian people rise up ... I will be the first to say, well, it worked. ... We are not creating the conditions for that outcome.” — David French [22:03]

• Lack of Support for Internal Opposition:
  Graham and French note any hoped-for Iranian uprising is doomed without tangible U.S. backing—“You're going directly to the slaughterhouse.” (Graham [23:38], French [23:58])

---

4. Trump’s Contradictory Rhetoric & Operational Consequences

Timestamps: [25:35]–[27:54]

• President’s Volatility:
  David Graham explains that Trump’s market-driven public statements (“the war is over,” “no it’s not”) sow confusion. This unpredictability cripples both negotiation and trust: “It's very hard to imagine how you negotiate an exit strategy with someone like this who can't tell you what it is.” [26:20]

---

5. Escalation? Boots on the Ground & Hegseth’s War Rhetoric

Timestamps: [27:54]–[38:28]

• Military Escalation Limits:
  David French: Large-scale invasion is unlikely; Special Forces or limited Marine actions (possibly targeting Iranian Gulf islands) are possible. However, no comprehensive mobilization is happening ([27:54]).

  • Compares Trump’s “common sense” bluster to failed realpolitik and prior administrations’ more restrained approaches ([30:19–31:02]).

• Danger of Underestimating Iran:
  French warns, “A South American strongman is not the same thing as an Islamic revolutionary movement that’s been taking hold for 40 years. … They do not care about their losses.” [31:54]

• Domestic Unpopularity:
  Graham points out this conflict is shockingly unpopular from the start, unprecedented in modern U.S. war history ([33:55]).

• Hegseth as Defense Secretary – TV Host Gone Rogue:
  Segment ridicules Hegseth’s drumbeat of threats, TV-style bombast, and “paranoid” management, e.g., banning photojournalists ([35:40]):

  • “It's almost like this guy is a TV host pretending to be a cabinet secretary.” — David Graham [35:40]
  • “Every fear you had about him that would have justified a vote against him has come true.” — Juliet Kayyem [36:42]

• Civilian Casualties & Legal/Moral Standards:
  French details the breaking down of JAG review, civilian protection mechanisms, and moral dangers, linking leadership posturing to catastrophic errors like the (“hundreds killed”) recent civilian strike.

  • Quote: “When you protect, you're not just protecting civilians' innocence, you're actually protecting your own troops from the moral injury of a catastrophic mistaken attack.” — David French [42:09]

• AI’s Role and Calls for Accountability:
  Juliet Kayyem emphasizes that AI-driven targeting makes human control and legal review even more essential ([44:58]).

---

6. SAVE Act, the Filibuster, and the Internal GOP Power Struggle

Timestamps: [48:19]–[56:40]

• SAVE Act: Political Weapon or Self-Own?
  David Graham calls Trump’s push to pass restrictive voting laws a fix to a non-existent problem, but notes the filibuster is still a major obstacle ([49:27]):

  • “It's really amazing to see Trump putting so much weight behind a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.” — David Graham [49:27]

• Texan GOP Civil War, Trump’s Endorsement Stakes:
  French and Kayyem discuss the fierce Cornyn vs. Paxton rivalry, noting it embodies the post-Trump GOP power struggle ([50:14–54:39]).

• SAVE Act’s Unforeseen Impact:
  French argues the new ID requirements could backfire by disenfranchising traditional Republican constituencies (non-college-educated and married women), not just Democrats:

  • “Most college educated voters have the proof of citizenship … Most high school educated voters do not. … I keep watching this debate feeling like, am I taking crazy pills?” — David French [54:56]

---

7. Closing and Light-Hearted Finale

Timestamps: [56:40]–[End]

• 5 Words or Fewer (final segment):
  Panelists joke about what Trump’s next Cabinet cosmetic innovation will be:
  • “Gilt leafed tanning beds.” — David Graham
  • “I heart Trump T-shirts.” — David French
  • “Turtlenecks for the ra.” — Juliet Kayyem
  • “Trump comb-overs, regardless of hair.” — Harry Litman

---

Notable Quotes by Timestamp

• Kayyem: “The fact that they say they were caught unaware, it's not that … it was silenced. No one confronts the President with anything that conflicts with it.” [06:08]
• French: “What Trump did by just springing the war upon us was actually create conditions for failure by not going through the constitutional process.” [13:48]
• Graham: "He hasn't done the salesmanship and he hasn't done the policy. So I'm not even sure what we're doing here." [09:27]
• Graham: “It's almost like this guy is a TV host pretending to be a cabinet secretary.” [35:40]
• French (on Hegseth’s leadership): “Every fear you had about him that would have justified a vote against him has come true.” [36:42]
• Kayyem: “I think never before has the Pentagon leadership been so ill prepared for the changing nature of warfare than at this moment…” [44:58]
• French: “Isn't this, isn't this something that could really hurt this new Republican coalition?” [55:44]

---

Key Takeaways

• The U.S. entered a major conflict with Iran with no clear objective, public rationale, or legal process—a fact the panel finds both dangerous and unprecedented.
• Distinctions between U.S. and Israeli interests have been ignored, potentially to America’s grave detriment.
• Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is highlighted as dangerously out of depth, undermining both military professionalism and civilian protections while engaging in reckless public posturing.
• The SAVE Act, intended to restrict “non-citizen voting,” is likely to suppress the GOP’s own base—underscoring a blindness to shifting political realities.
• The episode features sharp historical analogies, blunt legal warnings, and vigorous calls for accountability, all delivered in a lively and candid style true to the roundtable’s signature tone.

---

For Further Listening/Reading

• Skip to [35:06] for the Hegseth character deep-dive.
• For the politics and SAVE Act segment, start at [48:19].
• For Middle East policy, lack of preparedness, and coalition confusion, the discussion is richest from [05:01] through [24:23].

---

Summary prepared for listeners seeking a comprehensive, timestamped overview of the episode and its key themes, moments, and debates.

Transcript

[Sponsor Voice]

This episode is brought to you by Cologuard. Do you know what's really scary? Not screening for colon cancer when you turn 45. The cologuard test is non invasive, requires no special prep or time off work, and ships right to your door. In just three simple steps, Cologuard takes the scare out of colon cancer screening. If you're 45 or older and at average risk, ask your healthcare provider about the Cologuard test. Cologuard is available by prescription only. Learn more or request a prescription [e-mail]

[David French]

screen and as the world is seeing, they are exercising sheer desperation in the straits of Hormuz.

[David Graham]

Something we're dealing with.

[David French]

We have been dealing with it and don't need to worry about it.

[Harry Littman]

Welcome to Talking Feds, a roundtable that brings together prominent former federal officials and special guests for a dynamic discussion of the most important political and legal topics of the day. I'm Harry Littman. We're now two weeks into a war with Iran and nobody in the administration seems able to provide a straight or consistent answer about what we're doing there or what the end game looks like. The basic confusion on these fundamental points already is leading to to calamitous results on the ground and at home. Meanwhile, Pete Hegseth has taken to the podium at the Defense Department, delivering daily rations of maniacal and alarming threats of death and destruction to Iran. The Pentagon has gone so far as to ban photographers for taking unflattering shots of the former Weekend Fox host who is now the rage filled face of the conflict with Americans attention on the war. The Department of Justice and Republicans around the country are working to get a leg up on the midterms by leveraging a problem voting by noncitizens that doesn't really exist. Trump, for his part, continues to obsessively press his goal of passing the SAVE act, even if it requires blowing up the filibuster in the Senate. To discuss the chaotic fallout here and abroad from a war in which we seem to be flying blind before turning to the state of play at home and Republican efforts to rig the vote, we're really pleased to welcome three great analysts of US Politics and national security, and they are David French, a columnist for the New York Times. He's also a former JAG officer who earned a Bronze Star in Iraq. Since leaving full time law practice back in 2015, David's become a prominent voice in American politics and American conservatism. Thank you for your service, David, and for joining Talking Feds.

[David French]

It's always great to be with you, Harry.

[Harry Littman]

And I think I gotta go with David G. That is David Graham, a staff writer at the Atlantic. He led the magazine, celebrated reporting on Project 2025, and that turned into his first book, the Project. Previously, David won the Toner Prize for excellence in national political reporting for his coverage of the 2020 presidential election. Thanks for returning to Talking Feds, David G. And actually, if you don't mind, can you just say something and David, you say something right after. So people already have the David F. David G. Dichotomy down.

[David French]

Sure.

[David Graham]

I'm.

[David French]

I am the.

[David Graham]

The younger and more handsome David. No, that's not true. I'm the younger and less handsome David.

[David French]

That's unquestionably true. Like, I'm not going to contest that at all.

[Harry Littman]

Yeah, all right.

[David French]

No, I've got the face made for podcasting, and until it went all video, like, what's that? I know, it's ridiculous.

[Juliet Kayyem]

Don't get me started. Don't get me started.

[Harry Littman]

Don't get who started? A voice from the sidelines. I'm going to go with David G. And David F. Until the audience gets comfortable. But the third fans know her by first name only. Don't even need a last name. Juliet Kyem, that is the faculty chair of the Homeland Security program at Harvard's Kennedy School, a senior national Security analyst at cnn, a contributor to the Atlantic magazine, and it really doesn't begin to cover her kind of worldwide efforts and consultation, especially in security matters. Juliet served as Obama's Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental affairs at dhs. Always great to welcome you back, Juliet.

[Juliet Kayyem]

I'm so glad to be back and so glad to be back with the Davids. Although now that you said David G. Do you guys remember that sax player Kenny G? Now, I've never seen that out of my head. So.

[David Graham]

Really?

[Harry Littman]

Well, what about Ali G, the most famous G of them all?

[David Graham]

I think I'm going to go into

[Harry Littman]

a Sacha Baron Cohen kind of riff here and see if you know when it happens. All right. But for now, we're less than two weeks into a war that seems to be increasingly spinning out of control, exposing more each day. What's become a textbook case, I think, of administration unpreparedness for going to war. The biggest development just in the last 24, 48 hours is Iran seeming to try to have a minefield enforced stranglehold on oil coming out of the Strait of Hormuz.

[David Graham]

That's 20% of the world's oil I

[Harry Littman]

always come back to the lack of preparedness. So there's very impressive reporting by CNN saying the President's national security team just didn't take this possibility into account. Juliet, your expertise here, how the hell can that be? It's always been Iran's big advantage. And what does the lack of preparation say about the administration?

[Juliet Kayyem]

Yeah, I mean, I think the reporting is good, but I think it's not accurate in the sense that I think the verb is wrong. It said that they were caught unprepared. I think it was. These documents have existed forever. The White House had a destination and what they were willing to listen to in terms of the planning had to satisfy that destination, which is that we were going to go to war. The guy on the couch knew that this was a possibility. And the fact that they say they were caught unaware, it's not that that material was there, it was silenced. No one confronts the President with anything that conflicts with it. And then part of this is about the process of the national security decision making process, which in this case included two non Senate confirmed and people one not technically in government. Witkoff and then the son in law, Jared Kushner, who I think by all reporting that we've seen did not understand, literally like did not understand the science of what the Iranians at least say they were willing to offer at that stage. So that's the first part. All I'll say here is, I mean I started this two weeks ago writing that because I was very skeptical. The problem with this war is that the US thinks it's going to be one in the air, but the Iranians know it's going to be one in the waters. And they played that well. The commercial impact and the oil impact are ones in which now you're seeing the Gulf states really begin to bulk and not wanting to be dragged into this war. You're starting to see some reporting as of today that the European countries are trying to get sort of carve outs for their needs out of, out of the canal and we have no good way to open it that doesn't include something much more dramatic in terms of presence. I'll finally say on the preparedness side. We'll get into this later. The idea that you would not prepare the American homeland for both state sponsored terrorism, let alone incitement, is a dereliction of duty. It's one thing to deploy the military, maybe you have a reason to do it, but this is, as of today, neither the FBI, DHS or the Counterterrorism center have issued what would be a normal bulletin to state and locals. This was my world. State and local security has not issued a bulletin to them on the increased threat.

[Harry Littman]

And not to mention the president did nothing in advance to kind of prepare the.

[Juliet Kayyem]

That's right. The selling. Right.

[Harry Littman]

So effing Juliet puts it encapsulates it as we thought it would be one in the air. They knew it would be one in the water.

[David Graham]

Now there's also, of course, the ground. And Hegseth, we'll get to him later, has begun making some noises there. But it does seem one of the shifting rationales for the whole operation is regime change, which is just an impossibility. Seems to be the lesson of modern warfare without a heavy on the ground presence. Your thoughts about one, the point Julian makes about the apparent comprehensive lack of preparedness in public prefiguring, but also what is possibly the way out at this point?

I mean, I think something that's really amazing is how Trump seems to have been both rushing into this and also dragging into it. So, you know, we sat there for weeks while people were being slaughtered in the streets in Iran with rumors the government was going to act. And so it's clearly something he's been considering for some time, but he didn't act in time to do anything about that, then did take action, but without, like you and Julia were saying, without laying out a rationale for the public, without laying out for himself, it seems like a clear goal and without laying out methods for doing it. And so I'm really confused by that sort of contrast between, you know, I think often we talk about Trump sort of setting aside the policy thing in favor of communication and salesmanship, but he hasn't done the salesmanship and he doesn't. Hasn't done the policy. So I'm not even sure what, what we're doing here. It's really tough to get your arms around.

[David French]

You know, this is also where I think we have to be very clear that American interests here and Israeli interests are sharply divergent. And if what we're doing is sort of pursuing an Israeli plan, which seems to be what we're doing in reality is the Israeli plan is just to hammer this regime as hard as you can hammer this regime. And look, the actual attacks themselves, the actual military effort against the Iranian navy, the military effort against Iranian air defenses, the military effort against Iranian missile launchers appears to have been pretty successful so far, without question. However, here's where Israeli interest and American interests are very different. And you can actually see this in the polling. So you have about 80% support for this in Israel and you've got about 35% support on average in America. Both of these publics are acting rationally in their own self interest. So Iran has been directly attacking Israel and by proxy for a long time it has tried to anaconda squeeze, you know, create this big anaconda around Israel from Hamas on the west, Hezbollah in the north. You had the Houthis down in the southeast. And Iran's weapons could reach Israel directly, reach out and touch Israel directly. And also so Israel has a very large interest in just beating down Iranian military capacity. Just if they do nothing else but wreck Iranian military capacity for the time being, they're fine, that's good, that's okay with them. Just like when, when Syria was imploding around Israel, that was fine with Israel. It's the Syrian refugees weren't coming into Israel and Assad was weakened, he was fighting this internal battle. So if the Iranian regime falls to pieces, if there's chaos, if there's mass refugees, all of these things, that doesn't really impact Israel. What impacts Israel is the diminishment of Iranian military capacity. So that's why that's, it's very rational for them to hit Iran's military capacity. But all of the things that don't impact Israel as much do impact us. And so if you have a migrant crisis, for example, we've seen how that can destabilize Europe, destabilize our own allies. If there is an economic crisis related to oil or we start to lose some of the close relationships we build in with these Gulf states as our interests diverge, all of these things negatively impact us without. And look, I can make a case for military strikes against Iran. Like, I mean, easily. When I was in Iraq, we lost men I served with to Iranian EFPs, explosively foreign penetrators. We lost people to Iranian backed militias. We encountered Iranian soldiers on the Iraqi side of the border. Okay, so I am no friend of this regime. There are circumstances where you could have taken a case for a military action to me and if I was a senator or representative, I would have voted for it. But I would have wanted to know what's the objective here? What's the exit strategy? Can you accomplish the objective? Are you controlling for all the negative effects, all of the things that you do when you go to Congress, when you also you would be rallying the American people? As Juliet was saying, hey, this could mean greater terror risk at home. Are you ready for that? Let's get ready for that instead, for the first time in my life, we've had a full blown war sprung on us, sprung on us by a president.

[David Graham]

Okay.

[David French]

And a lot of people treat this, which makes me almost, you know, bonkers that it's just a technicality. I mean, it was just a technicality. And when now we're in the fight now, you got to back it all up. Well, wait a minute. This is not just a technicality. This is core to our constitutional structure. And by the way, it's also core to the effectiveness of our military. A military that is backed by a unified democratic people, by a people unified through a democratic process is very strong. A military that is fighting in defiance of the will of the people, its staying power, its ability to commit all of that is extraordinarily weak. And so in many ways, what Trump did by just springing the war upon us was actually create conditions for failure by not going through the constitutional process. And I, I just wish supporters of this conflict, which, look, I, there are many circumstances where I could support military action against Iran, but I wish supporters of this conflict would know that stampeding through the Constitution actually inhibits the war effort and actually is helpful to Iran that we do this, that this was just done like this. And so this is not a technicality. We can just sort of move on from and say bygones, you know, let's just move on.

[Harry Littman]

And I just want to add here, I know, Julia, you're about to come

[David Graham]

in, but as the lawyer, it's more

[Harry Littman]

than not a technicality.

[David Graham]

It is.

[Harry Littman]

We start with the fact, I know

[David Graham]

you might support it. That was, by the way, David F. As Senator David F. But it's patently illegal. Also, you're not allowed to in many different levels just take out a leader as pernicious. And I agree, as the supreme leader was that we have a definite meet the new boss, same as the old boss problem with his sons now having ascended. But this is a way in which separation of powers and legal niceties often sound as sort of abstracts to the American people. But the point you made, David, is so very strong in a actual consequences way, not not having prepared the ground and not having advised Congress a little sort of phone call to the speaker and not having an exit strategy. You know, politically and militarily, they all dovetail here. And I just want to add on your Israel point. Yeah, Israel now is going after Hezbollah up in the north. In a way, they really seem to have the wherewithal to do all good for Israel. But if at the end of the day. Because again, we don't know. No one said what we're doing there. They've said literally seven different things. If at the end of the day, there's no regime change, there's no impact on the nuclear program. And what there is and what there only is is we just bomb the shit out of them for several weeks and then they start the laborious process of rebuilding. What does Donald Trump bring home from that whole effort, especially in upcoming midterm elections?

[Juliet Kayyem]

I just, for one, just appreciated both of you mentioning Lebanon. You know, my family's from there. I mean, it is. You've got almost a million people who are now have been displaced once again. Is this our interest or Israel's interest? We can debate that. But also just the destabilization. What was promised as a sort of quick strike war, not war to a regional, not war, is now having global consequences. I believe it's worse than it was before the war. I mean, I can't see the objectives being better. I mean, for one, the allies are mad and we've sort of pissed everyone off in this excursion. But what you have to remember that Iran's strategy is known. And we could have, and we should have known this. It's not nuclear. This is not about nuclear anymore. It is about deterrence. What Iran is doing now is, in my mind, with the impact on the global economy. They don't need a lot of people dead. They just don't. What they need to do is they need to ensure that this doesn't happen again. I don't know our strategy. Honestly, I don't know our strategy. I know their strategy. And this is their. And this is their strategy. They are trying to tell the United States that the Gulf region likes their commerce more than it hates Iran. And I believe that to be true. I mean, I think. I don't think this coalition holds, if it even is one. Israel's been trying to claim that the Gulf states are getting involved. They're not getting involved. And so I'm just, you know, I think I get their strategy much more than I get ours.

[Harry Littman]

I mean, they're getting involved a little bit because Iran is attacking them, in part, not having the same wherewithal to do. Right?

[Juliet Kayyem]

Well, yes.

[Harry Littman]

I mean, there are 12 countries that

[David Graham]

have been, one way or another, including

[Harry Littman]

Russia, including Turkey, have.

[Juliet Kayyem]

I would say what I see out of media from the Gulf is a lot more anger at us about the sense of alienation, abandonment, lack of coordination, and lack of effective execution or exit strategy of what we did. I mean, they made a deal with us. I mean, our bases are there for a reason.

[David Graham]

Great point.

[Harry Littman]

And by the way, little public service announcement because I've also been trying to find stuff from news agencies in the Middle East. Where do you go and where can people the podcast go to get the actual viewpoint of people there?

[Juliet Kayyem]

I stream al Jazeera on YouTube only because I want to see how it's playing because that's obviously a golf centered thing. And then, I mean, I actually think the Wall Street Journal has been, to be honest, has been incredible. I mean, you know, the Atlantic has been incredible. I actually think cnn, this is when CNN rises to the occasion with some of their reporting.

[Harry Littman]

David F. Did you have something you wanted to add?

[David French]

Yeah. I mean, I think we know the American strategy. It's just to absolutely beat the crap out of the Iranian military. That's what the strategy is. And, and we could do it. We're doing it. But here, here's what haunts me. Everyone is going to O3 in Iraq. You know, the trampolism we felt when the statue came down in Baghdad and on April 9, 2003. And then that was just the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end. I actually have a different model in my mind that worries me and that's 1991 Iraq. So in 1991, we did accomplish our fundamental mission, which was ejecting the Iraqi army from Kuwait. So that was an absolute. And we did more damage to the Iraqi military and security services in Desert Storm than we'll probably do in this conflict because we don't have half a million troops on the ground. Right. Like the way we did then. But then what happened after 1991? After that? What happened is we encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up and they did. The Kurds and the Shiites, they rose up against Iraq. But we didn't have any boots on the ground in Iraq. We were just sort of hoping that this revolution would take off. And instead, even the depleted army of Saddam Hussein was more than a match for a bunch of angry civilians. He committed horrific acts of genocide. I mean, you know, 100,000 plus deaths. By some measures, we then end up with no fly zones. We end up with an attempt to assassinate President George H.W. bush. We have Saddam Hussein becomes the foremost financial supporter of the second intifada. He's taking potshots at our planes all the time. So it wasn't like between 1991 and 2003 when the invasion happened, that Saddam was contained in his little box in all of this. That he was a terrorist supporter. He was engaged in active measures to destabilize the Middle East. So my concern is we'll just pound Iran. We can do that.

[Spirited Debate Host]

We can.

[David French]

We have been doing it. And then at the end of this, you know, let's say we then turn to the Iranian people without any support and say, have at it.

[Harry Littman]

Right.

[David French]

They get massacred again. Just again. And then Iran, under the control of, you know, the. The IRGC firebrands, becomes rapidly rearming, continues to foster terror around the region and in the United States. Because we have to remember, these guys do revenge differently. They don't necessarily always do immediate retaliation. So, you know, think about the bombing of Libya in the mid-1980s, followed years later by bringing down the Pan Am flight. The Libyan government brought down a Pan Am flight years later in retaliation. By the way, isn't it depressing how many incidents we can go back to in the Middle east where a seemingly successful military action led to some really vicious blowback? So that's what we're dealing with. And so, again, look, if a miracle happens and the Iranian people rise up and they overthrow the IRGC and the clerics and all of that, and they establish a democracy, well, wow. I will be the first to say, well, it worked. It worked. We are not creating the conditions for that outcome. If that outcome occurs, in many ways, it will be in spite of the conditions we're creating, not necessarily because of the conditions that we're creating. And so that's the problem is we're doing something in a pattern that we've seen before. And I'm reminded of the arrested development meme where it says, oh, did this work for them? Those people? No, but it'll work for us.

[David Graham]

Remember, there was the rhetoric, oh, well, they will just rise up spontaneously. Think about, even if there is a robust fledgling opposition in Iran, who's going to march forward first with nobody, no support, no strategy, no nothing from the United States? You're going directly to the slaughterhouse.

[David French]

However, after 30,000 people have already been killed.

[David Graham]

Right, right. These are people who are already exhausted by attempting to rise up against the regime and who have the example of Iraq in 1991 to warn them again, taking action now. So if that's the assumption the administration is making, I think it's very shortsighted.

[Harry Littman]

Hey, everyone. Harry here. As you may know, I'm extremely picky about advertisers and sponsors and do very few ads, but I'm making an exception because I've been really impressed by Buy Quince Clothing. I am not what anyone would call a clothes horse, but I do really care about comfort and their clothes are super comfortable. I took the Traveler 5 pocket pants with me on a recent trip and I basically wore them every day. They were totally comfortable and my family said they looked good as well. Refresh your winter wardrobe with quince. Go to quince.com talkingfeds for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q U I n c e.com Talking Feds, free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com TalkingFeds David G. Let me stay with you because you had a great piece in the Atlantic. You've been killing it, I must say. In the Atlantic.

[David French]

Thank you.

[Harry Littman]

That made Trump. This was in your characterization. But he seems nearly senile in his bobbing back and forth about different reasoning. He said first, I think, and this is the point you're making, the war is very complete pretty much. Then he says, no, we've got a lot more to do. Here's my question for you, Davidji, and for everyone. Do these rhetorical lurches by Trump have any kind of operational effects? We see them having effects, for example, in the stock market, price of oil, et cetera. Or is it your sense? It's just, again, my term, not yours, but Trump bloviation. That is really just a kind of sideshow.

[David Graham]

I mean, I think he is spooked by the markets and he's responding to that. And you see him making these statements, you know, when oil starts going up, when the markets start going down, that's when he comes out and makes some indication that this is wrapping up, even if you've got other members of the administration saying opposite things. And then, of course, he contradicts himself sometimes within hours on these things. And so I think it is bloviation, but it's bloviation that's driven by a little bit of his fear. I think when you think about where would be an exit to this, this kind of talk makes it really hard to do that. Like, let's say, imagine the Iranian regime wanted to wrap this up. They want to make peace, but they don't know. They can't rely on anything he says. They don't know what he wants to do because he can't articulate it to himself, to the American people, to members of Congress. He certainly can't articulate it to them. And even if he could, I'm not sure they have a lot of reason to believe him. So it's Very hard to imagine how you negotiate an exit strategy strategy with someone like this who can't tell you what it is. And I think that's going to be a problem. I mean, that's going to be a problem dealing with allies. It's going to be whether they're European allies or allies in the region. And it's going to be a problem dealing with the Iranians. If, for example, you know, the US Decides that they really need to find some sort of negotiated way to open the Straits of Hormuz. Who is going to trust the administration now?

[Harry Littman]

It's the Trumpian problem really. Par excellence, right? All across the board this morning. We tape on Friday, Secretary of War as it likes to call himself, Hegseth more about him. Anon is moving Marines to the Middle East. Any chance of boots on the ground or has that got to be Trump's red line?

[David French]

I do not think you will see a invasion of Iran using the kind of force we saw in Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom. I do think it is possible you might see a Marine incursion onto Iranian held islands in the Persian Gulf potentially. There has been some discussion I've seen about potentially trying to take Kharg island, which is this island very close to the Iranian coast, that is central is key into their oil processing and oil exports. But that island, as I understand it, is within artillery range of the land. It would be just an absolute knockdown, drag out fight if we were to take it. It's very hard for me to see we have not mobilized reserves for this. The movements you would need to do this, the mobilization of American force to do this would have to be on a scale beyond that of Iraqi Freedom, beyond, closer to Desert Storm. And there's just no indication of that. I do think that they may try some boots on the ground, Special Forces or small Marine detachments maybe in the Persian Gulf that could ratchet this up. But like I said, you know, what Trump is doing is he's intentionally rejecting the approach of both of his predecessors, Bush and Obama. Bush tried to control circumstances in the Middle east through essentially main force. In other words, we're removing the regime. We're the regime now. Okay? Obama tried to control what happened through compromise and treaty and agreement. So we can't get everything we want, but the thing that we can get out of this agreement in this treaty is the main thing that we want, which is no nuclear weapons. Trump says a pox on both of your houses. I'm going to try something that again, hasn't worked, hasn't worked in the meantime, JD Vance then goes on with this approach that has never worked before, the way that it's being tried. And then he says, well, the reason why the prior administrations didn't do this is because they're stupid. What now, again, I want to open the possibility. It is within the realm of possibility that the Iranian people could rise and we could have something that happens that is unexpected and unanticipated, but we have not created the conditions for that. It has not worked in the past. And to call the people who've realized that can't work and have tried other things stupid is the height of arrogance. Just the height of arrogance.

[David Graham]

I think this fits with the way Trump approaches almost everything, which is like common sense. And often these things that seem like common sense turn out to be really bad ideas. And I think that's sort of how he's approaching this. It's like, well, look, the Iranian regime is really bad. They've been a consistent thorn in the side of American governments. Like, it's common sense that we should take them out. Like, let's launch a war. And that common sense, like, you know, he's right. The Iranian regime is bad. They have been a thorn in the side, but it actually isn't. There's a, you know, as David's saying, it's not that simple. Like, that's why other administrations haven't done this. And I think that's where this sort of common sense attitude often becomes a problem for them. And we've seen this. You know, this was true on Covid, this is true on tariffs over and over again. Common sense leads them astray.

[Juliet Kayyem]

David F. I want to ask. So, like, you know, obviously I heard about the deployments of the USS Tripoli and the 31st MEU. This is like jaw dropping to me just because, I mean, this is a country of 90 million people. So maybe what you're narrating is right. I mean, it seems to me we don't have an exit strategy. We don't have a diplomatic track. So we're going to do this. How long does it take for them to get there? Do you know?

[David French]

A couple weeks. A week? Two weeks to get in position. But one MEU is a drop in the ocean. I mean, so what me, you roughly, what, 2,200 or so, ish Marines? No, I mean, you can use that to take over an island in the Persian Gulf. That is, that's not an invasion force of a nation of 90 million.

[Juliet Kayyem]

With two weeks from now, two weeks

[David French]

from now, they could easily have a Million people under arms once it mobilizes its own reserves and everything. And this is a regime that. By the way, one of the things that gave me an ominous feeling was when I saw this reporting that Trump viewed Venezuela as a model. Yes. And I'm like, what are we doing here? A South American strongman is not the same thing as an Islamic revolutionary movement that's been taking hold for 40 plus years. They're not the same thing. This Islamic revolutionary movement in Iran sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives in the war with Iraq. They do not care about their losses. They do not care. And by the way, what is one thing that brutal regimes have done forever and ever to rally support? It is to turn an attack on their country into the great patriotic cause. This is, of course, what Stalin did

[David Graham]

when Hitler attacked against the great Satan in this case. Right?

[David French]

Yeah. This is what Khomeini did when Hussein attacked. Now you have their number one enemy. And I really do. I don't think that, you know, not for a minute do I think that this regime is truly popular the way we would measure popularity.

[Juliet Kayyem]

No, no.

[David French]

But I do fear that we overread the amount of the resistance in part because we're kind of biased towards the urban professionals of Tehran and north Tehran and all of this, who are in many ways have been leading some of this charge. And the younger ones, college educated folks, there's a lot of support for this regime in other parts of the country and they're drawing the IRGC from other segments of the society. And so it is not quite the case that you're dealing with a regime that is just all of the people are totally against it now. The people who have the guns are for it. And when the people who have the guns are for the regime, it is very hard to topple it without other people with guns on the ground.

[David Graham]

I know that was a really important indication of where they're going when the sun was put in. That really shows they're going to really hunker down. Okay. You know, there's a whole nother political discussion to have that I think we should have in future weeks. But I just want to add, I was just thinking to David F's points about the aftermath of the war in Iraq and others, the war in Vietnam say we think of those in retrospect as unpopular. But the stunning domestic news to me, besides the spike in oil prices, has been the absolute unprecedented unpopularity of this war, which is it 27%. Even Fox has it at 50%. Every single other war, ones that have Gone into some disrepute in history, started with the surge of patriotism here. It's not. And it can only, it seems to me, spiral down and then at what point is there just a political imperative to avoid electoral disaster by pulling the plug? Okay, let's leave the bigger war effort there. But I wanted to focus a little bit on this phase of the war. In a way, Secretary of War Pete

[Harry Littman]

Hegseth, who didn't make public appearances for a time at the podium, had. Has strode onto the scene and is making these different pronouncements. And man, it just seems like this Manichean crazy doctor Strange love rhetoric promising

[David Graham]

death and destruction from the sky all

[Harry Littman]

day long, saying, we've got it all covered. Well, let me just do it this way. What the fuck? Pete Heg said discussion.

[David Graham]

It's almost like this guy is a TV host pretending to be a cabinet secretary.

[David French]

Yeah. Or something.

[David Graham]

Right.

I mean, David is pointing out the logistical difficulties that would be involved in winning the kind of war that they may have in mind. And this is obviously not a guy with a lot of logistical experience. It's just not his. His. Not his forte. And, you know, listening to him talk, it's really remarkable. The writer John Ganz was. Was saying, you know, if he could bore the Iranians to death, he would do it. It's just a series of cliches. He just strings together these phrases. It's a little bit like watching it an athlete in a post game interview. And it does sound like you. Look at you. Yeah.

[Juliet Kayyem]

I want to thank my mom and God.

[Harry Littman]

We all play together as a team. It's a team effort.

[David French]

Right?

[Juliet Kayyem]

It's a team effort. I don't deserve this.

[David Graham]

But like, then you sort of parse it. It doesn't. It's not clear what he means by any. You know, there's all these fears, no quarter, and so on and so forth. And I hear these phrases. I mean, I don't know if Trump knows what unconditional surrender means when he's demanding it. I suspect that he just likes the phrase. And in some ways, Hegseth is kind of in the same place.

[Juliet Kayyem]

What I like to say about Hegseth is it wasn't that he was a Fox host, he was only a Fox weekend host, and he was an aspiring Fox host. No, he wasn't.

[Spirited Debate Host]

Even.

[Juliet Kayyem]

We don't even get prime time. I mean, if you're gonna choose a Fox host, this is someone who. Every. Every fear you had about him that would have justified a vote against him has come true. But now add on, he is disliked, he is paranoid. He seems paranoid to me. Kicking out photojournalists because you don't like the pictures they're taking of you is just a person who's manic at this stage. Right. I mean, it is. And has not thought through, you know, what is, what is going to happen or how you get out of this. There are cabinet secretaries who I don't like, but you think, you know, they kind of get it. This one, I've seen enough of his press conferences where I think, you know, thank God for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs who's trying in these press conferences with both of them to not contradict while contradicting.

[David Graham]

And it's a little like watching Fauci during the Trump pressers in Covid. Yeah, it's like, how can I sort of modulate this down?

[Juliet Kayyem]

Yeah, yeah. And let me start with the dead service members rather than cnn. Right. I mean that, the fact that he's focused on, I mean, just think about, you're the Secretary of defense in the middle of a war and you're thinking about David Ellison taking over cnn, you know, seven months from now. Right. I mean that's the sign of someone who's, who's I think is just is in his own world and not able to get out of it. And you're seeing a Pentagon, I think, trying to do what it can do under that leadership.

[David French]

Let's just not forget that all of this talk about lethality and stupid ROEs is taking place against the backdrop of arguably the worst civilian casualty incident inflicted by American forces in two generations. Like literally. And look, I want to say right up front, terrible mistakes can happen in war. We don't know all of the circumstances for this strike, but I used to do targeting review when I was in Iraq during the surge in 07 08. It was a big part of what I did. I would review targeting packages, requests for permission to drop bombs, fire missiles, you name it. And so I'm very used to and very familiar with the process. And the process isn't rocket science. It basically you receive a target package proposal and the target package will state the military objective, all of the purpose and reason for it. And sometimes it's very obvious. You don't even have to look at it at all. If it's attacking say an air base, okay, fine, Right. But sometimes it's less transparent, it's less obvious. And so then you're doing things like, okay, this is not self evidently military. What is your intelligence? Is it human, intelligent, Is it signals intelligence? What is it? How recent is this intelligence? What is the nature of it? What is the track record of the human sources that we're using? What is. You go through all of it and look at it like a burden of proof. The targeting proposal has to pass a burden of proof before the JAG officer will sign on it. But the burden of proof, whatever that level is, is actually not up to the JAG officer so much as is up to the senior command. And then the JAG reviews for compliance with senior command and also international law of armed conflict and all of that. So when I read our Times reporting on this, it said that this was based on outdated targeting information. The school had been a school for by some accounts more than a decade, that it was outside the fence perimeter of the IRGC base. Again, this is reports that I've seen. If you have decade old intelligence, I don't know a JAG officer alive who would approve that strike. Like, I don't know if one. Now, if you have changed the burden of proof, if you've changed the threshold for approval, then you know this could have contributed to a disaster like this. So that's why I am not saying that Hex's scorn for jags and all of this created this problem. We don't know yet. We need a thorough investigation. But I am saying we do know. And there has been Great reporting for ProPublica that the Pentagon has been dismantling departments that we put together to try to avoid civilian casualties. He's been dismantling those structures. Did that contribute to this? And look, there have been many reasons for him to resign. I mean, the signal gate controversy alone, if I had done that as Captain French, my best case scenario is a dishonorable discharge. Yeah, like that's, that's best case for me. Or at least other than honorable discharge. That's my best case. He's. He stays Secretary of Defense. But I tell you, if he loosened these rules in a way that contributed to the deaths of more than 100 children, more than 100 children, he should resign. He should resign. And now in this administration, I have zero thought that Trump would hold him to that. But I do also want to say one other thing about this. You are doing your soldiers a favor when you protect them from inflicting civilian casualties. I served with an armored cavalry regiment in Eastern Diala during the height of the surge. And not one guy I served with wanted to kill a single civilian. Not one guy I served with. Would I say they didn't care about Civilian deaths. And in fact, when we had very rarely, because we followed the law of war, we were careful. When we very rarely harmed a civilian, the soldier who did it, even if they were not at fault, was devastated, gutted, gutted. Can you imagine being the fire control officer who launched that Tomahawk missile? Like what are they thinking? What are they going through? So when you protect, when you, you're not just protecting civilians innocence, when you're complying with the laws of war, you're actually protecting your own troops from the moral injury of a catastrophic mistaken attack. And that moral injury can haunt them their whole lives. Their whole lives. And so when I see Hexith doing all of this posturing, he's actually setting up our guys, our own people for unimaginable heartache and heartbreak when he does that.

[David Graham]

So well put.

This is less important than the moral element of that. But David, you were talking earlier about declarations of war and about them not just being a legal nicety. And I think that applies to a lot of this too. I mean, we hear Hegseth's attacks on jags and just general disdain for them. My colleagues Missy Ryan and Sarah Fitzpatrick have had some great reporting on this in the last few days. And it's the same place where these things are not just for some sort of like namby pamby softness. It's important for moral reasons. It's also important for political reasons. Just as a declaration of war helps bring the country together and create a case and get everyone on the same page and makes the army stronger. Strikes like this are bad for the US cause. They alienate allies. They alienate would be allies in the Iranian population who might see the US in a favorable light but will not react well to this sort of thing. And they're bad for the administration domestically too. Like I don't think Americans are going to be excited about seeing the military killing hundreds of children. Even if it is a mistake, it's going to turn people further against a war that they already oppose. So no, these aren't just legal niceties. I think that's such a good way of putting it, David.

[Harry Littman]

And there's also a Bondi esque effort to eliminate accountability on all this. David, your former JAG and Hegseth announces this week plans to try to slim down the whole JAG corps. And that means in impact much, much harder to have any kind of accountability process, any sort of concern for the troops themselves.

[Juliet Kayyem]

I think never before has the Pentagon leadership been so ill prepared for the changing nature of warfare than at this moment, because behind the story, what David was telling you is, of course, AI and the use of AI in terms of kill strikes. And so from the New York Times reporting, you feed algorithms, right, with all sorts of information. It has to be valid. We have to do it. And what you're seeing Hegseth do both, in this case by denying or being angry about it. But more generally, his attacks on anthropic, which have been sort of like this parallel narrative with the war in terms of anthropic pushing back on some of the uses by the Pentagon and lethality. Right now, the Pentagon needs to have an important debate about what we call mhc, right? Meaningful human control. And as we put more and more. We did it with drones, as we put more and more reliance on speed and information, are there some things that you simply want a man, as they say in the Pentagon, a man in the middle or a lawyer in the middle? And I think we really have to have that conversation because this stuff is moving so fast, AI and the Pentagon only sees it going in one direction. And I think this strike is proof it could really go bad.

[Harry Littman]

All right, it is now time for a spirited debate brought to you by our sponsor, Total Wine and more. Each episode, you'll be hearing an expert talk about the pros and cons of a particular issue in the world of wine, spirit and beverages.

[Spirited Debate Host]

Thank you, Harry. In today's spirited debate, we peek behind the wine label to see who lays claim to the best Chardonnay. California or Burgundy, France. As we've touched on before, wines from the US Are classified by the grape, while French wines are classified by the region. In France, the region of Burgundy produces some of the finest Chardonnays, known as White Burgundies, which are almost always made from Chardonnay grapes. To put it simply, when you see a white wine from Burgundy, you know it's a Chardonnay. The cooler weather and cloud cover in Burgundy creates wines that have less of the rich fruit flavors you might find in a California Chardonnay. But what white Burgundies lack in fruitiness, they make up for in highly aromatic and complex flavors that range from tropical notes and crisp green apples to fresh jasmine and exotic spices. And you don't have to book a flight to France to taste them either. Just swing into your local Total Wine and more and ask one of our guides for a tour of our white Burgundies at a great value. Swinging over to California Chardonnays, you'll notice that they tend to be rich, full bodied whites that have undergone malolactic fermentation and heavier doses of new oak. But that's actually a great thing because it helps to create a creamy, buttery feel and flavors of butterscotch, vanilla and ripe tropical fruits with medium acidity, which make for an ideal bottle. So when the mood calls for Chardonnay and you're torn between California and Burger, come talk to our guides at Total Wine and More, where it's always easy to meet in the middle and grab a bottle of each.

[Harry Littman]

Thanks to our friends at Total Wine and more for today's a spirited debate. Okay, this is quite a lurch in topics, but nothing this panel can't handle. But I just wanted to spend a few minutes talking back home about the biggest topic stateside. I think is the continuing effort and it's obviously tied into what's happening in Iran and the political impact, but that is the apparently really earnest effort to pass the SAVE act that would have an effect of, I think, disenfranchising so many Americans disproportionately they hope will be Democrats. I just wanted to get everyone sort of quick take on this and maybe we can start with you, David G. Cause you've written about it. Are we gonna see the filibuster itself suspended in order to pass this at all costs, given the increasing, understandably increasing nervousness of Republicans that they're being set up for the slaughter in November?

[David Graham]

Yeah, I mean, it's really amazing to see Trump putting so much weight behind a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, which is non citizen voting, you know, trying to solve this thing and putting basically all of his political capital there. I'm not sure where to expect this to go. You know, seeing somebody like John Cornyn giving in on it is interesting because I think the filibuster is the place where Republicans have most resisted Trump. Congressional Republicans have given Trump nearly everything he wants, except on the filibuster. And when he pushed them to end it a few months ago, they refused. It's these prerogatives of theirs that they want because they know they may be in the minority someday. And so I think corn and flipping is a little bit of a, it could be a turning point. But I still, you know, it's still a tough place for Trump to get a hold because senators really like the filibuster and they want to be able to use it someday.

[David French]

You know, I think Cornyn flipping is there is a furious one day there will be the like, I'll read the heck out of this 5000 word magazine piece about the battle for Trump's endorsement in the Texas Senate primary. Because after Cornyn kind of surprisingly won a plurality over Paxton, there was this immediate talk that Trump's going to endorse Cornyn and that's it. You know, maybe he'll offer Paxton something to ease the pain of the loss, but it's all going to be okay. Well, I think it became pretty clear that that's not necessarily what the base wanted. It's not necessarily the case that the base and the parts of MAGA that Trump really listens to wanted the Corny endorsement. And so now it hadn't happened. It's still hanging out there, and there's some polling that indicates that it won't even affect the race if Trump endorses Cornyn, but it will end it for Paxton if he endorses Paxton. And so now we're in this position where there's this sort of wild behind the scenes struggle. Cornyn is fighting for his political life. And I don't think you can underestimate the hatred between those two camps. The normie Republicans, like your, your normal conservatives, your old school conservatives in Texas cannot stand Ken Paxton.

[Harry Littman]

They impeached him, right?

[David French]

They impeached him. My goodness. I have friends who are working in his office who are some of the people who blew, you know, who are part of that whole thing, blowing the whistle. I mean, these are conservative Christians who were blowing the whistle on Ken Paxton. And so the sort of idea that this conflict between Cordon and Paxton really is the preview of the battle for the GOP after Trump. This is a preview of coming attractions. And I think that's one of the reasons why MAGA is so hell bent on Paxton winning this thing. And I think it's actually one of the reasons why Cornyn is now so hell bent on beating Paxton. I would bet if you put him on truth serum, he'd be like, I do not want to end the filibuster.

[Harry Littman]

Yeah, well, isn't there, by the way, isn't there some possibility that it's just political maneuver, it's a way of having a kind of glitzy point scored against Paxton, but he doesn't really intend to go through with stepping down if they pass this.

[David Graham]

Right.

[Harry Littman]

That was my possible read from outside Texas.

[David French]

But let me ask you all this because I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. So isn't the save act going to really hurt Republicans if it's enforced?

[David Graham]

I think so, too.

[David French]

David.

[Juliet Kayyem]

I just want to say something about Paxton. If you Think what we know about him now is what we'll know about him if he got the nomination. You're living. I mean, guys like him, how much

[David Graham]

more can there be?

[David French]

Oh, I mean.

[Juliet Kayyem]

I mean, well, we'll see how far people will go for Trump, but it's Texas. I mean, you know what it takes to have a wife divorce her husband during the primary. I mean, you know, I am telling you, trust me, men like this, you know, this is the tip of the iceberg. And so, you know, if you're a Democrat like me, maybe you want it to happen. But I mean, my God, how idiotic that guy reeks. And as David French suggested, his own people have known him for a long time.

[David French]

And can I just say real quickly, please, I'm begging my Democratic friends, do not root for Paxton because you think Talarico can beat him. Do not do that. Talarico is still going to be the underdog, even against Ken Paxton. He will. And so Ken Paxton, if he wins this primary, Tall Rico is a pretty. He's a pretty left progressive. Yeah. Who has a very, like, a very generous manner, which I appreciate. I mean, I've written about it, I got slaughtered for it online, that I appreciated Talarico's approach, but he's way to my left. Way. He's way to the left of the median Texan voter. And there's going to be a hundred million dollars spent basically defining talarico around like three tweets from 2020. I mean, it's going to be. It's going to be like that. And the idea that Paxton is going to be so damaged by all of his adultery, all of his corruption, all of this, all of that to caused Texas voters for the first time in 30 years to vote in a Democrat in a statewide office.

[David Graham]

Yeah, well, we know that Paxton can win a statewide race because he's holding statewide office already. Like, that is the proof that he can do it.

[David French]

Exactly. Yeah, exactly. So I think, for the sake of America, I prefer a Cornyn and Talarico race infinitely over a Paxton Talarico race.

[Juliet Kayyem]

Wait, but I interrupted you. Why does it hurt the Republicans more? Can you do that for one minute? Cause I am now. I'm curious as a listener.

[David French]

Okay, so this is the reason why it is not a voter ID bill. It is a proof of citizenship at the voting booth bill. Okay. And most college educated voters have the proof of citizenship that you need. Most high school educated voters do not. The party's constituencies have flipped. If you look at 2024, Kamala Harris won college educated voters by double digits by 10 plus points. Trump won working class voters by 10 plus points. And the, and the statistics, the disparity between college educated and non college when it comes to passports. Yeah, huge, huge. You know, so it's not just the, the married woman issue, which is a married woman issue, which married women, especially married white women, are more Republican.

[David Graham]

Yeah.

[David French]

So if it's married white women who are mainly impacted by this issue, that hurts Republicans. If it's high school educated voters who are mainly impacted by this, this hurts Republicans. Republicans, I do not think have really fully assimilated that they don't have the college educated constituency they used to have. And I think Democrats often haven't, they haven't internalized it that much either. And so I, I keep watching this debate feeling like, am I taking crazy pills. Isn't this, isn't this something that could really hurt this new Republican coalition?

[David Graham]

What a stunning turn of events that would be. Because as you say, David, it's just considered more than conventional universal wisdom that this is a Republican plan to disenfranchise disproportionately.

[David French]

Democrats just put it in basic language. College educated voters, 75 to 85% of them, have real ID compliant documents. Non college voters, 45 to 55%.

[David Graham]

And there you have it. Okay, we're out of time. And what's been a great discussion. Thanks so much, David. David F. And Juliet. We just have a minute for our final feature of five Words or fewer, where we take a question and we each have to answer in five words or fewer. And today's question is inspired by Trump's apparent obsession this week with his Cabinet footwear. He's been given everyone Florsheim dress shoes, even though he seems to be badly misjudging what size his official wear. What a sort of pitiful capturing of Marco Rubio's position. Those two feet together with, you know,

[Harry Littman]

the half inch or so between his

[David Graham]

heel and the back of the shoe. But anyway, the question is, what's Trump's next cosmetic innovation for the Cabinet? Five words or fewer, please.

Gilt leafed tanning beds.

[David French]

I like it, I like it. I heart Trump T shirts.

[Juliet Kayyem]

Oh, I was gonna say turtlenecks for the ra.

[David Graham]

Excellent.

[Harry Littman]

And I'm going with Trump comb overs, regardless of hair. Thank you so much, David F. David G. And Juliet. And thank you very much, listeners for tuning in to Talking Feds. If you like what you've heard, please tell a friend to subscribe to us on Apple podcasts or wherever they get their podcast, and please take a moment to rate and review the show. Check us out on substack@harrylitman substack.com where I'll be posting two or three bulletins a week breaking down the various threats to constitutional norms and the rule of law. Paid Substack subscribers can now get Talking Feds episodes completely ad free. You can also subscribe to us on YouTube where we are posting full episodes and my daily takes on top legal stories. Talking Feds has joined forces with the Contrarian. I'm a founding contributor to this bold new media venture committed to reviving the diversity of opinion that feels increasingly rare in today's news landscape, where legacy media seems to be tacking toward Trump for business reasons rather than editorial ones. Find out [e-mail] thanks for tuning in, and don't worry. As long as you need answers, the Feds will keep talking. Talking Feds is produced by Lou Cregan and Katie Upshaw, associate producer Becca Haveian, sound Engineering by Matt McArdle, Rosie, Dawn Griffin, David Lieberman, Hamsum Hadrenathan, Emma Maynard and Hallie Necker are our contributing writers and production assistants by Akshaj Turbailu. Our music, as ever, is by the Amazing Philip Glass. Talking Feds is a production of Deledo llc. I'm Harry Littman. Talk to you later.

[David Graham]

Sa.