← The David Frum Show
The David Frum Show
Trump’s National-Security Disaster
00:56:39
Trump’s vandalism of the national-security structure, Signalgate, and a conversation with Susan Rice
Loading summary
Transcript215 lines
- [00:11]
David Frum
Hello and welcome to episode seven of the David Frum Show. I'm David Frum, a staff writer at the Atlantic. My guest today will be Ambassador Susan Rice.
- [00:22]
Interviewer/Host
Susan Rice represented the United States at.
- [00:24]
David Frum
The United nations during the first Obama administration. She was National Security Advisor to President Obama and then Director of the Domestic Policy Council under President Joe Biden. Before my conversation with Ambassador Rice, I want to open the show by doing something a little different. I've often taken questions at the end of the show. This time I'm going to take a question, just one at the top of the show, and try to answer it here because I think this question is so important, such a key in the lock to all of our contemporary debates. It comes from a young viewer named Joe in Florida who's a friend of our families. And he asks, given that working class wages have been in decline for 40 years, especially for men, why would you expect anyone to sympathize with the idea of the American system with free trade? Why wouldn't they back Donald Trump, given the pressure they're under? The reason this question is so important is because it reflects an attitude that many liberal minded people have, which is where you see a grievance, where you see behavior that is self harming or harmful to others, there has to be some rational cause behind it, some material cause behind it, that when people do something destructive or self harming, they are acting out some understandable, cognizable grievance they've got that somebody could do something about. And if only we could meet that rational, material basis of their grievance, we could turn things around and put us all on a better path. That's the idea you hear from many Democratic candidates or would be candidates for 2028. Let's hear what people are saying and find some way to meet these grievances. And I do not want to dismiss that a lot of politics is about the rational. But what reactionary and fascist forces have always understood is there's plenty of irrationalism in the human being and that's a real resource. And sometimes when you have a grievance, it expresses itself in ways that sound like material grievance, but it's really not. So let me take on this point about 40 years of decline. Take it apart and see whether a better understanding can put us somewhere. Now, when people want to make the case that things have been very bad for working class America, they use certain numbers and not other numbers. Depending on the numbers you use, you get a very different story. And unfortunately, we often choose the story we want and then choose the numbers that fit the story rather than the other way around. So when people want to make the case that things have been very bad for working class America for 40 years, which takes us back to 1985, they look at a series called Hourly Wages for Non Supervisory Workers, or even Hourly Wages for Non Supervisor Production Workers. That's manufacturing people get a paycheck that is measured by the hour and who answer to some kind of supervisor. And if you look at those numbers, you see they basically rise pretty steeply for the 40 years from 1945 to the early 1980s. Then they flatten out or even go into a little bit of a decline in the 1980s, they jump up a little bit in the 1990s, then they're hit by the Great Recession and they go down again and only pick up after about 2015. So that is a story of stagnation, decline, some improvement in the 90s, some improvement in the 2010s, but basically not a very happy or healthy picture from 1985 for. For that kind of worker. The problem with looking at those numbers is those numbers describe fewer and fewer people in America. And they describe, even for those people, less and less of those people's lives. Here's a different number. If you remember that a lot of the way that people get an income in modern America is not just from their job, but also from various kinds of government benefits, the earned income tax credit, the child support from the government of various kinds of. And if you also remember that fewer and fewer of us work as non supervisory hourly workers, especially non supervisory hourly production workers. If you just look at what happens to American households, and a household can be as few as one person, that is Americans who live in some independent domicile of some kind, whether it's one person, single worker, whether it's two people, whether it's a whole family, any one of those things can be a household. What you see is that in 1985, the median American household, that is, we're not averaging in Bill Gates, we're just taking the American in the middle. That household made about 60,000 present day dollars. And 40 years later in 2025, that household made about $80,000. And it wasn't all from work, that some of it was from government benefits, but clearly a big jump from 60,000 to 80,000. Now, it's not as steep a jump as they made from 1945 to 1985. If you look at the 40 years immediately after World War II, the median did better than it did in the 40 years after World War II, from 1985 to the present. But I'm not sure you can really rationally compare those things. Remember, if you're starting in 1945, you're missing that that same person or family or group had the experience of World War II and the Depression. There had been a lot of bad times before then. And there's a big catch up that happened in the 40 years after 1945. There's also something else that was different in the 40 years after 1945. In 1945, about 17% of Americans still lived on the farm. You get big gains in efficiency when you move people from farms to cities. America did it in the 50s. Many European countries did it in the 50s and 60s. The Chinese, of course, have done it since 1990. And you get a big surge in productivity, you get a big surge in household wealth. But of course you can only do it once. People, it's not a commute. You move from farm to city. That's it. You're in the city, you're not going back to the farm. And further moves in the city. When you move from factory to office, you don't get the same bump that you get when you move from factory to farm. So the idea that 45 to 85 was the norm and 85 to 2025 has been some kind of sad falling off mistakes. A lot of what happened in 1945 and also it overlooks, yeah, it's good to be going up. But you need to remember America in 1945 was quite a poor place by today's standards. And even in 1985, it was not as affluent a country as it is now. In 1945, about a third of American households lacked indoor plumbing. And in 1985, only about 70% of American households had air conditioning, whereas now virtually everybody does. So when you're making those first steps, it's easier. The technology of indoor plumbing exists. You move people from farm to city, they get the indoor plumbing, they get a big jump in their standard of living. It's a little harder once they're already in the cities. So problem one is what we're measuring, if we look at all forms of income and not just the, the wages of a particular group of people, you see a bigger rise in incomes. And if you understand that something special happened between 45 and 85 that probably couldn't have been reproduced between 85 and 2025, no matter what, maybe you feel.
- [07:00]
Interviewer/Host
A little less angry about it.
- [07:01]
David Frum
But the second thing, when we're trying honestly to evaluate how are Americans doing, you have to ask the question, what does your money buy? In a modern technological society, a lot of your improvements in standard of living show up not as increases in wages, but but as improvements in the quality of the products you get. In other words, as a decline of prices. So 2025, 1985, we both have cars, but the 1985 car is likely to kill you in circumstances where the 2025 car will keep you alive. They're the same object, they may cost the same amount of money, but the car that doesn't kill you is clearly a huge improvement over the car that does. In the same way, There were color TVs in 1985, but they were not flat. You couldn't put them in every room of your house. And they had showed many, many fewer different kinds of programs that while we can do a kind of food basket, we should remember that in 2025, more fresh fruits and vegetables are available to more people in more months of the year than were the case in 1985. In 1985, for most people, vegetables meant canned or frozen. In 2025, vegetables, for a lot of people in a lot of places, a lot of the year can mean fresh. And that's a big improvement in quality. It's a little hard to capture with a price signal, but that really is meaningful. In the same way, how do we measure the improvement in well being that comes when you want to write a letter to a friend or loved one? You no longer have to handwrite it or type it, fold it, put it in an envelope, put a stamp on it, walk it to the post office and drop it in a box. But you can hit send instantly on a text message or some other instantaneous form of communication. In 1985, there were no mobile phones. We were only five years away from paying a lot of money for long distance. So incomes went up more than the sad story tells us. What those incomes can buy has improved dramatically. But there's one other thing that is that we really lose sight of here, which is when we use these averages and say the average American is this, was this in 2025, and the average American was that in 1985. We need to remember we're not talking about a stable population of people. In 1985, there were about 107 million Americans in the workforce. In 2025, they're at 170. 107 to 170 million in the workforce, bigger workforce, but almost all of that growth. Not quite all, but almost all of that growth is a product of immigration. Almost all the growth in the American workforce over the past 40 years has been either immigrants themselves or the children of immigrants. Now, it's a very contentious question. I'm not going to discuss here all the merits of the immigration question, all the costs, all the benefits. But very clearly, immigration is a benefit to the immigrant themselves, and it's a benefit in almost all cases to the children of the immigrant. When I say the average American had this in 1985 and the average American had that in 2025, and I focus specifically on one household, which is the household of immigrants and their children, should I be comparing them to the Americans of 1985, or should I be comparing them to what was their choice, their lot in life, which is, if they hadn't moved to the United States and maybe made the aggregate statistics a little worse, they'd be living in Mexico or Guatemala or the Philippines or wherever the family came from. And maybe you should compare them not to what they have in 2025, not to what other Americans had in 1985, but to what people back in the Philippines or Mexico or Guatemala had in 1985. And then they look dramatically better off. And you begin to say, okay, if this family of immigrants who are the cause of the growth of the workforce is so much better off, and if also all the people who. Whose parents and grandparents are already here, if they're better off because their wages have gone up and because their money buys more, and if what we're measuring here is an impact on the aggregate statistics caused by the inflow of a lot of immigrants, Whatever you think about immigration, it's kind of strange to describe this as people becoming materially worse off and that a lot of the situation that my friend Joe describes is kind of a statistical illusion. If you could spend 10 minutes back in 1985, I promise you, I was there. I promise you, you'd be shocked. You'd be shocked by all the things, all the conveniences, all the luxuries you take for granted. You'd be surprised at how much better the food is, how much cleaner the air is, how much less acidic the lakes are. In every way, you are so much better off. But it's often hard to capture, and that statistics often give us a false image of reality that is used by people who want to sell a case, but not to actually tell you what really happened. And the reason why this is also.
- [11:20]
Interviewer/Host
Misleading and dangerous is this.
- [11:22]
David Frum
Two points. The first is, again, it makes our problems look too easy. It makes us seem like, well, if only we could find out what was, we could solve deindustrialization or meet whatever economic grievance that we hear cited as a cause of the Trump vote. We could make the Trump problem go away. But then we're faced with the fact that things like Trumpism exist in every country, in every place, regardless of that country's particular economic history. There are Trump like movements in Germany and France. There are Trump like movements in South Korea. This seems to be something going on in the modern world and has some deeper causes in sexuality, in mass culture, and just the resistance of the human mind to orderly liberal progress. There's parts of it that just people don't find that very satisfying, don't find it very exciting. They want more. It also ordinary liberal progress. While it may meet our demand for prosperity, it may not meet our demand for status, and it may not meet our demand to subordinate others whose status we think needs to be lower as well as to make ours higher. So I worry it disarms us in the face of a real challenge. But the second thing is it also empowers some people who have agendas of their own of a kind that aren't helpful either. There are a lot of people on the left wing of the Democratic Party for whom Trump was a kind of godsend. They have long wanted to do a kind of more economic a planned economy. They wanted to do more protectionism. And Trump then became a justification. And the text to read on this is a speech given by former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan in 2018. Great respect for Jake Sullivan. This is not any kind of personal criticism of him, but he gave a speech called, if I remember right, a Foreign Policy for the Middle Class that cited Trump's success as a reason that the United States needed to have a much more planned economy and, and a much more protectionist economy. And indeed, if President Trump was the most protectionist president Since World War II, President Biden was the second most. Biden did not repeal very many of the Trump tariffs that were imposed in the first Trump term, and he didn't reopen the Trans Pacific Partnership. That was the real answer to the problem of how do we integrate China peacefully into the world trading system. Biden in many ways was quite continuous with Trump on trade. And he was, because there are people in the Democratic Party who, who wanted to be. And because they used a misreading of what the Trump experience was as a justification for things they wanted to do anyway. And the result was that we got some disappointing results during the Biden years. Trade is A convenient target for a lot of people. And there are a lot of statistical papers. There's a paper by a man named Autor, a u t o r called the China Shock. I think it's by group. Autor is not the only author that shows that areas in the United States that were exposed to a lot of trade competition from China did worse than areas that were not. They didn't say those areas got poor. They just said that if you compare an area that was hard hit by Chinese imports to an area that wasn't, the area that wasn't grew faster than the area that was. But they don't prove what that area that was hard hit shrank, or whether it just grew more slowly. There's a lot of gaps there. The paper is used to prove many things beyond what it actually proves, even assuming it's accurate. And it's not trade that explains the many other problems in American life. It's not traded trade that explains why Americans find it harder to get married. People in every country, every developed country, find it harder to get married. It's not trade that explains why we see more gun violence, more substance abuse. Those things seem to have deeper causes. But trade is something we do with foreigners. And if you're trying to come up with an explanation of the problems of American life that leave Americans out of it, that don't call on anybody in America to do anything different from what they've done before, and trade allows you to say it's the foreigners, the foreigners that are to blame. It's an easy way to think. It's an attractive way to think, but it's not a helpful way to think. I don't want to gainsay everything in the argument I've just made here. I mean, obviously working class wages have been under pressure, and they may be under more pressure in the future as artificial intelligence and robotics advance. But if you think about what could we practically do for people into this situation, I would say, you know what they need first and foremost, universal health insurance. And that's got nothing to do with trade. And you can be a protectionist society, as the United States now is, thanks to Donald Trump and Joe Biden before him, and not have universal health insurance. And you can be a free trade society like Denmark and have universal health insurance. That's maybe the first thing that people would want if they were thinking, how do we make the life of a person at this, at the average, in American life better, especially for their children. But it's an appealing answer and it's got a Lot of interest groups lined up in it. But I think what we need to do as we confront Trump is confront the irrational. It exists in ourselves as well as in other people. I'm not just making this, I'm not just making a finger pointing exercise. Confront the irrational. We respond to violence, we respond to hate, we respond to intimidation. We respond to the desire to make ourselves more by making other people's less. It's not nice to think about those things, but the fact that they're not nice doesn't make them less powerful. Trump is a successor to many dark movements in the human past that have occurred when trade was going up, when trade was going down, when industry was booming, when industry was shrinking. Prosperity makes everything easier. But prosperity does not make the irrational go away. So while we should certainly work for prosperity and while we should certainly think very hard about how do we improve the condition of the median American, the American at the center. After all, it's a democracy, though. We're running the whole country for that person. They are the judge and jury and how we're doing. And if they're not happy, well, they're, they're the ultimate boss. But we shouldn't be pulled into false arguments against international trade and we shouldn't believe a false story about the promise of America and accept the idea that there was some magical time when America was great and now we have sadly fallen off. In every way you can measure, America is a better place today than it was 40 years ago. And if it isn't as much better as we would like, well, the future is open. We can do more to make it better, faster for more people. But it is better. It was better. You have to believe in your country and you have to not give an inch to those who defame the country in order to maximize their own power and their own cruelty. Now my conversation with Ambassador Susan Rice.
- [17:23]
Interviewer/Host
But first, a quick break.
- [17:29]
Ryan Reynolds
Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Now, I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try@mintmobile.com switch.
- [17:50]
Shopify Advertiser
Upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first 3 months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of network's busy taxes and fees extra see mintmobile.com.
- [18:10]
Interviewer/Host
I'm delighted and honored to be joined today by Ambassador Susan Rice, a name that is famous in the United States.
- [18:16]
David Frum
And around the world.
- [18:17]
Interviewer/Host
For deeper perspective, I strongly recommend her autobiography, Tough Love, which describes a multi generational family commitment to ardent love of learning and public service. There's a personal connection that the Ambassador and I have that I won't go into here, but that she describes very movingly in the book. She was educated at Stanford, then as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, after which she began a meteoric ascent through the American national security system, serving first President Clinton and then President Obama, rising to be Ambassador to the UN National Security Council, Advisor, National Security Adviser, and then under President Biden, switching to the Domestic Policy shop where she ran his Domestic Policy Council. So, Ambassador Rice, thank you so so much for joining us. I want to ask start by mentioning that as you and I speak, the United States doesn't have a National Security Advisor. So how big a gap is that and what can we learn from this crazy signal scandal that means that the National Security Advisor is out and the Defense, the Secretary of Defense is very likely on his way out.
- [19:18]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Well, David, it's great to be with you and congratulations on the show. You know, we have Marco Rubio playing four simultaneous roles, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, administrator of the U.S. agency for International Development, what's left of it, which is very little.
- [19:38]
Co-Host/Analyst
And as the acting National Archivist, having.
- [19:42]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Had at least one of those jobs, the job of National Security Advisor, I can tell you it is a 247 relentless, incredibly intense job done correctly. Your role is not only to brief and advise the President, but very importantly to manage the National Security Council staff of over 300 professionals and to coordinate the cabinet level National Security Principles Committee, which should be carefully assessing and exploring the most significant national security challenges of the day, weighing options, making recommendations to the President, and ensuring that the decisions that the President makes are being implemented.
- [20:30]
Co-Host/Analyst
No human, however competent, let alone Marco.
- [20:34]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Rubio, who's barely been in the role of Secretary of State for four months, can do all of those jobs or even two of those jobs effectively. So when you say there's no National Security Advisor, what you're saying is that this is a job that is a more than full time job being done, if at all, on a very part time basis. I can't imagine what that must be like for the National Security staffers, those that are left, that are true professionals who come from the various agencies and are working very hard on behalf of the American people, to have no leader.
- [21:15]
Co-Host/Analyst
Not clear if the Deputy National Security.
- [21:17]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Advisor is there for long, and if.
- [21:19]
Co-Host/Analyst
So, what role he's playing.
- [21:22]
Ambassador Susan Rice
I don't know if Marco Rubio is sitting in the White House or at the State Department or in the National Archives or wherever, but he's got a.
- [21:30]
Co-Host/Analyst
Big job and he's got now four big jobs.
- [21:32]
Ambassador Susan Rice
And for a President who doesn't like process and doesn't like the rigor that national security decision making is typically conducted with.
- [21:42]
Interviewer/Host
Well, when I said we don't have the National Security Advisor, yes, as you say, Rubio has the title, as he has the title of National Archivist. But those jobs are not being done. They are, in fact, for all practical purposes, vacant. I've sometimes had the opportunity to interview National Security advisors and Secretaries of State and one of the questions I always ask them, or I try to, is how do you spend your time? And there's a huge difference because 300 people at the National Security Council staff, that's a significant number of people. But it's not a major bureaucracy the way the Department of State is. The Secretary of State has to worry about personnel matters in a way that a National Security Advisor does less. The National Security Advisor is the first point of contact for every national emergency the United States faces. The Secretary of State should be taking somewhat longer views, doing some planning work as well as responding to emergencies.
- [22:28]
David Frum
They're very different.
- [22:29]
Interviewer/Host
And as you say, Henry Kissinger tried it, but that was more an act of bureaucratic imperialism and, and at a.
- [22:35]
Co-Host/Analyst
Time when things were much less demanding and complex.
- [22:38]
Ambassador Susan Rice
And by the way, he failed at it.
- [22:42]
Co-Host/Analyst
So now we'll see how Marco Rubio does. The other thing David mentioned about the difference between the jobs is the Secretary of State is supposed to travel and do a great deal of personal diplomacy all over the world. You cannot do that effectively and man.
- [22:58]
Ambassador Susan Rice
The Ford at the White House where.
- [23:00]
Co-Host/Analyst
The National Security Advisor's job is really.
- [23:03]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Properly a more inward facing role, especially.
- [23:05]
Interviewer/Host
If, as so often happens, different parts of the foreign policy apparatus are in disagreement. So State says one thing, Defense says something else. Other agencies say a third thing. The National Security Advisor is supposed to help the President broker those disputes by saying, I'm, I'm here to represent the President and no agency. And if you're there representing an agency too, how, how does any decision get made?
- [23:27]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Well, that's, that's part of the challenge. The National Security Advisor is meant to be an honest broker. He or she ultimately gets to make a recommendation to the President as to the appropriate course, but taking into account and fairly and accurately, without spin, representing the views of the other national security cabinet members.
- [23:47]
Co-Host/Analyst
So there's a conflict of interest inherent.
- [23:50]
Ambassador Susan Rice
In those two roles being occupied by one individual.
- [23:55]
Interviewer/Host
I want to ask you about the scandal that may have, although I laid low, Mike Waltz, although there may be other reasons that there was this very strange person, Laura. What was her name? Loomer.
- [24:06]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Laura Loomer.
- [24:06]
Interviewer/Host
She has some unusual kind of influence or hold on the president, and she recommended that he get rid of a lot of people in the national security apparatus. Maybe that's what's part of what's going on. There may be some fight over Iran policy. That may be what's going on. Trump may have remembered that Mike Waltz had a previous history as a congressman where he was not as infatuated with Donald Trump as Donald Trump would wish him to be. There may be many other issues.
- [24:29]
David Frum
But what.
- [24:30]
Interviewer/Host
How do you read the signal gate scandal? It's often true that senior national security people don't use the means that they're supposed to use. They're just too inconvenient. It's not just Hillary Clinton, Colin Powell, many others have sought shortcuts or some more convenient method of communication. How do you understand what happened and.
- [24:47]
David Frum
How serious it was?
- [24:48]
Ambassador Susan Rice
I think David is extremely serious. This wasn't a case of somebody sending an email point to point or using text for scheduling. This was a case where the most.
- [25:00]
Co-Host/Analyst
Sophisticated and complicated deliberations among the national security team did not take place as they should have in the White House.
- [25:10]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Situation room around a table for several hours, probably on multiple occasions, to weigh the question of whether, how, when and with what preparation the United States was going to launch attacks on the Houthi militants in Yemen.
- [25:26]
Co-Host/Analyst
This is one of the most important.
- [25:28]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Kinds of decisions that the national security.
- [25:30]
Co-Host/Analyst
Principals make, or they make a recommendation.
- [25:32]
Ambassador Susan Rice
To the president after a lot of assessment and analysis.
- [25:37]
Co-Host/Analyst
And these guys did it with emojis and shorthand on signal. So the first problem, before you get to how they communicated is the extent to which they communicated and deliberated, which was de minimis. And the question of the use of force and putting American men and women.
- [25:58]
Ambassador Susan Rice
In uniform in harm's way is one of the most significant types of decisions that get made. And it deserves thoughtful and thorough consideration. That didn't happen.
- [26:09]
Co-Host/Analyst
Secondly, you're using a commercial application signal, which is not encrypted to the same.
- [26:17]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Degree that classified US Government systems are. And they were inherently discussing classified information.
- [26:23]
Co-Host/Analyst
Whether and when to engage in military.
- [26:26]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Operations is by definition classified.
- [26:29]
Co-Host/Analyst
The details, the operational details that Pete.
- [26:32]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Hegseth put into the chat were extraordinarily sensitive and highly classified.
- [26:39]
Co-Host/Analyst
Then you had J.D. vance weighing in on even the question.
- [26:42]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Of whether there should be such military strikes.
- [26:45]
Co-Host/Analyst
And frankly, that's the discussion that should.
- [26:48]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Be happening around the Situation room table.
- [26:51]
Co-Host/Analyst
The reason it's so dangerous is not only that they give scant and superficial.
- [26:55]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Consideration to such important issues, but it's.
- [26:58]
Co-Host/Analyst
Because we know that our most sophisticated.
- [27:00]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Adversaries, and indeed some of our allies.
- [27:03]
Co-Host/Analyst
Can hack into personal phones and into signal and learn in advance what we are planning. And if, you know, the Chinese had done that or the Russians and handed it off to the Houthis or to the Iranians to give to the Houthis, or if the Iranians had done it, they have highly sophisticated capabilities. That could have meant that our operational security was compromised and that our pilots.
- [27:29]
Ambassador Susan Rice
And others engaged in the operations were at direct risk.
- [27:32]
Co-Host/Analyst
It was incredibly reckless and incredibly dangerous behavior. And they seemed to do it, David, as a matter of course. I mean, now we're learning that there are multiple regular signal chats between and.
- [27:44]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Among the national security principles.
- [27:46]
Co-Host/Analyst
The last photograph that a journalist captured of Mike Walz's phone right before he was fired showed that he was sitting in the Cabinet room in a Cabinet meeting where, by the way, you're not supposed to have your phones. You're supposed to leave them outside in a secure container using signal to communicate with, you know, the vice president and other senior officials. Tulsi Gabbard.
- [28:07]
Ambassador Susan Rice
I mean, it's ridiculous.
- [28:08]
Interviewer/Host
Yeah. You know, as we talk about this, I'm very conscious that a lot of people will say signal gate. That was when, like, Louis XIV ruled France or maybe Pontius Pilate was in charge of Judea. That was a long, long. That was like 18 scandals back right now. Right now, the new scandal is that the emir, or the emirate of Qatar has offered the president of the United States his own personal jet to take.
- [28:32]
David Frum
Away with him after he leaves office.
- [28:34]
Interviewer/Host
One of the trademark. I don't know whether it's a strength or a weakness or both features of this Trump administration has been you pile scandal on top of scandal on top of scandal, and no one can keep track of them. And it does seem like if you're going to do one bad thing, you might as well do 100, because the average survival rate seems to go up. I ask you this because you were at the center. You were sort of caught up in a decade ago scandal, politics in retrospect, a kind of contrived looking scandal. But looking back on that and comparing it to Trump 1 and Trump 2. Do you think there are things that this administration knows about scandal politics that other administrations have not known?
- [29:12]
Co-Host/Analyst
Well, that's a great question, David. I mean, I think first of all, the Trump administration, Trump one, but in particular Trump two, just doesn't give a goddamn about what they say or what they do.
- [29:24]
Ambassador Susan Rice
You know, Trump 1 was characterized by non stop lying.
- [29:29]
Co-Host/Analyst
That is certainly the case in Trump too. But combined with a sense of impunity and complete lack of accountability to the American people, to the truth, to the Constitution, to anything. And so they lie and gaslight on a daily basis. And it's so extreme that I think the media has a difficult time keeping.
- [29:49]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Up though credit to the many that are trying the opposition, the Democrats can't.
- [29:57]
Co-Host/Analyst
Make a storyline stick. Signalgate should be as big a national.
- [30:01]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Security scandal as any we've seen in decades. It is that bad.
- [30:07]
Co-Host/Analyst
And it's been in multiple iterations. Now, Pete Hegseth, we've learned, shared the same operational details on a signal chat with his family members, which is ridiculous. They have no need to know. And it goes on and on, and yet they flood the zone with so much crap on a daily basis, so.
- [30:28]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Many lies, so much obfuscation, so much.
- [30:31]
Co-Host/Analyst
Gaslighting that their BS just overwhelms people's capacity to absorb it. And obviously they know that and that's part of their, as you suggest, their modus operandi.
- [30:43]
Interviewer/Host
I have a private theory that I developed during the first Trump campaign back in 2016. Remember seeing a poll at the time that asked Americans what they thought of the two candidates, Hillary Clinton and President Trump, or Donald Trump as he then was. And this was not a good poll for Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton, Trump beat him and he's more intelligent, more knowledgeable, cares about people like you. She won in every single category that the poll asked. I forget every question, but these were the important questions that you would want in a leader of the nation. But there was one category where Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton and that was honesty.
- [31:14]
David Frum
You're like, well, that's weird because he.
- [31:17]
Interviewer/Host
Lies all the time. And I thought about this a lot and I realized that of course politicians have a way of speaking that sounds dishonest. The question is, did you eat the.
- [31:28]
David Frum
Last piece of pie?
- [31:29]
Interviewer/Host
And the politician who ate the last piece of pie doesn't want to say yes because they might get in trouble. He doesn't want to say no because that's an outright lie. So they have, they equivocate, they temporize, they put things in context. And they talk like a politician, they equivocate. You know, that we have to put pie eating into a larger context that certainly among those in the vicinity. I was one of those in the vicinity of the refrigerator at the time that the pie was eaten, but I do not have direct personal knowledge of exactly the consumption pattern. Donald Trump would just look you in the eye and say, nope, I didn't when he did. And because he would.
- [32:02]
Co-Host/Analyst
Or he'd say, no, I didn't eat the pie. You ate the pie.
- [32:06]
David Frum
You ate the pie.
- [32:06]
Interviewer/Host
And so because he will flatly lie, he doesn't equivocate, he doesn't temporize, he doesn't have. He just flat out lies.
- [32:12]
David Frum
He's.
- [32:13]
Interviewer/Host
If you don't know the facts or if you're ready to believe him, he sounds honest. Whereas the person tiptoeing around the question, did you eat the last piece of pie? They sound like a crook.
- [32:21]
Ambassador Susan Rice
I think there's something to that, David. I do.
- [32:24]
Co-Host/Analyst
But, you know, I think the broader.
- [32:27]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Point is that this Trump administration has.
- [32:31]
Co-Host/Analyst
No interest in, no pretense of, no.
- [32:35]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Commitment to doing anything that doesn't suit their interests at the time, whether legal, illegal, truthful, untruthful, moral, immoral. And you started this discussion with something that I think really deserves careful scrutiny and outrage. The notion that the a president of.
- [32:55]
Co-Host/Analyst
The United States would accept a $400 million 747 from a foreign government, any.
- [33:03]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Foreign government, much less the Qataris, whose.
- [33:08]
Co-Host/Analyst
Loyalties and interests only occasionally, to put.
- [33:13]
Ambassador Susan Rice
It kindly, align with ours, is truly outrageous.
- [33:17]
Co-Host/Analyst
And it's not just the corruption this.
- [33:19]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Represents, which is massive and mind boggling. It's the national security consequences.
- [33:26]
Co-Host/Analyst
The Air Force One is a flying secure environment.
- [33:31]
Ambassador Susan Rice
It is as secure and classified as the White House situation room.
- [33:36]
Co-Host/Analyst
And if a foreign government has built or overseen the production of an aircraft and then hands it off to the.
- [33:44]
Ambassador Susan Rice
United States, the first thing is we have no idea of knowing what kinds of listening or other devices they've put in it.
- [33:51]
Co-Host/Analyst
Secondly, to accept a gift of that sort and then to keep it for.
- [33:58]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Your personal benefit after you leave office.
- [34:01]
Co-Host/Analyst
Is giving a foreign government a huge.
- [34:06]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Amount of influence over the President of the United States and the United States.
- [34:10]
Co-Host/Analyst
Of America and leaves us susceptible not.
- [34:15]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Just to all forms of espionage Qataris could potentially conduct, but leaves us vulnerable to exploitation by the Qataris or those acting in concert with the Qataris.
- [34:28]
Co-Host/Analyst
You know, Qatar is close to Hamas. Qatar has got a sort of funky relationship with Iran. It just blows the mind that we.
- [34:39]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Would put ourselves in that Kind of vulnerable posture vis a vis the Qataris, much less any other foreign government.
- [34:47]
Co-Host/Analyst
And the fact that, you know, yeah.
- [34:49]
Ambassador Susan Rice
There'S outrage, but, you know, Republicans are.
- [34:51]
Co-Host/Analyst
Like, there's nothing to see here, no problem. Trump says, you know, you're stupid to turn down any gift. We have laws and the Constitution itself is black and white clear that the President of the United States cannot, without.
- [35:06]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Congress's approval, accept a gift of any significance from a foreign government.
- [35:10]
Interviewer/Host
Yeah, it's not only that this is clearly illegal. Whatever Pam Bondi may say, who was herself a foreign agent for the Qataris, it's clearly illegal. It's also, if you go back and read the Federalist Papers, it is their, the receiving of a large gift from a foreign potentate is their definition, their paradigmatic example of what counts as an impeachable offense. This is the one thing that they are most frightened that the President will do. Take payoffs from foreign rulers, especially foreign monarchs. And the idea that it's just, it's like birthright citizenship that Trump also denies. It's like what, that there, there are a lot of things in the Constitution that is pretty murk that are murky. What process is due. Well argue, you know, we'll never settle that question. You know, you know, your Fifth Amendment, you're not to have property taken without just compensation. What's just compensation? We can argue about that. But if you're born on American soil, are you a citizen? If you're. Unless you're the child of a diplomat, yes, clearly, no question about that. And can the President take a present from a foreign king? No. How is this question even on the President's desk? This would normally be something you would think that the ambassador to Qatar would say, your Highness, what a wonderful, magnificent gesture. But all things considered, if you just would get one of those beautiful cards, you make these wonderful hand. Send the President a hand painted card saying how much you like them. He'll like that a lot more than this jet, which of course you understand, he cannot even consider accepting.
- [36:36]
Ambassador Susan Rice
It's just insane.
- [36:37]
Co-Host/Analyst
And it's indicative of what you were.
- [36:40]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Describing, which is flood the zone with crap strategy that overwhelms the public, the media, the courts, everything. But this is blatantly illegal, blatantly unconstitutional, and a supreme act of unprecedented corruption.
- [36:58]
Interviewer/Host
Can you take us on a little tour, putting on your National Security advisor cap from, from a while ago? Take us on a little tour of how much damage has been done to America's alliances, to its position in the world, to the respect in which Adversaries hold it over the past few months of extraordinary, unprecedented activity. We can't do everything. But what in your mind are the things that people most need to know about what is different today than was, than was the case in the fall of 2024?
- [37:25]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Well, David, so much damage has been done, and it's very hard to see how it's reparable in any reasonable length of time. Even with a new president and a new administration. The most important thing that's been lost is the trust of our allies in American commitments, in America's loyalty and solidarity.
- [37:48]
Co-Host/Analyst
With our allies, and the ability to.
- [37:52]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Believe that we will do what we say. And when you lose that trust, particularly.
- [37:59]
Co-Host/Analyst
Among your allies, you can't get that back. When you think about Canada, a country.
- [38:04]
Ambassador Susan Rice
You know well, I know well, you know, Canada has shared with the United States the longest peaceful border in the world. We are democracies that share values and history. Canada has fought and died alongside the United States in war after war after war. You know, from the Second World War to Vietnam to Afghanistan, they have bled and died with us.
- [38:31]
Co-Host/Analyst
And like our other NATO allies, the only time that our Article 5 mutual.
- [38:38]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Defense commitment that we make among the NATO allies has ever been invoked, as you know, was after 9, 11, when.
- [38:46]
Co-Host/Analyst
The allies came to our defense and.
- [38:49]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Served with us for years and years and years in Afghanistan to try to defeat Al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts. So we also have the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world, which serves both countries enormously well. And Donald Trump woke up one morning.
- [39:09]
Co-Host/Analyst
And decided arbitrarily to cripple the Canadian.
- [39:13]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Economy, Mexican, too, to the extent he can, and European, through completely arbitrary tariffs that do very little for us, do.
- [39:25]
Co-Host/Analyst
A lot of harm for Canada and weaken our supply chain connectivity, as we should be working together to deal with.
- [39:36]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Countries that pose a real threat in certain strategic sectors like China.
- [39:41]
Co-Host/Analyst
Instead, you know, Trump imposes tariffs designed to bring the Canadian economy to its knees and speaks repeatedly in terms of turning Canada into the 51st state, which.
- [39:55]
Ambassador Susan Rice
As you know, and I hope all the listeners know, is not only never going to happen, but is incredibly offensive.
- [40:02]
Co-Host/Analyst
To every Canadian and has done more to unite Canada Anglophone Francophone first Nations than anything in a long time.
- [40:12]
Ambassador Susan Rice
So it's really, it's horribly damaging. And I talk to Canadian friends, I'm sure you talk to friends and family.
- [40:21]
Co-Host/Analyst
And they're pissed off, and they don't understand why their good friend and best.
- [40:29]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Friend would do this to them.
- [40:32]
Co-Host/Analyst
And it's not just about Trump. I mean, they're just pissed off at the United States broadly. They're not traveling here in the way they used to. They're not buying American products the way they used to. And this is not going to go away just because they've elected Mark Carney and he's determined to stand up for Canada's interests.
- [40:50]
Ambassador Susan Rice
This is long term damage and I'm sure you would agree.
- [40:53]
Interviewer/Host
Let me ask you about adversaries, because among Trump supporters is a view. Because Trump is so crude, so obnoxious, so overbearing, so insulting, he must impress the Chinese no end. They must look at him and say, there is one rough tough guy whom we better not fool around with. And you know, Obama was so polite and George W. Bush was so affable. We don't respect them, but we can respect this guy. And that the world now fears to cross Donald Trump. What is your assessment of what the adversaries think?
- [41:18]
Co-Host/Analyst
Well, China's laughing. Okay, China plays the long game. They understand that in a trade war with the United States, in many ways they have the upper hand. Why? In large part because they're not a democracy and they can withstand economic pain, blame it on the United States and, and their people will eat it.
- [41:37]
Ambassador Susan Rice
That's not going to work here in the United States.
- [41:39]
Co-Host/Analyst
And plus China is looking at the damage that we're doing to economies around Asia and seeing an opportunity for them to fill a vacuum in a bilateral trade relationship that we've left. Moreover, China played Trump's game with him and Trump said, we're going to tear a few this amount. And China said, okay, I'll call you and raise you. And they went back and forth until it got to a crazy level. But the Chinese are not backing down. And the Chinese, moreover, are saying beyond the trade realm, we've got a whole bunch of non trade things we can.
- [42:15]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Do to make your life miserable. Donald Trump.
- [42:18]
Co-Host/Analyst
And that's when they went after rare earths and a whole bunch of other important products, commodities that we depend on.
- [42:26]
Ambassador Susan Rice
That China only can provide.
- [42:28]
Co-Host/Analyst
So, so they go to the negotiating table. You can see Trump administration sweating as the impacts on prices and supply chains.
- [42:38]
Ambassador Susan Rice
And small businesses and the stock market.
- [42:41]
Co-Host/Analyst
Begin to mount with inflation looking to increase substantially. And so they create a pretext and go to the negotiating table with the Chinese and basically without getting any concessions that are in the realm of what Trump suggested he wanted when he started this trade war, whether it be on.
- [43:01]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Fentanyl or whether it be on manufacturing.
- [43:04]
Co-Host/Analyst
Or anything else, you know, they've negotiated a face saving climb down for 90 days it basically takes us back to the status quo ante. We got nothing for all this disruption. So the Chinese understand Trump's not a tough guy. Trump is somebody, you know who. He's a bully. And bullies understand other bullies, and they back down when people stand up to them. That's the message. I believe the Chinese have taken away the Russians. You want to talk about adversaries, a completely different story. Guess how much tariffs Trump imposed on Russia? Zero. Why?
- [43:41]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Why?
- [43:42]
Co-Host/Analyst
You know, Russia is playing Trump in a very different way on Ukraine, on many other things, but they understand that for whatever reason, Trump bows down to Putin, tiptoes around him and sells out our allies and Ukraine and anybody else to benefit Putin.
- [44:01]
Interviewer/Host
Well, this is where I wanted to build to. As our second last question, can Ukraine survive Trump? Can it stay on the battlefield? Or is he going to break it and betray it in a way that all the Ukrainian patriotism and courage and sacrifice will not be able to overcome?
- [44:15]
Co-Host/Analyst
Well, it's interesting question because if Trump.
- [44:19]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Were to decide that he's cutting off intelligence support on a sustained basis, cutting off military assistance, doing nothing with the frozen assets, leaving Ukraine to the mercy of the Russians and what the Europeans can do without us, I think it is bleak for Ukraine. Not impossible, but bleak.
- [44:41]
Co-Host/Analyst
And the degree to which the Europeans who already, as you know, have contributed.
- [44:46]
Ambassador Susan Rice
More to Ukraine in dollar terms, militarily and economically than the United States, but.
- [44:51]
Co-Host/Analyst
If they step up even more, can that suffice?
- [44:54]
Ambassador Susan Rice
I think tough to be confident in that. So I think that the real question.
- [45:00]
Co-Host/Analyst
Is, will Putin overplay his hand? He's obviously holding out for not only.
- [45:07]
Ambassador Susan Rice
The great deal that Trump administration unilaterally proposed to him, which would require the Ukrainians to give up vast quantities of their territory more than the Russians currently occupy. Foreign recognition of Crimea as Russian, which is insane, not to mention no NATO membership and no US Security guarantees, that's a ridiculously favorable set of terms for Putin. And he's sitting back there saying it's not enough.
- [45:36]
Co-Host/Analyst
And if at some point the Trump.
- [45:38]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Administration determines that Putin's humiliation of Donald Trump is untenable, then maybe that changes the Trump calculus and Ukraine has a bit more of a lifeline.
- [45:52]
Interviewer/Host
Presidents build policy systems around their own personal natures. President Franklin Roosevelt liked creative chaos. President Eisenhower liked orderly, tidy systems. Some presidents like to see arguments battled out in front of them. Some presidents want the battle to happen before the president is in the room and wants to have a consensus among the advisors. Some people want the discussion, want to hear all the Reasons behind the conclusion. Some people just say, cut to the chase, tell me what you, what you all think. And you've dealt with different presidents who have their own different styles, and I'm sure you have opinions about which work better. And of course, in the end, it has to work for the particular person. But imagine the Trump administration as kind of a silhouette. Take the president out of the picture, look at the reactions of the people around him the way you would as a senior staffer and say if you just knew about the process. He's got the process that has grown up around him. What would you say about this presidency based on your observation from domestic and national security councils?
- [46:48]
Co-Host/Analyst
Well, David, obviously I'm not in the.
- [46:49]
Ambassador Susan Rice
White House, and it's not always easy from the outside to make these kinds of judgments.
- [46:54]
Co-Host/Analyst
But it really appears to me that there, 99% of the time is no process. The process is, as you hear many.
- [47:05]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Of the cabinet officials and those closest.
- [47:08]
Co-Host/Analyst
To the president say all the time, donald Trump will decide this. So it seems like everything small and large, even though sometimes, when convenient, he.
- [47:19]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Denies any knowledge of issues, is a Trump decision.
- [47:23]
Co-Host/Analyst
And it's not clear that anything like.
- [47:26]
Ambassador Susan Rice
The structure or the rigor that you would find in normal administrations exists in this context.
- [47:35]
Co-Host/Analyst
Do people write him memos? Does he make decisions on paper, as is the custom?
- [47:40]
Ambassador Susan Rice
And the Presidential Records act anticipates and requires.
- [47:45]
Co-Host/Analyst
Do people sit around the table in the White House situation Room and discuss the and debate options and make recommendations to the president? Does the President ever chair the National Security Council principles, or does he simply make his own decisions? It's been recently reported, David, that the President of the United States, who's been in office well over 100 days now, has only received the Presidential Daily Briefing, the most important, highly classified daily intelligence briefing, some 12 times, some 12 days of his 100 plus days in office. What is he doing if he's not reading the pdb? And I hate to say this, you could say it about the airplane, you could say it about signal gate, you could say it about so many different things. But if any other president had refused or opted not to receive the Presidential Daily Briefing from the intelligence community on a regular basis, it would be a huge, huge scandal with massive investigations in Congress and huge speculation that the President is not playing with a full deck. That's a key part of the job. So there is no process, as far.
- [48:57]
Ambassador Susan Rice
As I can tell.
- [48:58]
Interviewer/Host
For those who've never seen one, can you just give some indication of what's the difference between the presidential Daily Brief and say the morning news on Fox tv, which is better?
- [49:11]
Ambassador Susan Rice
I don't watch Fox Morning News.
- [49:12]
Co-Host/Analyst
So just to be clear, although I've seen snippets of it, what kinds of things?
- [49:17]
Interviewer/Host
What kinds of things does he not know if he's not listening or reading to the brief?
- [49:21]
Co-Host/Analyst
What he does not know is what.
- [49:24]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Our intelligence community has been able to.
- [49:28]
Co-Host/Analyst
Collect and analyze and assess through all the various means that we have of.
- [49:34]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Intelligence collection and provide to the President that information and analysis that he would otherwise not have.
- [49:43]
Co-Host/Analyst
I don't want to get into any.
- [49:46]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Level of description of what is in.
- [49:48]
Co-Host/Analyst
A pdb, but trust me, it's very.
- [49:51]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Different from Fox News.
- [49:53]
Co-Host/Analyst
It's different from the New York Times and from even the Economist because we have sources and methods of collection and.
- [50:01]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Analysis that far exceed what is often available through what we call open sources.
- [50:09]
Interviewer/Host
You can see administrations develop trajectories. You can see at the beginning, often where it's going and where, if it goes wrong, how it might go wrong. If you look ahead just to the end of 2025, what are the dangers that you see that we seem to be navigating toward rather than away from?
- [50:24]
Co-Host/Analyst
I mean, there are many dangers, as.
- [50:27]
Ambassador Susan Rice
We'Ve discussed, of process of care with the most sensitive information that is available that we've talked about. Allies and adversaries, adversaries taking advantage of us, allies losing trust in us. All of that obviously matters enormously. The lack of truthfulness, trustworthiness, whether domestically or internationally, the gaslighting. But I am also extremely worried that the president and those around him are so dismissive of any degree of law or accountability, even to the Constitution, that we could soon potentially see them outright, blatantly and unapologetically defying court orders, including orders from the Supreme Court and this blatantly illegal threat to suspend habeas corpus and perhaps with it, implement some version of martial law based on a completely false pretext is something that I think is not far fetched. I wish it were, and one we have to be very, very vigilant about.
- [51:42]
Interviewer/Host
They've built bureaucracies that are getting in the habit of breaking the law. And when you build a weapon, the weapon tends to go off.
- [51:49]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Well, look, that would be a nuclear weapon going off in the heart of our constitutional republic. And whether you voted for Donald Trump or not, whether you support Donald Trump or not, poll after poll shows that Americans want and expect their president to adhere to court orders to respect the Constitution and the rule of law. And all of us, regardless of party affiliation regardless of how we voted, have an obligation to insist and demand that the President and his administration abide by the rule of law in the Constitution and when they don't, that they pay for it in the way that we hold our leaders accountable, which is at the ballot box and in the court of public opinion.
- [52:35]
Interviewer/Host
Ambassador Rice, thank you so much for your time.
- [52:37]
Ambassador Susan Rice
Thank you, David.
- [52:43]
David Frum
An official message from Medicare I'm saving.
- [52:46]
Medicare Advertiser
Money on my Medicare prescriptions. Maybe you can save too with Medicare's extra help program. My premium is 0 and my out of pocket costs are low. Who should apply? Single people making less than $24,000 a year or married couples who make less than $32,000. Even if you don't think you qualify, it pays.
- [53:06]
David Frum
To find out, go to ssa.gov extrahelp paid for by the US Department of Health and Human Services Running a business.
- [53:14]
Shopify Advertiser
Comes with a lot of what ifs, but luckily there's a simple answer to them. Shopify it's the commerce platform behind millions of businesses including Thrive Cosmetics and Momofuku, and it'll help you with everything you need. From website design and marketing to to boosting sales and expanding operations. Shopify can get the job done and make your dream a reality. Turn those what ifs into Sign up for your $1 per month trial@shopify.com specialoffer.
- [53:43]
David Frum
I'm so grateful to Ambassador Susan Rice for joining me today. Thank you too for joining. I hope you will share the program with your friends, subscribe to it, or share it on whatever platform you follow us on. And I hope you'll consider subscribing to the Atlantic. That's what you can do immediately to support the work of this program and so much other content that you get from the Atlantic.
- [54:02]
Interviewer/Host
Please subscribe.
- [54:03]
David Frum
Please follow us Please share the content thank you for joining. I'll see you next week. This episode of the David Frum show was produced by Nathaniel Frum and edited by Andrea Valdes. It was engineered by Dave Grine. Our theme is by Andrew M. Edwards.
- [54:45]
Interviewer/Host
Claudine Abayad is the Executive Producer of.
- [54:48]
David Frum
Atlantic Audio and Andrea Valdez is our Managing Editor. I'm David Frum. Thank you for listen.