How Our Elites Destroyed Ukraine + Winning the AI Race ft. David Sacks

Summary

Podcast Title: The Charlie Kirk Show
Host: Charlie Kirk
Episode Title: How Our Elites Destroyed Ukraine + Winning the AI Race
Release Date: February 25, 2025
Guest: David Sacks, AI Crypto Czar for the White House
Additional Guest: Daniel McCarthy, Editor of ModernAgeJournal.com and Contributor to Compact Magazine

---

1. Ukraine Conflict and U.S. Foreign Policy

Timestamp: 00:00 – 10:21

In the opening segment, Charlie Kirk welcomes David Sacks to discuss the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the broader implications of U.S. foreign policy. David Sacks provides a critical analysis of how elite decision-making has prolonged the war in Ukraine.

Key Points:

• Missed Peace Opportunities: Sacks highlights that during the early stages of the conflict, a draft peace deal was proposed in Istanbul, which required Ukraine to remain neutral. However, the Biden administration allegedly sabotaged this deal, leading to continued conflict and significant loss of life.

  David Sacks [01:53]: "It was the Biden administration that basically sabotaged that deal. And that's why the war has now raged on for three years... this conflict was over nothing. We could have just agreed."

• NATO Expansion as Provocation: Sacks asserts that NATO's expansion was perceived by Russia as a direct threat, drawing parallels to the Cuban Missile Crisis era.

  David Sacks [02:30]: "It was NATO expansion that the Russians saw as a provocation... just the same way that we saw Soviet influence in Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis."

• Critique of Current Leadership: The discussion criticizes figures like Boris Johnson and Victoria Nuland for their roles in escalating the conflict, emphasizing that their actions were driven by ulterior motives rather than the genuine interests of Ukraine.

  David Sacks [05:33]: "They had a delusion that this war could be used to weaken Russia and then ultimately cause a regime change in Moscow."

• Humanitarian Perspective: Sacks argues that President Trump seeks to end the war to stop the loss of life, contrasting this with the previous administration's approach.

  David Sacks [07:15]: "President Trump wants to bring this war to an end. He wants the dying to stop. I truly believe it's a humanitarian interest of President Trump because this is not his war. This was Joe Biden's war."

• Authoritarian Tendencies of Zelensky: Kirk presses Sacks on President Trump's characterization of Ukrainian President Zelensky as a dictator, leading Sacks to cite instances like the banning of opposition parties and the treatment of journalists.

  David Sacks [08:44]: "Zelensky has banned political opposition parties... he seized the assets of his political opponents."

• American Citizen Abuses: Sacks brings up the case of American journalist Gonzalo Lira, who was reportedly tortured and died in Russian captivity, underscoring the moral quandaries of supporting the current Ukrainian leadership.

  David Sacks [09:15]: "To let that man die in prison after being tortured is completely unacceptable."

Conclusion: This segment presents a critical view of the Biden administration's handling of the Ukraine conflict, suggesting that earlier diplomatic efforts could have prevented prolonged warfare and extensive human suffering.

---

2. The Role of Elbridge Colby in Shaping U.S. Foreign Policy

Timestamp: 18:58 – 28:43

Charlie Kirk introduces Daniel McCarthy to discuss the nomination of Elbridge Colby as the Undersecretary for Policy at the Department of Defense. McCarthy emphasizes Colby's alignment with President Trump's "America First" foreign policy and the challenges he faces from neoconservative opposition.

Key Points:

• Elbridge Colby’s Credentials: Colby is portrayed as a long-time ally of Donald Trump, bringing a strategic mindset aligned with reorienting U.S. foreign policy towards national interests.

  Daniel McCarthy [19:10]: "Elbridge Colby is someone who can act as an intellectual axle to bring together these sort of different components of the machine to advance President Trump's foreign policy and America first foreign policy."

• Neoconservative Opposition: McCarthy explains that neocons aim to infiltrate government positions to undermine Trump's agenda, preventing figures like Colby from securing key roles.

  Daniel McCarthy [20:50]: "They have a chokehold on American policy and on the American right. And that's where they're really concerned. They're going to lose that chokehold and that grip if Bridge Colby gets into the Pentagon."

• Strategic Importance of Colby’s Role: As Undersecretary for Policy, Colby would significantly influence defense strategies, particularly in countering threats from nations like China and Russia.

  Daniel McCarthy [21:20]: "He would be responsible for a lot of the formulation of exactly how America's defense apparatus is going to approach other nations around the world."

• America First Doctrine: The discussion underscores President Trump's focus on prioritizing the U.S. homeland and reducing overreliance on European defense, pushing for Europe to take more responsibility for its own security.

  Daniel McCarthy [22:30]: "Trump is trying to really reorient our foreign policy for the first time since the end of the Cold War."

• Countering Accusations of Imperialism: McCarthy defends the administration’s policies by referencing the Monroe Doctrine, asserting that the focus is on protecting the Western Hemisphere from external influences rather than exporting democracy.

  Daniel McCarthy [26:45]: "This is instead focusing on America first, which also means focusing on our neighborhood first, and that is the other Americas and the rest of the Western Hemisphere."

Conclusion: The segment highlights the internal battles within the U.S. government over foreign policy direction, advocating for Colby’s appointment as pivotal in advancing a nationalistic and strategically sound foreign policy under the Trump administration.

---

3. Winning the AI Race: Opportunities and Challenges

Timestamp: 10:21 – 16:43

David Sacks shifts the focus to artificial intelligence (AI), discussing its transformative potential and the importance of the U.S. maintaining a leadership position in the AI domain.

Key Points:

• AI as a Dual-Use Technology: Sacks categorizes AI as having both economic and military applications, emphasizing its significance comparable to the internet's impact in the late '90s.

  David Sacks [11:33]: "AI is a new technology. I think it's going to be the most important technology of this decade and, and this era."

• Race Against China: Sacks stresses the urgency for the U.S. to outpace China in AI development to safeguard economic and military supremacy.

  David Sacks [12:00]: "President Trump declared in his week one EO on AI that we have to win the AI race. America has to be the global leader... if America falls behind to China, then the ramifications of that will be huge."

• Economic Growth and Productivity: Contrary to fears of AI-induced job displacement, Sacks argues that AI will enhance productivity, drive economic growth, and ultimately raise living standards.

  David Sacks [13:26]: "I think the doomer case here has just been overstated... this is going to fuel economic growth for the next decade."

• Policy Recommendations: Emphasizing policies that integrate AI to enhance worker productivity rather than viewing it as a disruptive force, ensuring that the benefits of AI are broadly distributed.

  David Sacks [15:41]: "If there is some sort of downside to this, we will adjust. We will make sure that this technology benefits workers. We will center workers."

• Optimism Over Pessimism: Sacks counters common pessimistic narratives by highlighting the tangible benefits AI has already provided without significant job losses to date.

  David Sacks [16:33]: "There's no evidence whatsoever yet of this causing job loss. And I do agree with what the vice president has said there that fundamentally in our values we are pro worker."

Conclusion: The discussion presents a positive outlook on AI, advocating for strategic policies to harness its potential for economic growth and worker empowerment, while maintaining global leadership against competitors like China.

---

4. Political Commentary and Final Thoughts

Timestamp: 28:43 – End

The episode concludes with Charlie Kirk addressing political figures like Ilhan Omar, intertwining commentary on immigration and political rhetoric with broader themes of national integrity.

Key Points:

• Critique of Ilhan Omar: Kirk criticizes Representative Ilhan Omar’s statements and questions her immigration status, referencing personal background claims.

  Charlie Kirk [30:13]: "Elon Omar says you are stupid for supporting Trump... She might say, well, Charlie, on what grounds could you deport her?"

• Disinformation Narrative: In response to Omar’s statements about disinformation, Kirk dismisses the notion, asserting that alternative ideas are simply better and more transparent.

  Charlie Kirk [33:07]: "It's we have better ideas and we're willing to finally fight for them. We're willing to finally say no."

• Call to Action: Throughout the episode, Kirk encourages listeners to engage with Turning Point USA and other initiatives, reinforcing the show's mission to promote conservative values and activism.

Conclusion: The final segment reinforces the show's conservative stance, addressing contemporary political controversies and emphasizing the importance of safeguarding national values against perceived threats.

---

Overall Insights and Conclusions

• Critique of Established Foreign Policy: The episode provides a strong critique of the current U.S. administration's handling of the Ukraine conflict, suggesting that earlier diplomatic engagement could have prevented prolonged warfare and massive casualties.

• Advocacy for "America First": Emphasizing a shift towards prioritizing national interests, the discussion advocates for reorienting U.S. foreign policy to focus more on hemispheric security and reducing over-reliance on European defense mechanisms.

• Optimistic View on AI: Contrary to prevalent fears, the episode presents AI as a catalyst for economic growth and increased productivity, urging policies that harness its potential while mitigating any adverse effects on the workforce.

• Internal Political Battles: Highlighting the internal struggles within the U.S. government and the broader political landscape, the episode underscores the challenges faced by figures like Elbridge Colby in advancing a nationalistic and strategic foreign policy agenda.

• Conservative Political Rhetoric: The concluding sections intertwine policy discussions with sharp political commentary, reflecting the show's commitment to challenging liberal narratives and promoting conservative viewpoints.

---

Notable Quotes:

• David Sacks [01:53]: "We could have just agreed. To the thing that everyone understands now, which is Ukraine is not going to be part of NATO, and this whole thing could have been avoided."

• David Sacks [05:33]: "They had a delusion that this war could be used to weaken Russia and then ultimately cause a regime change in Moscow."

• David Sacks [13:26]: "I think there's a much more optimistic way to look at this, which is that this is going to fuel economic growth for the next decade."

• David Sacks [15:41]: "If there is some sort of downside to this, we will adjust. We will make sure that this technology benefits workers. We will center workers."

• Charlie Kirk [24:47]: "It's not about trying to export democracy to far off lands and transform other cultures into models replicating our own."

---

This episode of The Charlie Kirk Show offers a blend of foreign policy critique, technological optimism, and sharp political commentary, aligning with the show's conservative and activist ethos. Through in-depth discussions with David Sacks and Daniel McCarthy, listeners are presented with perspectives that challenge mainstream narratives and advocate for strategic, nationalistic approaches to both international conflicts and emerging technologies.

Transcript

[Charlie Kirk]

Hey, everybody. David Sacks, a amazing man, the AI crypto czar for the White House, joins the program to talk about Ukraine, artificial intelligence and more. Email us, as always, freedomarliekirk.com and subscribe to our podcast. Get involved with Turningpoint [e-mail] that is tpusa.com Start a high school or college chapter today at tpusa.com as always, you can email us freedom charliekirk.com, buckle up, everybody. Here we Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.

[David Sacks]

Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy, his spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point usa.

[Charlie Kirk]

We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble gold [e-mail] that is noblegoldinvestments.com it's where I buy all of my gold. Go to noblegoldinvestments.com we have one of my favorite people on the program. He's doing an amazing job and I see the world exactly the way he does. He's David Sacks. David, welcome to the program. Always an honor. David is the AI crypto czar. So we're definitely going to talk about that. But first, David, as much as you're able to speak or willing to speak about the developments regarding Ukraine, President Trump, Russia, make sense of what's happening here.

[David Sacks]

Well, I think that there's been huge developments on Ukraine. I mean, the president has said from the outset, I mean, during his campaign that he wanted to bring this war to an end, Charlie. And I think that he's in the process of doing that. For the first time in, I think three, at least three years since the war began, we had a conversation between an American president and the Russian president. I mean, that's the first step in getting to some sort of peace agreement is to actually talk to the other side. You then had conversations between the delegations from the US and from Russia and Saudi Arabia, and they seem to have made substantial progress. And I would say that most of all, the thing that I think has been the biggest breakthrough is just that finally this administration has been willing to tell the truth about how this war started, because you need to understand that in order to bring it to an end. And what Secretary of Defense has said and what Stephen Wyckoff has said is that it was NATO expansion that the Russians saw as a provocation. And it was the United States's desire under Joe Biden, Their insistence that they had to bring Ukraine into NATO, that was seen as incredibly threatening by the Russians, just the same way that we saw Soviet influence in Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis as incredibly threatening. And the United States, back in was it 1962, was willing to go to war to keep the Soviets out of Cuba. And in a similar way, the Russians, they telegraphed in advance that this was a red line for them for. For decades. And they said they'd be willing to go to war to prevent Ukraine from becoming a member of NATO. And yet the Biden administration insisted on trying to bring this about. You know, it was widely underreported, but in the first month of this war that started three years ago that's cost so many lives, there was a deal that was signed, a draft deal that was signed in Istanbul to end the war. And all it really required was for Ukraine to agree to be a neutral country. And if they had been willing to do that, the war would have ended, there would have been no destruction, and Ukraine would have kept its territories in the eastern part of the country. And it was the Biden administration that basically sabotaged that deal. And that's why the war has now raged on for three years. I'd say upwards of a million people have died. The country's never going to be the same. And the craziest part of the whole thing is that the Biden administration itself and Jens Stoltenberg, who was the head of NATO, said at the very end of the Biden administration that Ukraine could not join NATO, would not be joining NATO because it was unable to win this war. So this whole conflict was over nothing. We could have just agreed.

[Charlie Kirk]

Yes.

[David Sacks]

To the thing that everyone understands now, which is Ukraine is not going to be part of NATO, and this whole thing could have been avoided.

[Charlie Kirk]

Well, and let's say that if your cause is wearing the Ukrainian pin, which I find to be repulsive and ridiculous, let's say that is you, and you're a lawmaker on Capitol Hill. Ironically, if they would have accepted the early peace deal, it would have been far better for the cause of Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, geography, that it Controls and lives lost. Speak about, David, how early on there was a peace deal on the table. Istanbul, Turkey I know you mentioned this, Tony Blinken, Boris Johnson, that if you're one of those virtue signalers that wears the Ukrainian flag pin even for what they want, that would have been a better deal for everybody involved.

[David Sacks]

Yeah, exactly. And this is where I think that we cannot concede the moral aspect of this argument. Those of us who have wanted the United States to avoid getting deeply involved in this war, they call us pro Russian or anti Ukrainian. But what we're suggesting would have been the most pro Ukrainian policy.

[Charlie Kirk]

That's the idea.

[David Sacks]

Hundreds of thousands of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives would have been saved. Their country wouldn't have been destroyed. They would have held on to all those territories in the east. It would have been better. You know, something like 10 million women and children have also fled the country. They're never coming back. I mean, this country is just never going to be the same. And it all could have been avoided if they had just agreed to that Istanbul deal, which was a better deal than anything they're going to get now because they have lost the war. And why did that deal not happen? Because Boris Johnson flew into Kiev and said, we want to challenge Putin, not make a deal with him. Alexey are Stovich, who at the time was a member of the Ukrainian peace delegation, who was there in Istanbul, who was there when they signed. They signed a draft of the deal. He said the Ukrainian delegation was popping champagne. They were so happy because the war was over. And then it was the west, it was the Western leaders who came in and said, you can't do this deal because it doesn't fit with our interests. And what we want to do is challenge Putin. People like Boris Johnson and Victoria Nuland, they had a delusion that this war could be used to weaken Russia and then ultimately cause a regime change in Moscow. Remember when President Biden said that this man cannot stay in power? That was their unofficial policy, as they actually thought they would bring Russia to its knees. They thought that sanctions would crush Russia's economy. They thought that we could use the Ukrainian military to destroy the Russian military, and all these things would basically finally bring the hated Putin to his knees. We'd have a palace coup in Moscow and they would get this big regime change. And it never happened. No part of that happened. Instead, what happened is that Ukraine got completely destroyed and now it's on its last legs. And I think that, look, we could just allow what is going to happen here to take its course. I mean, if President Trump did nothing, then what's going to happen is that eventually Ukrainian lines are going to collapse under severe pressure, and the Russians will just take more of the country. But I think that President Trump wants to bring this war to an end. He wants the dying to stop. I truly believe it's a humanitarian interest of President Trump because. Because this is not his war. This was Joe Biden's war. It's Victoria Nuland's war. It's Boris Johnson's war. It was their war. But President Trump wants to stop it because he wants the dying to stop. I think that is a wholly salutary and humanitarian thing to do. And, of course, what is the reward for that? In the mainstream media, they basically deride President Trump, and anyone who speaks on behalf of peace is completely warped.

[Charlie Kirk]

That is so well articulated. David, can you just add on really quick? President Trump has called Zelensky a dictator. What is the evidence of that?

[David Sacks]

Look, Charlie, dictator is as dictator does. Zelensky has banned political opposition parties. He has had. He seized the assets of his political opponents, including a former president of Ukraine. He's basically cracked down on churches and priests and nuns, and he's cracked down on the media. In order to be a journalist in Ukraine, you have to basically get a license from the government and toe the party line. And I would say that the worst part of the whole thing is that there was an American journalist living in Ukraine named Gonzalo Lira who was arrested trying to flee the country. And there is a chilling tape by Gonzalo Lear where he posted on social media saying, I'm about to be arrested. If I'm arrested, I will never see the light of day again. Please help me. State Department. Please come help me. Just let me go. I just want to leave the country. And the Ukrainians could have let him leave, but they didn't. They arrested him, and he was tortured in a dungeon, denied medical care, and ultimately died in Russian captivity. To me, that is completely unacceptable. This man was an American citizen. An American citizen. You know, a foreign country, especially one that's a putative ally, should not touch a hair on the head of an American citizen. But to let that man die in prison after being tortured is completely unacceptable. And as far as I'm concerned, that alone rules out the idea that this is an ally of the United States.

[Charlie Kirk]

Charlie Kirk here in this new year, it's going to be exciting. 2025 is bringing a regime change in America, a chance to reorder and make things right again in our country. Why not do the same thing for you and your family? Now's the time to hit your financial reset button. And my friends Andrew Del Rey and Todd Avakian with Sierra Pacific Mortgage are the only ones I trust to help you do that. Andrew and Todd are your friends in the mortgage business. Like minded individuals who can make your financial goals a reality. They can help you reduce your overall monthly payments, pay off those high interest credit cards and have money to fund that big project. And as a direct lender, they make it easy because they manage the entire process. 2025 is the year to make it happen. Activate your financial power now. Click in the [e-mail] or call 8881172. I think the world of these two men, they've helped me with so many different issues and problems. High integrity Christian. They share our worldview. Go to andrew and todd.com David, we have five minutes here. David, how should we think about the rapid pro proliferation and the adoption of AI by what moral premise should we have when it comes to AI?

[David Sacks]

Well, AI is a new technology. I think it's going to be the most important technology of, of this decade and, and this era. You can think of it a little bit like the breakthrough we had in the late 90s with the Internet. I think this could be even. And AI is a dual use technology, meaning it's got both economic applications and military applications. It's a consumer technology. I mean all of us have now experienced, you know, ChatGPT or Grok and programs like that where you can ask it questions and it gives you amazing answers. Soon there'll be agents. But then also it's going to be something that will be widely used in businesses and enterprises and then again by the government and the military. I think the most important thing for AI is that America win the AI race. China is very competitive. The launch of Deep Seq showed that. And President Trump declared in his week one EO on AI that we have to win the AI race. America has to be the global leader and in fact, dominance is the word that he used. And I think that if America falls behind to China, then the ramifications of that will be huge. It would jeopardize our economy and it could make us militarily less powerful than China. And that's not a world we want to live in. So I just think that winning this AI race is absolutely critical and I'm happy to be working for the President to help make that happen.

[Charlie Kirk]

Yeah, it has some unbelievable upsides. I mean, I Use AI all the time and mostly to be able to analyze data in a very quick synthesized way. It saves me incredible amounts of time. Spreadsheets, emails, long form data. So David, what would you have to say to skeptics that would say AI is going to do nothing but displace people from their jobs and will basically usher in a new unelected technocratic oligarchy?

[David Sacks]

Well, I think on the first part there's just been a lot of doomerism in the media and the media always loves to take the most pessimistic view of things and scare people. I think that there could be some job displacement, but I think the productivity gains will be a lot greater and this will be a tool that ordinary people can use in their work, especially knowledge workers. And again, incomes rise with productivity. So to the extent that we get productivity tools, it basically increases economic growth and makes us wealthier. So I think that the doomer case here has just been overstated and focused on too much. And I think there's a much more pessimistic. Sorry, there's a much more optimistic way to look at this, which is that this is going to fuel economic growth for the next decade. And by the way, the United states is something like 36 trillion in debt. If we don't have a big economic boom over the next decade, how are we ever going to pay that debt back? I mean, how are we ever going to get out from under this hole? So we need growth, we need productivity. And AI is a tremendous tool for doing that. In terms of this only benefiting a technocratic elite. This is not the way that technology has evolved throughout history. Is what you see is, yes, the people who do invent the technology benefit, but so do all the consumers of it, so do all the businesses that benefit from it downstream. And again, this is just like the creation of the Internet or the industrial Revolution or the creation of the tractor or something like that. There are going to be benefits that are felt throughout the economy. And I do think it's going to ultimately raise the standard of living for all Americans.

[Charlie Kirk]

Let's play cut 70 really quick. Let's play cut 70, please. This administration wants to be very clear about one last point. We will always center American workers in our AI policy. We refuse to view AI as a purely disruptive technology that will inevitably automate away our labor force. We believe and we will fight for.

[David Sacks]

Policies that ensure that AI is going.

[Charlie Kirk]

To make our workers more productive. And we expect that they will reap the rewards with higher wages, better benefits and safer and more prosperous communities. Final thoughts, one minute.

[David Sacks]

David Sacks, I completely agree with that. And let me just ask the question. You know, these products have now been on the market for over two years and we're seeing a rapid evolution and how good they are. We see one company leapfrogging the next next and then the next product comes out. But let me ask you a question. Has one person lost their job because of AI to date, I don't think so. They've made everyone a little bit more productive. It's just a phenomenal tool that we can all use in our jobs to do research, to get answers. It's like a better search engine to write research papers, to fact check things. I mean real fact checking, not the fake kind. And so I just think this is a tool that's going to make all of us better. And again, there's just no evidence whatsoever yet of this causing job loss. And I do agree with what the vice president has said there that fundamentally in our values we are pro worker.

[Charlie Kirk]

Yes.

[David Sacks]

And if there is some sort of downside to this, we will adjust. We will make sure that this technology benefits workers. We will center workers.

[Charlie Kirk]

It could be the next big moment of human flourishing if properly adapted and adopted, I should say. David, thank you so much. Check out all in podcast, AI Crypto Czar, Great man. History, economics, the great works of literature. Did you study these things in school? Probably not. Or even if you did, maybe it's time for an enjoyable refresher. Hillsdale College is offering more than 40 free online courses, including their newest course on totalitarian novels. In this free eight lecture course, you'll learn from Hillsdale College President Larry Arne as he goes in depth on four novels. 1984, Brave New World, Darkness at Noon, and that Hideous Strength. I love all four. Even though these novels were written in the 1930s and 40s, they're highly relevant today as they show what a tyrannical government does to human nature. More importantly, they can show us that faith, family and friends are worth fighting for. Maybe you read these books a long time ago in school. Maybe you've heard others talk about them and they seem a little intimidating. Let Hillsdale College, America's greatest college, help you make the most of them. Go right now to charlieforhillsdale.com to enroll. There's no cost and it's easy to get started. That is charlieforhillsdale.com C H A R L I E for hillsdale.com There's a major fight going on right now and it looks like it's heading in the right direction. Looks like we have the momentum, but last week it was hanging in suspense. It's who is going to be the third most powerful person at the Department of Defense? The nominee is a great American patriot. His name is Elbridge Colby. We did an entire segment on this last week. The individual who has been stalling or asking questions was Senator Tom Cotton. Now, Senator Cotton, as we've said on this program, is great on immigration, great on crime. We're on different planets when it comes to foreign policy. However, Senator Cotton has been pushing back against Elbridge Colby. It looks like that is being reconciled and they're having a meeting. Well, joining us now is Daniel McCarthy, editor of ModernAgeJournal.com and a contributing writer of Compact Magazine. He wrote an entire piece, why Elbridge Colby Matters. Welcome to the program, Daniel. Tell us about Elbridge Colby and why he matters.

[Daniel McCarthy]

Thanks, Charlie. I'm delighted to be on. Elbridge Colby is one of the few people in sort of advanced and elite Washington, D.C. circles who has actually been a friend of the Donald Trump program from the very beginning, especially in foreign policy. And he's someone who's seen as a threat by a lot of other insiders in Washington, by those who want to see America kind of return to the unsuccessful foreign policy of Joe Biden and Barack Obama and indeed George W. Bush. So Bridge Colby is someone who can sort of act as an intellectual, intellectual axle, to bring together these sort of different components of the machine to advance President Trump's foreign policy and America first foreign policy. And there are people who want to prevent that from happening. They want to throw spanners in the works, basically, and prevent Colby from being nominated to the number three slot in the Pentagon. And they want to fill the Trump administration to the extent they can with neoconservatives and people who are going to be trying to foil Donald Trump's plans. And unfortunately, Senator Tom Cotton has gone along with this to some degree. And I have to credit you, Charlie, for being the first person to speak out on X and basically call out Senator Cotton for doing the bidding of people like Bill Kristol.

[Charlie Kirk]

Yeah, I didn't win any friends there with Senator Cotton's office, but it was necessary. And I think I was polite because it was true. And just to be perfectly candid, the first objection I got is, oh, no, no, Senator Cotton is not delaying it. And then, of course, it came out that he was delaying it. What exactly does the job that Elbridge Colby will hopefully assume do? And can you just take some time here Educating the audience. They think, okay, just Pete Hegseth, he runs the whole thing. This is a massive organization where the power goes into 40 or 50 other buckets that are essential. What would Elbridge Colby be tasked with doing?

[Daniel McCarthy]

Well, he would be the Undersecretary for Policy, which, as the name suggests, is responsible for a lot of the formulation of exactly how America, how our defense apparatus is going to approach other nations around the world. It's a very important strategic role. And so you can see why there's a great deal of scrutiny being applied to Bridge Colby. And, you know, you can also see why people who don't like the president's agenda and don't like what Bridge Colby represents, why they think that if they can sabotage this, they'll actually score a lot of points and be able to really cripple what Donald Trump's trying to do in reorienting American foreign policy towards America's national interests. So it's a critical policymaking, grand strategy kind of position, and Bridge Colby is exactly the right person for it. And there's an awful lot of pressure, however, being brought to bear. Sort of behind the scenes, there's this whispering campaign against him, putting out all sorts of just nasty rumors because there's no honest case to be made against this gentleman. He really is someone who comes from a patriotic family. He's someone who has, you know, again, sort of withstood all the pressures to conform within Washington. And now, you know, the question is, will this whispering campaign now being led perhaps by Senator Cotton, succeed in derailing this gentleman who would be a true asset to President Trump's agenda?

[Charlie Kirk]

And so, more broadly, what do you make of the momentum behind the foreign policy view of this administration? It is uniquely different than even Trump one and totally different than Republican Inc. Speak to that.

[Daniel McCarthy]

Yeah. You know, the difference between Trump won and today is that Trump won had so many of these disloyal staffers who were able to restrain the president and keep his foreign policy from going in the direction where he wanted to take it. President Trump really does have, first of all, an America first view. Yes. But also an America's first view. He sees the strategic importance of our own hemisphere as being paramount, which is why Secretary Rubio, you know, spent his first trip going to the Caribbean and to Central America. It's why we've been talking about Greenland so much. We have to defend our own hemisphere, keep the influence of people like China from reaching into our own backyard. When it comes to Europe, what's absolutely essential for Europe's own Defense is that the Europeans themselves be the primary providers, that they be fully invested, not only in terms of the money they spend for the military that they have, but also that they should be willing to be the first line of defense of their own continent and their own borders. Right now, that's not the case. Right now, they are expecting America to pay for their defence, and they're expecting ultimately, if their borders are attacked by Russia or anyone else, that it's American lives that are going to come out and save them. So you've got a Europe that's actually become steadily weaker over the past 30 years, since the end of the Cold War, because of their over reliance on America and their unwillingness to pony up either the men or the moral commitment in order to defend themselves. So Trump is changing all of that. He would have changed it, you know, back, you know, between 2016 and 2020, except there were so many people within his own administration, including even in the Defense Department, even in the, you know, Secretary of State's offices, that wanted to prevent Trump from going in this direction. They wanted to keep America basically with this consensus, bipartisan foreign policy that we're getting from everyone from George Bush to Barack Obama, ultimately to Joe Biden. So Trump is trying to really reorient our foreign policy for the first time since the end of the Cold War. And to do that, he's going to need a team that is loyal to him and that has the right ideas and Bridge. Colby is certainly someone who fits that description.

[Charlie Kirk]

So I love the America's first perspective and that kind of hemispheric idea that we need to consolidate the hemisphere and make sure that our adversaries do not have that kind of dominance within. What do you have to say, Daniel, to some of the audience's, let's say, concerns that President Trump is talking like an imperialist? I don't believe he is. I think it's nonsense, but it's a question that I've received two or three times now throughout my travels. How would you respond to that?

[Daniel McCarthy]

Well, the Monroe Doctrine is, of course, you know, sort of the cornerstone of American foreign policy going back more than 200 years. And the Monroe Doctrine basically says that we're going to prevent other kinds of imperial powers from reaching into our hemisphere. And certainly that's one of the questions. Where Greenland comes up, it's where the Panama Canal comes up. The Panama Canal is being very directly influenced right now by China. They have a certain economic stake in it, and there's a risk that they're going to have More economic sway and more political sway over the canal, which is absolutely vital to our interests. Then with Greenland. Right now, America's already basically responsible for providing for Greenland's defense. So it's kind of silly that we're paying the price for defending Greenland, but we don't actually have a kind of formal relationship between our nation and Greenland. Instead, Greenland is still controlled by Denmark. In the long run, however, there's a danger that Greenland, because of its strategic position in the Arctic, is going to be heavily influenced by other powers that want to be involved in Arctic politics. And certainly Russia increasingly looks to the Arctic as a place to expand its power. There is a danger that, you know, even though China is not directly in the Arctic, they may want to be able to use their expanding naval power and their expanding financial influence to influence a small, you know, in fact, a tiny country like Greenland. Greenland's a huge island, but its population is only about 50,000 souls or so. And so you can see how they could be susceptible to any great power that comes after them, which is why it's very important that America, you know, be the great power that is providing for their protection rather than have the Chinese or someone else be able to come in and influence them. So all of this is about defending America's national interests. It's not about trying to export democracy to far off lands and transform other cultures into models replicating our own. That's the imperial project that America had been embarked on since the end of the Cold War. Basically, this is instead focusing on America first, which also means focusing on our neighborhood first, and that is the other Americas and the rest of the Western Hemisphere.

[Charlie Kirk]

Neocons are known for laying traps or snares or even ambush campaigns on otherwise chugging along administrations. You think everything's going fine and then there's a neocon noose waiting for you. What should we be looking for from permanent Washington that could potentially derail this administration, get us into another permanent war? What are the hotspots that we should be looking at?

[Daniel McCarthy]

The neocons are really smart, and I point this out in my essay for Compact magazine on why Bridge Colby is so important. The neocons realize that if they go to the American public, if they go straight to the voters, the voters won't take them up on the kind of imperial, democracy promoting agenda that the neocons want to endorse. The voters just won't go for it. So they don't do that. And they also realize that, you know, if you try to elect a pure on, you know, sort of pure neoconservative like Bill Kristol, try to send him to the Senate or, you know, nominate him for president. That's not going to work. You may recall, Charlie, that back in 2016, Bill Kristol had the lunatic idea that he would get David French to run for president and that David French would somehow be the neocon candidate to stop Donald Trump. It's just ridiculous. They can't win elections and they can't serve in office. But what the neocons are very clever about doing is instead insinuating themselves into the staff and into the offices of office holders. So in other words, you don't have to win elections if you're the guy, if you are responsible for, for the staffing positions of the office holders, because the office holders themselves are often choosing from a menu of policy that has been written up by their staff or that has been sort of spun by ideologues and think tanks and magazines. That's where the neocons have a chokehold on American policy and on the American right. And that's where they're really concerned. They're going to lose that chokehold and that grip if Bridge Colby gets into the Pentagon.

[Charlie Kirk]

Daniel, thank you so much for your time. How does our audience stay in touch with you and follow you?

[Daniel McCarthy]

Yeah, you can find me on Twitter at the unusual handle of Tory Anarchist, which is a nice sort of fun phrase I use. And then online, you can find me on the [e-mail].

[Charlie Kirk]

Thank you. Talk to you soon. Daniel, great job. Hey everybody, Charlie Kirk here. There's a lot of excitement in Washington, D.C. as we start the year, but I wanted to talk to you about something just as exciting happening outside the D.C. beltway. A revolution in the States. It's the Education Freedom movement. It's real. It's growing and growing because some states, as they should, are putting parents in charge of the education of their kids. Everyone knows education has the power to change a kid's life. And anyone who raised a child knows each has different needs, learning styles and God given talents. The fact is, parents know their own children best, knows what's best for their development and future. Education freedom legislation puts parents, not zip codes and politicians, in charge of these important family decisions. It's why I strongly support making universal education freedom a reality for every parent in every state. To find out where your state legislature stands and to make sure your voice is heard, go to educationfreedomusa.com now. Educationfreedomusa.com okay, here's the very serious question, should Elon Omar be deported? It's a very serious question. Let's go to cut seven. Elon Omar says you are stupid for supporting Trump, that Americans supporting Trump for winning. These people are just idiots. You know, insulting the body politic, not smart play. Cut 7.

[Ilhan Omar]

These people are just idiots. I really, you know, I'm at the point where it's become really hard to have an intellectual debate with any of these people because the level of stupidity that they are displaying playing every single day is frankly embarrassing, not just in Congress, but as Americans. And the fact that these people are allowed to say just the most ridiculous things tells you that the dumbing of the United States has arrived. Because how else do we get a Trump presidency again?

[Charlie Kirk]

Now we should seriously look into her immigration status. I think would make great headlines if Trump deported a member of Congress. I think it'd be great. She is one of the most ungrateful members of Congress, let alone in the country, and might say, well, Charlie, on what grounds could you deport her? There is a lot to say that her marriage is anything but legitimate. She married her husband, but only in a Somali faith wedding, her first real husband. And there's a lot of suspicion about whether or not she married her brother. There's a lot of allegedly around here. Then she married a second guy and lying on immigration application back to Mogadishu. And since America is such a terrible country full of stupid people, why don't you go make Mogadishu great again, Elon, I believe in you. Go to Mogadishu, run for mayor and bring forth the values of Ilhan Omar to Somalia. So the second guy she married, who Somali sources say were her brother. And it's not just trace. It's not trace because Somalia has no documentation. Great country over there. Maybe one thing. Elon Omar came to this country and she was full of gratitude and loved America. She calls Americans stupid. She hates the country. She hates Israel. She hates Jews. Sounds like a perfect person to get a deportation flight. Now, how would that work if a member of Congress was deported? That would be quite a novel test case. She's not alone in her outrage or her rancor. This is her fellow radical, Ms. Crockett. Play cut two.

[Ilhan Omar]

There are so many chats that we have where we are talking about what we're going to do and we're talking about what we are doing, but a matter of amplifying those things is a lot more difficult. And I think that it's important that those of us that sit in Congress have to figure out what is really the best way for us to communicate. And we've got to settle into that and recognize that not everyone's going to sit on a podcast. Not everyone's going to be social media savvy, but they are going to have to find their communication lane. And so I do think that it is something that we struggle with. We know right now we obviously have X that's owned by Elon. We've also got, you know, the other news network that I won't name and some other things. So there's an actual eco ecosystem that pumps out this disinformation consistently on behalf of them.

[Charlie Kirk]

Did you understand it? She just uses long words to sound smart when it doesn't really fit. No, it's not that we have a disinformation ecosystem. It's we have better ideas and we're willing to finally fight for them. We're willing to finally say no. We're not gonna allow you to destroy our country. We don't care what names that you administer towards us. Rush Limbaugh taught us this. As soon as you don't care what they call you, almost all of their little voodoo power goes away. Almost all of their little mind control goes away. They say, I don't care. That's the only tool in their toolkit. Once you say I don't care, they weaken, shatter, and scream. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us. As always, freedomarliekirk.com thanks so much for listening and God bless.

[David Sacks]

For more on many of these stories and news you can Trust, go to charliekirk.com.