Ian Bremmer Explains the New World Disorder

Summary

---

The Chris Cuomo Project

Episode: "Ian Bremmer Explains the New World Disorder"
Date: October 7, 2025
Guest: Ian Bremmer (Political scientist and founder of Eurasia Group)
Host: Chris Cuomo

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Chris Cuomo welcomes geopolitical expert Ian Bremmer to unpack the state of global disorder—from the intractable Israel-Gaza conflict to the crisis of American democracy, the role of social media, and the vulnerabilities that new technology brings. Together, they explore why America’s “world order” is crumbling, the consequences for ordinary Americans, and what it will take (if anything) to right the ship. Throughout, the discussion moves between major international flashpoints and the psychological, technological, and civic challenges present right here at home.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Has the World Given Up on Middle East Peace?

[01:25 – 11:45]

• Social Media and Outrage:

  • Cuomo expresses frustration that voices who once called Israel’s campaign in Gaza a “genocide” are now oddly silent about pressuring Hamas for a peace deal.
  • Cuomo: “It makes me wonder if this is more about advantage than it is about peace… more about outrage and venting than peace.” [03:12]
  • Bremmer: Social media doesn’t reward balance or reason—it rewards outrage.
  • Global leaders (Canada, UK, France, Australia) have been publicly urging Hamas to accept a deal, underscoring that meaningful voices are acting behind the scenes.

• The UN’s Role and Credibility:

  • Cuomo and Bremmer criticize the tendency to reduce complex institutions like the UN to clickbait headlines.
  • Credibility of global organizations suffers from "suspect" reports (e.g. declarations of genocide without broad international consensus).
  • Bremmer: Secretary General Guterres refused to call it genocide absent a clear ICC ruling. [07:01]

2. America’s Descent and the Role of Social Media

[09:09 – 16:00]

• Disruption of Reason:

  • Cuomo likens America’s trajectory to the fall of Rome, exacerbated by platforms that “monetize our worst instincts.”
  • Social media amplifies selective outrage—people care dramatically about Israel-Gaza, but not equally about atrocities in China, Syria, or Nigeria.
  • Cuomo: “The driving thing is I have been conditioned to care about this by social media and I have not been conditioned to care about any of the other things.” [11:45]

• Why the Israel Issue Hits Hard in the U.S.:

  • Bremmer: The U.S. is deeply tied to Israel, both as a primary ally and as a result of American accountability (voters, taxpayers). Thus, Israel-Gaza feels more pressing to Americans than comparable conflicts elsewhere.

3. The Changing Narrative Around Israel

[11:45 – 15:58]

• Shift in Global Sympathy:

  • Israel, once seen as the oppressed, is now viewed as the regional superpower (“by far the strongest militarily, technologically”).
  • Younger generations perceive Israel as the dominant, not the endangered; “Brand Israel has taken such a huge hit.”

• Antisemitism and Shifting Values:

  • Antisemitism, already at high levels before October 7, is tangling with this shift in sympathy.
  • Israel’s internal political changes (Netanyahu’s government, democratic backsliding) also strain the U.S.-Israel alliance.

  "Now in the last couple years, we've actually seen that Israel is by far the strongest country... It's put them in a position where they no longer are deterred even by Iran." – Ian Bremmer [12:50]

4. The Influence of Money and Lobbying

[18:04 – 22:30]

• AIPAC & Influence in D.C.:
  • Both fringes (right and left) claim Israel “masters” America through lobbying. Bremmer pushes back—many lobbies (NRA, tech, pharma, crypto) exert comparable, if not greater, influence.
  • Bremmer: “If you're going to make that argument, you should make it in the context of the nature of how consequential that money and that influence is compared to other things which they never seem to do.” [18:44]
  • Israel’s intelligence-sharing with the U.S. adds real security value, making the relationship more than transactional.

5. Why Did Israel Shun a Wider Coalition Response to Hamas?

[22:30 – 29:45]

• Cuomo: Israel refused outside help after October 7 because they wanted autonomy (“they knew they could do it themselves, and they didn't want anybody putting their foot on the brake”).

• Bremmer: Leadership matters—countries led by embattled leaders (like Netanyahu, under indictment) or coalitions with extremists govern differently, often to the long-term detriment of national and regional interests.

  "There are other countries that aren't led by an individual who is under indictment... Something happens to him if he's out of power." – Ian Bremmer [24:17]

6. Radicalization and the Cycle of Violence

[31:23 – 33:16]

• Israel’s hardline response radicalizes not only Palestinians but also young Americans and Europeans.
• Bremmer: “My point here is, Israel is radicalizing a generation of Palestinians, and Americans, and also Europeans.” [32:21]
• The consensus in Israel is that peace is impossible as long as Hamas remains, while continued violence ensures mutual radicalization.

7. Exiting the Crisis: Political Realities and Amnesty

[33:16 – 35:59]

• Bremmer: For peace, Netanyahu might need amnesty—allowing leaders to relinquish power without facing ruin, paralleling the dilemma with Trump in the U.S.
• Weaponizing institutions leads to escalation, lack of peaceful transitions, and "one-party state" risks.
• Ethical governance means making “climb-down” possible to avoid incentives for leaders to cling to power at any cost.

8. Tech, Drones, AI—and New Security Threats

[35:59 – 39:24]

• Drones and Asymmetric Warfare:

  • Future conflicts won’t be stopped by yesterday’s defenses like the Iron Dome.
  • Bremmer: “They don't know how you can have a rally in an open air stadium and not have a drone swarm that comes in and kills lots of people... Luck is not a strategy.” [36:21 – 38:07]

• AI Influence:

  • Companies like Palantir position AI as the answer to modern threats—a self-serving pitch, perhaps, but governments are buying in.

9. The Decline of Reason and Rise of Outrage

[39:30 – 43:27]

• Cuomo: "It is over in our democracy for any kind of premium on truth or eloquence or intelligence. And we are now in an age where a comedian in a hoodie can be in a box next to you and be like: 'Yeah, I don't think he knows what he's talking about.'" [39:35]

• Bremmer: The only responsible position is to remain authentic and focused on your own agency, despite the decay of institutions.

  "At the end of the day, you're responsible for being authentic to yourself. I can't be responsible for what other people do." – Ian Bremmer [42:16]

10. The American Democratic Malaise

[43:27 – 54:52]

• Facing Collapse?

  • Cuomo and Bremmer discuss coping with daily political chaos and the “flood the zone” media tactics of Trump and his allies.
  • Bremmer: “The problem we have is that the media companies ... and the algorithms are defining what matters for a lot of people, and those things don't actually affect them.” [49:39]
  • Social media is built to exploit users, not serve democracy.

• Personal Agency vs. Systemic Failure:

  • Cuomo: “When we leave it to the individual ... we really do need help and guidance.” [53:34]
  • Bremmer: The importance of community (family, church, city, state) remains, but federal leadership is absent.

11. Decline in Leadership & The Outrage Economy

[54:52 – 59:39]

• Failure of Moral Leadership:
  • The national conversation is dominated by “outrage machines”—individuals and media figures chasing clicks via conflict, not context or resolution.
  • Leaders on the local/state level (e.g. governors/mayors) show more technocratic, people-oriented leadership than those at the federal level.

12. The World’s Response: Building Resilience

[58:35 – 61:39]

• Rest of the World Moves On:
  • While the U.S. escalates domestic outrage, other global actors (Europe, Brazil, China, etc.) are creating resilience to American volatility—diversifying trade, investment, and military arrangements.
  • Bremmer: “So while the Americans are responding with this escalatory outrage, other countries around the world are saying, we don't want to fight. We're not going to escalate... We're going to try to create more resilience.” [59:53]

13. America’s Identity Crisis and the Future

[63:03 – 65:39]

• Identity & Legitimacy:
  • The U.S. is not, and will not be, a manufacturing powerhouse again. The service and tech economy leaves much of the population behind.
  • Bremmer: “The United States increasingly...don’t know what the country stands for. They don’t actually believe in the system or the leaders. And when you lose that legitimacy...that's not sustainable.” [63:47 – 65:39]

14. Social Media: The Big Threat & Remedies

[65:39 – 73:15]

• Section 230 and Regulation:
  • Cuomo: Tech companies are “publishers” via their curation and amplification, and should be held responsible, not shielded by old laws.
  • Bremmer: If content is algorithmically amplified, the platform is responsible; bots should never be verified or allowed to pay for influence.
  • More sophisticated rules are needed—much of what appears as “debate” is actually being shaped algorithmically and by bots, with increasing dangers from AI-driven impersonation and manipulation.

15. Everyday AI Threats

[72:26 – 74:13]

• Cuomo shares an anecdote illustrating today's vulnerability: A friend almost fell for an AI “voice deepfake” scam imitating his daughter.
• Bremmer (half-joking): “Fortunately, this is not a problem for young people because they don’t take phone calls.” [73:47]

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• On Social Media and Public Debate:

  • "It's more about getting clicks than it is about peace. It's more about outrage and venting and fomenting than it is about peace." — Chris Cuomo [03:12]

• On Israel’s Brand Shift:

  • "Brand Israel has taken such a huge hit. The Israeli cabinet members have told me this directly in the past weeks." — Ian Bremmer [14:00]

• On Choosing What to Care About:

  • "I've been conditioned to care about this by social media and I have not been conditioned to care about… any of the other things." — Chris Cuomo [11:45]

• On the Outrage Economy:

  • "Cuomo: ‘Even though you are an expert… it is over… for any kind of premium on truth or eloquence or intelligence... a comedian in a hoodie can be on equal footing.'" [39:35]
  • "Your ability to have voice, even Solzhenitsyn in the Gulag, was able to show they could not take away his humanity." — Ian Bremmer [41:51]

• On Soft Power and Legitimacy:

  • "Soft power does matter. Legitimacy is important. You do need friends." — Ian Bremmer [25:05]

• On U.S. Democracy’s Fragility:

  • "The challenge is much deeper. The Americans increasingly don’t know what the country stands for... That’s not sustainable." — Ian Bremmer [63:47 – 65:39]

• On Tech & Bots:

  • "If you are promoting it algorithmically, you are responsible for that... Bots cannot [be verified]. It should be illegal to verify a bot." — Ian Bremmer [67:07]

• On Everyday AI Risks:

  • (On the AI phone scam) "Wasn't her. It was AI… And it gives me the tingles now." — Chris Cuomo [73:30]

---

Conclusion & Takeaways

• The world order led by America is coming undone at home and abroad—driven by corrosive outrage cycles, weakening leadership, the amplification of social media, and new technological threats.
• Israel-Gaza is a laboratory for modern outrage, selective empathy, and the dilution of reason and accountability in global affairs.
• The U.S. no longer serves as the world’s stabilizing force or the democratic beacon it once aspired to be; both institutional and personal agency are under threat.
• Remedying this decline requires not just policy or leadership change but a fundamental reckoning with how society chooses, amplifies, and acts on information, especially in the attention economy.

---

Final words from Ian Bremmer:

“At the end of the day, you're responsible for being authentic to yourself... That matters.” [42:16]

Transcript

[A]

Is there going to be peace in the Middle east anytime soon? What does it mean back here? Does Israel have a stranglehold on America? And if so, is it for bad reason? Or is it a real alliance? And what is happening in this country and our society in America? And is it going to get worse or is there better in front of us? Man, these are daunting questions. I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to the Chris Cuomo Project. I have the man to answer these questions with a worldview, a level of expertise, travel and contacts that can never be matched by some bullshit comedian with a hoodie who saw something on Reddit. Ian Bremmer. Check him out, okay? All of his work, all of his international efforts and organizations, this is a man that world leaders call on to find out what, what to think. So he is a gift in my life as a resource and someone who is ready to get after it. Ian Bremmer, as always, thank you so much for being a gift to the people who are watching and listening.

[B]

Chris, my friend, it's always a pleasure. Looking forward to it. When I saw it on my calendar.

[A]

Help me understand a few things. First, where are all the people who want this to end, who call it a genocide? Why are they so quiet now instead of telling Hamas to take the deal?

[B]

The first person I saw online, and I'm not a hyper online guy in that category, was Mehdi Hasan. And I will tell you that I thought that Mehdi came out immediately and said, hey, there are actually a lot of good things in this deal and I hope it gets done. So I don't know if that's. I mean, I'm sure that people that are interested in pressuring Israel, a lot of them are less interested in pressuring Hamas. Those aren't reasonable people. Obviously reasonable people want peace and that means compromise from both of the belligerents here. And also reasonable people know that there has been lots of efforts where we've gotten close to peace and it's never quite made it. So it's easy to bet that it's going to fail. But I think you and I and most right thinking people around the world and most global leaders, by the way, and the global leaders have been pressuring Israel a lot. I saw like the Canadian Prime Minister, the British Prime Minister, the Australian Prime Minister, the French President, I've seen from all of them say this is a really important step forward. We really hope Hamas now accepts this. So maybe, I don't know, maybe those people matter more than the rando bots that show up in your nypd, they should.

[A]

You're being facetious. They should absolutely matter more. But the volubility of this is also relevant. Mehdi Hassan is an antagonist. It works well for him in this current climate. There's a difference between saying, I hope this deal gets done and Hamas. You have to surrender. You have to hand over the hostages and let the Palestinian Authority reform and return. You need to leave now to save this place. And he's not saying that. No one is saying that. And it makes me wonder if this is more about advantage than it is about peace. It's more about getting clicks than it is about peace. It's more about outrage and venting and fomenting than it is about peace.

[B]

Well, look, two points here. First of all, President Trump gave a 55 minute speech at the United Nations General Assembly. It was one applause line he delivered in that entire speech. 1. And it was where he said, this war in Gaza has to be over and Hamas has to let go all that to release all of these hostages now. And there was applause across the room. And that was the same room that had all of those delegates from dozens and dozens of countries that then on Friday walked out before the Israeli Prime Minister started his speech. So, again, I think those people are important. I think those people are important. But I accept that online and particularly on social media, you don't get an awful lot of plaudits for being sensible. You just don't for having a more balanced. You know, I gave a talk. Most of what I did was just private bilateral meetings and the like, but I did do one for Axios with, you know, sort of their leading foreign journalist. And I thought it was going to be a pretty good conversation. Really. Smart guy, hour long. And he started off just giving me all of these headline clicks about how useless the UN is and why do we have it at all. And I said, dude, this isn't a headline. We're having an hour conversation with all these people. You owe your audience better questions than that. And I'm not gonna answer that. I'm gonna tell them what the UN actually does, what it accomplishes that you can't just do in five seconds. And you know, it was. I get frustrated with.

[A]

That doesn't trip the algorithm. Look, I am. Look, first of all, you raised several good points. One, to put front and center of the audience right now is Ian is right. I am overvaluing the temperature and tenor of mixed metaphors. But still of the social media aspect of this dynamic, you are correct. Part of that is because I think its operative effect on leaders has become so pronounced. And I hope that that changes or that I'm wrong about it. And second, it is a mistake for me to do that. And it's part of what you're now talking about, which is what are we catering to? And I think that even when we bring things up like, you know, it's not that the UN sucks. I didn't like that report that came out and called it a genocide. I thought the people are suspect. I thought the bases for it were suspect. And I think that hurt the credibility of the organization.

[B]

But that said, and Secretary General Antonio Guterres refused to call it a genocide as a consequence of precisely that.

[A]

That's right.

[B]

He's like, unless the, the International Criminal Court comes out and says the genocide, they haven't actually made that ruling yet. I'm not going to say it.

[A]

Yeah. So I thought that was very smart of him. But I am watching. You know, I'm looking at Duncan's book again, the Storm before the Storm, about the fall of the Roman Empire. He's got a great podcast on it also. He's got another great podcast called Revolutions, which is really interesting for people in terms of what creates that alchemy of true dissent and disruption within societies. And I feel like that's what I'm seeing, Ian, is that we are on the way down. I have never said that in 25 years in this business. I've never said, oh, wow, I don't think this is a moment in time. I don't think this is just the swing of the pendulum in this silly binary system that we're in in America. I don't think that anything gets better here. I think that we are in a steady road down. And a big reason for it is what we have allowed social media because we have allowed these people to have no responsibility in developing platforms that monetize all of our worst instincts. And that's absolutely what they're doing. That's why Elon Musk tweets the ADL hates Christians. That's. That's what he tweets. The left is the party of murder.

[B]

Of murder.

[A]

If I said that at News Nation, I would get fired. If I said at right leaning News Nation, trying to be fair, the overcorrection, I think, is to be a little right. I'm not. But that, that's. The overcorrection is I would be fired if I worked for Time magazine, and.

[B]

Rightly so, by the way.

[A]

Yes, I would be fired. Not just apologize, I would be fired.

[B]

But those rules don't apply to the people with all the money and all the power. Yeah, and that is of course a big part of the problem. I mean, I saw Elon, since we're going off on Elon, you know, the latest thing that I saw from him was that he said everyone should cancel Netflix because of what it does to kids. And then someone underneath was like, well, so what do the kids, what should the kids be on? Obviously Twitter, right? I mean, are you, are you fucking kidding me?

[A]

I know I talk about something to boycott. I actually told somebody today, and I'm thinking about it. I don't think it's responsible for me doing what I do to ignore anything that is being used by people in this, in this space of media that I'm in to make choices. I think me not being on Twitter would be a mistake for that reason. However, I am also going old school. You know, the reason I reach out to you as regularly as I do. What do you think of this? What do you think of that? Is I just tap the people I trust. And I'm very anti Zeitgeist because it's so increasingly absurd. And I think that absurdist dynamic is coloring what we started talking about here. The conflict in the Middle east with Israel I think is a great laboratory for the disruption of reason. And even on a simple level of like, okay, so what you're pissed about is this white oppressor is killing these brown people, specifically Muslim brown people, and you think it's because they're brown Muslims and because Israel is a white oppressor. Of course Israel, you know, Jews aren't really white and Israel is, you know, 20 something percent Arab citizens, almost all of whom are Palestinian extract. But forget about the facts. It is seen as that. Okay, so if that's what bothers you, why doesn't it bother you in China when it is happening at such greater scale? Why doesn't it bother you in Syria? Why doesn't it bother you the way it was happening in Yemen and all these other places? Why doesn't it bother you when it's Christians in Nigeria or Boko Haram or why don't any of these things bother you? There are only two choices. One is because you hate the Jews. I am very light on that as the ultimate explanation. I think the Jews get beat up, but that's not the driving thing. The driving thing is I have been conditioned to care about this by social media and I have not been conditioned to care about this, to care about any of the other things.

[B]

There's a, there's a lot to unpack in what you're saying, Chris, is that as there always is. First, let me give you one additional factor. Not to say that they are mutually exclusive, but the fact is that Israel is the principal ally of the United States. So the Americans are accountable for, responsible for leading in, complicit with. Pick your descriptor of all the stuff that happens in Israel and with the Palestinians and therefore by extension the American people, voters, taxpayers are too. So in that regard it matters more because the US is directly involved in a way that they're not with the Chinese, they're not with Nigeria, they're not with Sudan, they're not with any of that other stuff. And that matters, especially in an America first environment where people, the people voted explicitly to say stop all that stuff. Cut off usaid. It may well be the USAID helps a whole bunch of people not to starve. We don't care as much about that as we care about Americans. To stop it, stop all the support for Ukraine because it's an ocean away. The Europeans can do it, but not when it comes to Israel. Okay? And that must mean there's something very special about Israel. They must behave in a particular way. They, there must be a reason that we find that particularly valuable in a way that we don't about literally anything else. And there are a lot of people inside maga, as you know, the Tucker Carlson's and the rest that are deeply uncomfortable with that. So I think that also plays. I don't think it's the principal reason, but I think it matters and I think it's important for us to express that as well. 100% anti Semitism is absolutely a thing. Right? And the level of antisemitism that we saw in our country, in Europe and around the world before October 7th was already spiraling to a very great degree, there's no question. And I think that matters too. But it's also true that there's just been a radical transition. Israel has for a very long time been seen as not just uniquely, consequentially obliterated by the Nazis. And we all say never again. And we don't say never again in the same way about the Armenian genocide, even though it happened. And there are lots of reasons for that. But the whole world came together and said, damn it, this will not stand. And the Jews were seen as the oppressed and you know, sort of the powerless and the weak and they needed to be protected. And now in the last couple years, we've actually seen that Israel is by far the strongest country militarily, technologically, the most capable in all of the Middle East. And it's put them in a position where they no longer are deterred even by Iran. They're no longer deterred by Hezbollah, which had been, had been by far the most powerful non state military actor in the world. And a lot of young people, you know, they stand up for the little guy. So suddenly, you know, you could make the argument that the Israelis were The little guy 30 years ago, 40 years ago, 50 years ago, however accurate or inaccurate that was, you can't really make that argument today. There's an effort to, there's an effort to say, hey, like, if we stop fighting, it's the end of Israel. The way the Ukrainians say, if we stop fighting, it's the end of Ukraine. But it's not credible because Israel has like 100 nukes, right? Because Israel can blow up all of their adversaries. And that's why Brand Israel has taken such a huge hit. And the Israeli, I mean, cabinet members of Israel have told me this directly in the past weeks. Like they're aware of how much Brand Israel has taken a hit and they need to do something about it, which they now are spending a lot more on social media and developing campaigns and the rest of the. How effective it will be in this environment, that's an open question, but all super, super important and interesting stuff.

[A]

Support comes from one skin. Look, if you're going to put it on your body or in your body or both, you got to have science behind it, real science expertise, not someone on Instagram. Okay? That's why I am very comfortable endorsing one's skin. At the core is their patented OS01 peptide. Peptides are all the rage, but they gotta be the right ones developed the right way. And that means you need to go with the right people. One skin. This OS01 peptide is the first ingredient proven to target senescent cells that's the root cause of wrinkles. One Skin Oneskin is the first skin care company built on longevity Science. Their patented OS01 peptide targets the cells that cause the visible signs of aging, helping your skin and scalp stay healthier, more resilient. Now and as you age, for a limited time, try Oneskin and you get 15% off. All you gotta do is use the code cuomo at oneskin co. 15% off oneskin co. Use the code Cuomo. After you purchase, they're gonna ask you, hey, where'd you hear about us? Please show the Chris Cuomo Project. Some love the sinister nature of Israel's importance to America. That's Tucker, Candace, all of the right wing cuckoos and the left wing cuckoos. And I don't always find these people to be cuckoo, but selectively they can be cuckoo on this. They agree, right? You got the left fringe and the right fringe agreeing that Israel, aipac, they have a grip on America. It's not us having a grip on them. They have us money choked and they are our masters and that's why American leaders make such stupid decisions when it comes to them. Is that true?

[B]

Well, I mean the United States is the most purchasable of the G7 democracies, right? So it is certainly true that any organized group with money has the ability to like buy members of Congress or rent them for their specific issues. And that is true for the NRA and that is true for the lawyers lobby. It's true for the police unions, the tech Bros. Tech Bros. Of course, Big pharma. Right. I mean big oil crypto, particularly crypto. In the last election they actually provided the most money far more than pro Israel lobby did. So I mean I would if you're going to make that argument, you should make it in the context of the nature of how consequential that money and that influence is compared to other things which they never seem to do. I mean, Tucker Carlson doesn't do that at all for Qatar where he's had a lot of, you know, sort of engagement and money and support. And the Qataris and the Gulfies in general since they've become far wealthier, are much more willing to spend that money on branded media, on infotainment, on think tanks. And rest assured, this is not just charity. Right? I mean they want to make sure that they're getting their message out. So I don't think that that pro Israel causes have a unique grab on the United States, but certainly they have influence that they pay for. Of course they do. And they've and the Prime Minister of Israel has made that very clear. He wasn't born yesterday. It's also true that the Israeli government has an extraordinary amount of intelligence that they share with the United States and that that intelligence on the Middle east is generally speaking of higher consequence and actionability. They are better at it than the United States is. So purely from a who do you get good stuff from that is like important filtered human intelligence, technology, surveillance intelligence. The reality is Israel has been one of the most important allies of the United States. Now then you have the broader Question of alignment of values and the fact that Israel has historically been the democracy in the Middle east and as you say, a democracy that is not just about Jews, even though Israel is a Jewish state, it is also about Arabs of Palestinian descent who live there as citizens in Israel proper, not the occupied territory. They vote, they have a party, they've been part of coalition government. I mean, it's not like they don't matter, and it's not like they're all leaving. But, but under the new Israeli prime minister, who's been there for a long time, Netanyahu, you see that Israel is much less of a democracy today. They have done things to weaponize and politicize, for example, their attorney general, their judiciary, in ways that President Trump feels very aligned with, but are not aligned with, American values, are not aligned with.

[A]

The political system or Israeli.

[B]

And in this regard, you know, the, the, the need, the desire of the United States to be as close to Israel no longer has that component of the stool. And over the long term, especially given the nature of the war in Gaza, Israel's asymmetric military capabilities and the staggering amount of death and destruction that's been visited upon 2 million Palestinians, many of whom are innocent civilians, many of whom are our children, are the infirm, are the age, and that is getting out, right? That those are things that are making a majority of young people in America align more with the Palestinian cause than with the Israeli cause. Despite October 7th, despite that terrorism, despite the fact that Hamas shares more in common with Al Qaeda than they do with a legitimate government, do you believe.

[A]

That there is another nation that if they were in Israel's position, would stop while the enemy was refusing to surrender and still holding their people?

[B]

I think that there are a lot of countries that would handle this very differently. And there are lots of ways that one can handle this differently. You framed it in a challenging way. Stop. Stop. Sounds like you're doing nothing. That's it. No more fighting at all. That's not what everyone is talking about. I think that after October 7, Israel had an outpouring of support from aligned governments all over the world. And the Israelis didn't have to go it alone. They could have actually said, we want a coalition of the willing. When Macron went over, they didn't want.

[A]

Anybody to stop them fight with us. They didn't want any stopping. They knew they could do it themselves, and they didn't want anybody putting their foot it on the break until they got it to where they wanted to. And we know why. You know, uniquely well, this was different for Israel. This scared them to the marrow. Not that they just got caught sleeping, which I believe. I don't believe they let this happen on purpose. I don't believe this is BB's plan. They were planning for a major incursion in the north against Hezbollah. They were not for this. They had fallen in love with and.

[B]

They had a lot of troops in the west bank that they had moved from Gaza, border security. And they just stop at the switch. And I consider the Israeli prime Minister to be partially responsible for that. Right.

[A]

They just weren't thinking about, they didn't, weren't at that state of usual paranoia. And.

[B]

But I'm just saying there are other countries that could have handled that differently. There are also other countries that aren't led by an individual who is under indictment, who is facing jail time. Right. Something happens to him if he's out of power. There are other countries that aren't in government coalition with religious extremist fundamentalists that believe in a greater version of their country that involves territorial expansion. So there are so many things, yeah.

[A]

He'S the wrong guy at the wrong.

[B]

Time that wouldn't lead to a situation where the Saudis, who. You thought you were going to normalize with Israel, the Saudis are saying this is a genocide. The Saudis, Mohammed bin Salman, yeah, Directly said this is a genocide.

[A]

Well, he would know, and he would know what it looks like to kill people mercilessly.

[B]

When you are to that point, you've, you've clearly lost a lot of credibility. And that, that. And, and look, maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe credibility doesn't matter. Because if we're in a world where force and it's the law of the jungle is what matters, then the Americans and the Israelis and the Russians just went all over the place. Maybe that's what it is, but I don't think that's what it is. I think that's too harsh a judgment of what the world looks like today. I think soft power does matter. I think legitimacy is important. I think you do need friends. And all of those things I think have been lost over the two years, almost two years now of this war.

[A]

But what do you do? Look, first of all, you can always argue this lots of different ways, right? And I don't accept this, but if it were a point of debate, this would be clever. The ratio, you think you see a lot of death here in Gaza, it's because we're showing it to you all the time and you're seeing it in very Stilted ways because they won't let real media in there, which is a huge mistake for the IDF. And I said that since October 7th. But World War II, the ratio was much worse. Our campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan, much worse. What we did after Pearl harbor, much worse. If. And then you get into the theoret, so they are not killing in a way that we did and the world did in those other circumstances and in the theoretical if this were us, we saw what we did after 9 11. And you can say, well, yeah, but that was wrong. We did. What we did was wrong.

[B]

Well, pretty clear, yeah.

[A]

That's not how the country felt at that time and it's not even really how history has remembered it. Even though we went into the wrong country for bad reasons for years and lost many, many, many more people.

[B]

I think part of why Trump won the election.

[A]

Yeah, I think so.

[B]

Because he was the guy that said no more. Those wars were fought on the back of the poor and the disempowered in the United States. And they were angry about it. Yeah. Because, I mean, people do remember that after 9 11, the Americans really shat the bed repeatedly.

[A]

Yeah, I agree. But we had that righteous indignation on our side. But I'm saying that I hear that and I understand that in a debate format, those are bad facts for the idea that this is somehow worse. But I don't think that that is the dispositive line of reckoning. I think the dispositive line for reckoning, for me, subject to what you say in response, is this. I know why they didn't go with the coalition. They didn't go with the coalition because they knew they could get it done and they wanted to have. And BB was driving this. And it is existential for him, not as a Jew and as an Israeli, but as a politician.

[B]

That's right.

[A]

He's got big trouble. He was very Trumpy in his authoritarian moves and they were ugly moves and his society had rejected them and he was in trouble. But they became distracted by the scariest thing to a Jew imaginable, which was October 7th. And they decided, we are not going to let our friends, let us not win again, like happens every time, where they let us defend ourselves and survive, but we can't win this time. We're going to win. And that worked for six months. Since then, they've been stuck and not knowing what to do because. And you know this also in Israel, it is a consensus that this can't end as long as Hamas is there, that it will happen again. And now the Iron Dome won't save them from the next wave of violence, which is the drones. So if you don't eradicate it now and remove that threat, it's going to happen almost as soon as you stop and in a way that the Iron Dome won't save. What do you think of that?

[B]

I think that you're absolutely right as to the reasons, the many reasons why the Israeli Prime Minister refused to accept help even though it would have been the best thing for his country long term, and why he refused to stop after six months when it was clear enough already, you've blown up the leadership and now you're losing international support. And why he's continuing to go and continue to go and continue to go and look, I really hope that Trump's deal, supported by the Gulf, supported by the G7, and with the Israeli leadership accepting it, assuming that Hamas won't, I hope that Hamas can find a way to support it because it would be the best possible thing.

[A]

But why would they support it, Ian, if it means they're out?

[B]

Well, it may mean they're out, but in principle at least, it means that some of them get to continue to live, which I mean, in this environment where they've taken out your leaders, I mean, Israel has assassinated all the military leadership. Right. They tried to assassinate the political leadership in Qatar. Right. And they almost succeeded. So I mean, if you're the guy making the decision. Look, I can't speak for Hamas's rationality. I have no idea what someone in that position thinks. It's alien to me. It's alien to you. But. But I'd like to hope for the well being of the people in the region, Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians in the occupied territory that they can get to. Yes. Cuz I mean everything else is disastrous for everybody long term. Right. That's. That's where we want to get, but we're not there. And do I worry? But do I worry about. You asked about drones. You asked about drones.

[A]

I want you to answer that.

[B]

Long term, I want you to answer that.

[A]

But fill in one thing. Why isn't the answer Hamas says no, and then it's on the Arabs instead of the Jews. Okay. Then you go in there, you get rid of Hamas, you make it into somebody who you want as a neighbor, because you don't want that with Gaza right now. That's why you have that wall on the border in Rafah with Egypt, which is the most menacing wall I've ever seen. Absolutely. In that region. And they Say there are brothers.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

You just won't let them in, ever. Not even now. But why don't you? Why isn't that the alternative? That. Okay, if they say no, then you do it.

[B]

There are millions now, of course, of Palestinians living as. As refugees in Jordan, destabilizing with no right of return. And the Egyptians understand that Israel, at least the Israeli government, as it stands today, would be delighted to make that kind of a problem, Egypt's problem. Now, the deal that has been worked out will mean that security and reconstruction will be on the back of regional partners, that they're going to fund it, that they're going to provide soldiers, they're going to provide security. It's not going to be the Palestinians. They're not going to have their own policing, they'll have their own governance. But that's very different. Armed forces, no one is going to tolerate that. My point here, leaving aside all the civilians that are getting killed, is that Israel is radicalizing a generation of Palestinians and Americans.

[A]

And Americans.

[B]

And Americans and also and Europeans and all the rest. And for the life of me, I don't understand how that is better than the question of 2000. They guess Hamas fighters that are still boxed up in Gaza City. I mean, do I want all the Hamas fighters either dead or in prison? Of course I do. By the way, I also want all the Israelis that are. That are guilty of war crimes. I want them to be held responsible for what they've done, too. That's not going to happen. So there are lots of things that you and I would like to see that aren't gonna happen. But I know that what's the most damaging thing is, as the war continues, you're gonna end up with a lot more violence. You're going to end up with a lot more radical hatred of Palestinians towards Jews who are not responsible for this.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

And who's going to get hurt? Civilians. Yes. In a bus bomb, civilians in, you know, sort of a drone attack. Of course that's going to happen. So the longer this goes on to benefit the Israeli Prime Minister, the worst is. Now. The one thing I really would like to see for someone who desperately doesn't deserve it, is I want some kind of amnesty for Bibi so that he can leave power. And it doesn't mean that he and his family are going to jail, not because he deserves it, but because the fact is, you've got to find a climb down. That doesn't mean that he's going to fight tooth and nail to stay in no matter what I see what happens in Latin America when countries understand that your leaders are not just voted out, but they lose everything. They lose their money, they lose their families, they lose their lives. And that means that these countries end up becoming disastrous kleptocracies. And I worry that in the United States, as our own institutions become weaponized, that we create an environment where Trump has to hold on for everything. Because if he loses, that's it for him and his family. They're gonna go to jail, right? I mean, Peter Navarro, that's what his new book is all about. I went to jail so that you didn't have to. You couldn't make it any more explicit than that. You know, the Americans, we don't take subtlety well. You gotta really hit us hard, you know, with these damn book covers. But, you know, they are convinced. And I don't think it is equivalent what Trump is doing to weaponize American institutions with what Biden did. I don't think it's equivalent. But I do believe that there were steps taken in the Biden administration that were not aligned with rule of law and that now can be used as an excuse for Trump to go all that much farther. And we know how this ends, Chris. It ends without having free and fair elections. It ends with having something that looks more like a one party state and that's not sustainable. And that's not the America that you and I grew up in or that love and care for and would fight for. Living with schizophrenia isn't easy, especially when you're not getting relief from some of your symptoms. It can be hard when you're still dealing with symptoms like hearing voices or seeing things that aren't there and negative symptoms like feeling unmotivated or avoiding social situations. If this sounds familiar, it might be time to talk to your healthcare provider and explore a different kind of schizophrenia treatment. Discover your [e-mail].

[A]

How real is the threat to Israel now that the Iron Dome is not designed to stop what we see happening between Ukraine and Russia? And it is so easy for terrorists to get these kinds of devices by the hundreds and send over in swarms?

[B]

How real is the threat to the United States? I mean, it's not like Israel's unique in that regard. The White House is deeply concerned about this. I was recently with a group of chief security officers from the top companies all over the world. They're terrified about this stuff. They don't know how you can have a rally in an open air stadium and not have a drone swarm that comes in and kills lots of people. When I asked why hasn't that happened yet in this environment? They say we don't know, we think we've been lucky. I really don't like that answer me either. Luck is not a strategy. And so, yeah, the technology is getting more substantial. Look, Trump gives his speech at the un almost an hour speech, and most of that speech will be remembered for his excoriation of multilateralism and the un, which, I mean, if only they had given him the contract to put the mahogany in and the marble in, he would be, oh, what an amazing escalator and the whole thing. So, I mean, you know, sometimes you're pennywise and pound foolish on this shit, but people will forget that. Trump actually called on the United nations to participate in a new American program to try to ensure that we don't have spread of bioweapons and that we use artificial intelligence. He said, and I want the UN to play a role in that. I mean, when you've got Trump saying the UN needs to do something else, you know, it's a serious problem. Right, right. So we don't have answers to asymmetric development of inexpensive warfare in the hands of non state actors. We don't have that.

[A]

Yeah. And you know, I. One of the Palantir guys was saying that AI is the answer and that the new weapons are the weapons that allow you to control other people's weapons and that that's what all the cyber war is about.

[B]

And that's why the Palantir guys say.

[A]

That, because they're in that business. Shocker. But by the way, I mean, they're already made men. Only a fool like me doesn't buy their stock. Because as soon as Elon introduced them into Doge and made them one of the prim mechanisms and basically integrated them as, you know, an adjunct to government palantirs all over the government now. The Trump administration loves them. AI is the future. They're leading that way. I mean, you know, they're like, they're going to be like the equivalent of like the, you know, the railroad guys.

[B]

Oh, the drones that are replacing security guards and are being used by the NYPD and the San Francisco force to be first responders before the police can get there. Those companies are growing 30, 40, 50% a year. But I don't invest. Right. And the reason I don't is because I think it would immediately undermine my ability to have a conversation like this with you.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Because suddenly I have a financial interest in the success of that company. I'm no different then than all the guys going on cnbc. No use. Not. Not useful.

[A]

I'm with you until my next point. Question and topic for you, which is, you might as well.

[B]

Very. That's a very short time for you to be with me. That's like literally five seconds.

[A]

You might as well invest. I might as well invest because it's over. Even though you are an expert and a thinker and, in my opinion, a philosopher, by anyone's definition, it is over in our democracy for any kind of premium on truth or eloquence or intelligence. And we are now in an age where a comedian in a hoodie can be in a box next to you and be like, yeah, I don't think he knows what he's talking about about this stuff. You know, I read a book. Yeah, right. Yeah. Like, that guy can now be like, well, what do you mean? Here's what happened in 1887 that you're not talking about. And he is now on equal footing.

[B]

And the Christmas guy goes into a bar. Yeah, right.

[A]

A horse walks into a bar. Bartender says, why the long face? Exactly. The question is, how fucked are we here at home when people are looking around and saying, all right, so the democracy is dying, so we may not have a transition of power this time. This guy may not leave. There may be civil war. Listen to Hegseth. Look at all his guys. Look what they're doing with the currency. Look what's happening with. All right, so this is it. This is the beginning of the end. It's all going down. This is what we get for not cherishing what we had.

[B]

Even if you believe that. And you don't fully believe that, Right. You worried about it. You don't fully believe it. You're hoping that it's not the case. But even if you fully believe it, it's irresponsible for you to say, well, it doesn't matter. Because when I started my career traveling to the former Soviet Union, at that point behind the Iron Curtain and East European countries and the captive nations, the republics that were their own peoples, like the Ukrainian Republic didn't have a country. The Baltic republics, my friends back then, they were honest people, and they were dissidents. Right? And some of them were well known, and some of them were completely unknown. They were the people that would have been journalists, if you were allowed to be a journalist. But that still made them respected, that made society function. Even in authoritarian regime. Your ability to have voice, even Solzhenitsyn in the Gulag was able to show that they could not take away his humanity. So you tell me even in the worst situation, that what I say and what I do doesn't matter. I'm not gonna leave the country, just like I'm not gonna leave Twitter. I mean, they're gonna have to arrest me if that's what it comes down to, because I'll be a dissident. I mean, it doesn't matter. The end of the day, you're responsible for being authentic to yourself. I can't be responsible for what other people do. You know, you go off and say something stupid tomorrow, Chris, you're a friend of mine. I'll send you a dm. You and I have done that with each other before on a couple of occasions, right? We respect each other. It's all bueno. But I can only be responsible for me, and I can't be responsible for my political system. As much as I love it, as much as it pains me when we fuck up. And so that means I have to keep doing what I'm doing. And if people wanna listen to it, God bless. If I'm making a difference to folks that follow me, that's great. If there are world leaders that actually really wanna know what the hell's going on, are trying to be accountable and don't want World War III and want these institutions to stand up, I'll talk to them too, as I do, and that. That matters. But. But ultimately, like, I'm the one that when I fall asleep at night, I gotta be comfortable with what I did that day. You know? That's all that matters.

[A]

I get it. I applaud it, and I need it. So the, the follow is, when you wake up in the morning, what are your expectations of what you're going to learn that day about the state of American democracy and society? Where do you think we are heading and what are the variables?

[B]

So I'm going to start in a place that you don't expect, because I want to play off of what we just discussed this morning. The first thing I thought about was, because it was on NPR in the morning with my alarm, was all of this Hegseth stuff. Increasingly in the morning, I try to think about one or two things that I am not bothered by that are driving people crazy. And I'm like, yeah, I don't really think this thing matters. Like the Cuttery plane. Remember when the Cutteries gave that plane, everyone was like, $400 million. Wasn't a $400 million plane. Couldn't sell that plane $400 million. I think, like, they tried to sell for $250 million. Wasn't even going for that, right? And we know it would take years to actually reconfigure. And Trump's never gonna fly it as president and probably never gonna happen. People went crazy, right? I'm like, I'm just not gonna worry about that. And the Hagseth thing, I decided I wasn't gonna worry about. So I write my update on Monday and people write me back and like, how come you didn't write about that? And I actually said, well, you know, Hegseth, right? Who's not the sharpest tool in the cabinet, right? I mean, like, he's. He's clearly in better shape than many cabinet members. And I understand that's important, right, to be in the military, but he's not the sharpest tool. He screwed up a couple times, right? I mean, he was the guy that was truly implicated in Signal Gate, not Mike Waltz, right? It was his stupidity. Like, I'm gonna show off that I get all this information, I'm gonna send it out, right? He should have been doing that. And then he was the guy that when Trump wanted a really big parade, like North Korea style, China style, and then, like, Hegsett's responsible parade sucks. Literally sucks, right? I mean, like, Trump was bored. He's like, ah, this is. These guys are mailing it in, right? So Hagsett knows he's got to do something to kind of impress the boss. So what's he doing? He's like calling them all in from all over the world. They're going to look Cracker Jack and they're not going to be Denny Di. There's not going to be any woke. There's not any men in dresses. He's the only one with sideburns. The rest of them would be high and tight, baby, right? And I mean, like, he's going to put that on and he's going to invite Trump. And struck me as something like, there was someone that wrote about the fact that this was what happened in Nazi Germany. And then I think it was J.D. vance was like, cool story, bro. Or maybe it was Hegseth that wrote that. Whoever the hell it was, I was not bothered by that. And it was a conscious choice. There are some things that I'm not bothered by because I know that I have no expertise. It's not my lane. And so I'm gonna let other people. I assume that there are Ian Bremmers in other fields, right? I'm not the only one. So I am the Ian Bremmer of International Relations. There are others out there, Fareed Zakaria, for example. There are others that I really love and respect that have devoted their lives to understanding the world. Frank Fukuyama I got a whole list of those people. Right. And we are good to the extent that we keep doing that. We build our networks, we do our research, we travel the world and we talk about shit we know about. But like when people got really upset about transgender issues. There's no one transgender in my family, so I don't even have an ax personally. I haven't spoken to doctors about it. I don't know the state of the medical technology. I really don't know much about the issues at play. I'm gonna let other people get worked up over that. So the level of stuff that on a given morning that I'm really worked up over is comparatively small.

[A]

Well, I think also that's a good coping mechanism. It helps because whether it was Bannon or it's Trump or it's both, or it's just circumstance, these guys flood the zone in a way I've never had to contend with.

[B]

And it's a strategy. Absolutely.

[A]

Yeah. And if it is a strategy, good on them, cuz it fucking works. But. And it's made for social media. You know, I reached out to this influencer today and said, hey, when you put out that clip of this guy playing Gotcha with this lawmaker on a tangential issue that really wasn't even what they were talking about, what would you think that was going to get you? Like, where does Gotcha get you? Like why? Why would you focus on it that way? And the influencer did not remember putting out the clip. And it was like, I don't even know what you're talking about. I was like, well, here it is. It's from, you know, your, your page. And it reminded me that Trump is perfect for the social media age. And I'm not saying it's why we have Trump. I believe the Democrats and grievance in America that they misunderstood and lost their touch with is why we have Trump end this phase. But it is perfect for social media because you can't stay focused on anything. And it's all one line and no context and just keep putting shit out there. Keep putting shit out there. And so here we are now. Nothing really ever gets resolved. Nothing really gets even Immigration. I mean, if you're gonna pick one thing that Trump was rid like a show pony. It was build a wall. Is the wall finished? No, not really. But it wasn't really that important. Legal immigration, nothing done, not a legislative priority. Never going to happen. Tariffs. Is he even making deals anymore? I don't know. Now the farmers are starting to chirp because they're getting beat up. It works perfectly. But I also am really worried. I'm really worried. Not about Nazis. I'm not worried about Nazis.

[B]

What we're talking about is agency, right? That the strategy that I have is that I'm going to define the things that will matter to me, right? And the problem we have is that the media companies and the political leaders or political partisans and the algorithms are defining what matters for a lot of people, and those things don't actually affect them. Whether or not you have like 10 people in the country that are transgender athletes that are participating somewhere, that doesn't actually affect the vast majority of American voters. But if you allow other people to define for you what matters, then you're going to be aggravated and alienated all the time. And particularly because it's very important for the social media companies for you not to have agency. It's very. Because you're the product. You're not a voter, you're not a consumer, you're not the citizen. You're a product. They are making money off of you and your data. If you have agency that you're actually subverting their business model. And if there's anything that you and I can do as citizens, it's we need to actively subvert their business model because their business models are not actually compatible with representative democracy, right? So it's very important that when I wake up in the morning, you know, who I am is what's defining what I'm going to be concerned about. And that's part of why the real answer to Elon saying, hey, take your kids off of Netflix. What should they be on instead? The answer is none of this stuff, right?

[A]

Certainly not his talking to their families.

[B]

They need to be playing ball outside. They need to be doing stuff that will connect them with their fellow human beings.

[A]

Support comes from Shopify. Let me tell you something. Running a business is not easy. I know, because I suck at it. But here's what I've learned. That it's not so much the business, it's the business behind the business that helps you monetize what it is that you do. The service or the good. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world. 10% of all either E commerce in the United States. Mattel, Gymshark, a lot of startups. Shopify is the reason that they get up and they get going. Why you get to start with your own design studio. Hundreds of ready to use templates. Shopify can help you build a beautiful online store to match your brand style. I want to use it for free agent gear to get you to where your independence. So you, you can use Shopify to accelerate your content creation. Packed with helpful AI tools, right? Product descriptions, page headlines, even enhance your product photography. Shopify is your commerce expert. Okay? They have world class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns and beyond. So you got to be ready to succeed and then you got to be ready for Shopify. Turn your big business business ideas into a ka ching. Shopify on your side will make the difference in dollars and cents. Sign up for your $1 a month trial and start selling today at shopify.com Chris C. Where shopify.com Chris C. Shopify.com Chris C. You know, this is where America gets in trouble, which is where it winds up being on you to make the change. You know, the obesity, the intellectual gap, the manufacturing gap. You know, when we leave it to the individual, which there's something very romantic about that and empowering about that that, you know, you do you nobody in America live and let live you do you, you know.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And I take it we really do need help and guidance. And I don't like saying that because I don't like the idea of government, you know, marshaling that kind of power in society. I do believe in all the government you need, but only the government you need, tautology though it may be.

[B]

But that's where also, that's where the family comes in, it's where the church comes in, it's where communities come in.

[A]

Yeah, but I don't know that those things are working a lot of the time.

[B]

I know, but it's also where towns come in and cities and states. People think the government, they think the federal government. And yet when you look at mayors and governors across the country, much more of those people, red or blue, are technocratic and oriented towards helping their people. I mean, when Charlie Kirk was assassinated, you compare what Spencer Cox, the governor of Utah, had to say, which was the message we all needed to hear. Compare that to what Donald Trump had to say, which was a message that did not merit the office that he was speaking from.

[A]

100%.

[B]

That is the point. So we need leaders, but we, we don't have federal leaders right now. We do have leaders and we're not spending enough time with the leaders we have.

[A]

I think that that is a very good point. And we keep seeing them like one upping themselves in a battle to the bottom. Like, I don't. I didn't understand why my friends on the left didn't understand that the phrase but at the same time had no place in a discussion about Charlie Kirk's murder. Charlie Kirk's murder was a full stop. This is wrong. We don't do this. Not only is it illegal, it's wrong. Okay, yeah, but at the same time, what he was saying, and I would say to them, no, no, not at the same time. At a different time, I don't agree with that. During a school shooting, that's the time to discuss why these things keep happening because we do nothing about it. This is not that time. Because it doesn't matter what he was saying, unless he was saying something that was specific and imminent to the destruction of the country that was gonna happen the next day. There is no legal justification or moral justification and they don't get it and they resist it.

[B]

I agree with that. But when the President of the United States says that it is the left that is responsible for all political violence and imputes that before you have a shooter or a motive, then you've already thrown that away.

[A]

I know. I've thrown it completely away.

[B]

The messaging, that is. I grew up in the projects. You know this. When I blame people, I put most accountability on the most powerful, most accountability on the wealthiest that have the most influence. Those are the people I blame first. And so it starts with the President. It has to. It starts with the wealthiest person in America, heck, on the planet. It has to. And then after that, you can go to the second tier leaders and the second tier oligarchs, but start with where the problem.

[A]

Yeah, but he's not. He is not built for that. And that's not an excuse. That's a reality. And he's going to be gone. My concern is the guy who follows him, and it will be a guy is going to be actually worse because Trump is not what they describe him as. This guy does not have the vision, the purpose, the intellectual construct to be the boogeyman that they are saying he is.

[B]

I've been incredibly impressed with how much Trump has been able to do with his team that is very loyal to him and very consolidated. His team includes the whole party leadership at this point, not just the cabinet in 10 months. So I am not yet ready to spend a lot of time thinking about post Trump when you are only 10 months into Trump.

[A]

I'm saying I've never heard anything that is suggestive to me of anything about him wanting to stay beyond this period. And I'm just saying, I just feel we're accelerating in a bad direction because we don't have the leaders. We are all grievance, we are all outrage. And I'm watching it make fortunes in the media that I watch people who were already kind of significant, who now are independent but completely dependent on social media and what works there. And they are outrage machines. That's all they are. Maybe they're playing for the right, maybe they're playing for the left, but it is all outrage all the time.

[B]

So, Chris, I'm going to take you somewhere slightly orthogonal, but address this, which is. I see lots of places where the response is not outraged. And it is outside the United States. It is the 7.5 plus billion people and their governments who are all like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. We don't want World War iii. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. We need the UN and the IMF and the World Bank. We need rule of law. And so we need trade. We need to have access to talent. We need visas. I mean, the Chinese, we're going to spend a lot on visas. We're going to massively step up ice. What do the Chinese do? We're going to make it easier for the top talent to come to China. Right. So what I see happening is other countries around the world trying to create resilience, trying to improve their defense, trying to improve their trade relations with other countries, trying to make sure that their rule of law kind of works, all of those things, so that what happens in the United States doesn't bring everything down.

[A]

Now, you see that when you say orthogonal. So. So when you're saying that, like, orthogonal for you guys means at a right angle, but the. When you say that, is it other than China? Because China, of course, is doing that because they're preying on our demise.

[B]

Yeah. But Brazil, I mean, you know, they're getting hit really hard by the Americans for something that has nothing to do with the trade balance. It's just because Trump is unhappy about their Supreme Court going after Bolsonaro through their own judicial and legal process. And so Brazil is now like, okay, we've got to step up and get this Mercosur EU trade deal done as fast as possible. It was dead in the water before that. And they're reaching out to India and they're reaching out to China, and they're reaching out to Mexico and Canada bilaterally as opposed to through USMCA process. Right. The Europeans are spending far more on defense. The Germans are really stepping up, but they're also saying, okay, how do we make sure that we can get critical enablers built inside Europe in case we can't count on the Americans? In case the Americans could shut down their chips if they don't like the way we're engaging with them? We can't have that kind of influence coming from a predatory us that we can't count on. So I'm seeing that kind of behavior happening everywhere. So while the Americans are responding with this escalatory outrage, other countries around the world are saying, we don't want to fight. We're not going to escalate. We know you guys are really powerful, but we're going to try to create more resilience. We're going to try to keep these institutions. We don't want to have these huge fights because we. At the end of the day, I know that, you know, America first is what we're all about, but actually, we're human beings first. Actually, the most important affiliation we have is with our common humanity on this tiny little ball. And most of the people on a tiny little ball are not oriented towards more and more outrage and escalatory cycle every moment of the day. That's super important. Right. We are not modeling behavior for the rest of the world right now. That's a good thing in a way, that we were modeling behavior for the rest of the world back in 1989 when the Wall came down. And at that point, that was really useful.

[A]

I agree. I. I accept the analysis and I appreciate it. And I'm trying to think on. On one level, on an ecumenical level, that's good. On a America first level, not feel good, still good. Well, but hold on, it could still be good. Here's why. So they don't need us as much. They're doing their own thing. You don't have to give them as much money. You're not the world's true pocketbook and all that. Okay, now then there's the main level. Well, that's actually very frightening because it goes along with Duncan's understanding of the storm before the storm, which is we built this system of geopolitics for a reason. Americans have wanted the rest of the world to be dependent upon them. It was worth the money and aligned with us. It was worth the money because they were our trade partners. They were subservient, they needed us. They wanted to come here. We were the ideal. And I believe that that's dying and not just because you just said in a way that it is being replaced. But what does it mean for us and what happens here? We're talking, you know, right now it's, yeah, we're going to bring back manufacturing. No, we're not.

[B]

No, we're not.

[A]

And not, not the way we're thinking about it, like making cars.

[B]

We have a services economy, we have a knowledge economy. We're not bringing back a 20th century.

[A]

Economy, but we're not educating people for it. Yeah, so you get. So we're not educating people for it, we are investing in it. But that is a very selective class of people.

[B]

Right.

[A]

That's the tech tech Bros and who they bring in and cherry pick. But it's not what we're designed for as a society. Not yet. We don't even talk about it. And it makes me wonder what stops us from accelerating in the wrong direction. And I don't think it's just, we're not just a new Trump away or the opposite of Trump away. I think it's way deeper than that.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. This is not the, the result of one electoral cycle. Trump is the principal symptom. He's the principal beneficiary, but he's obviously not the cause. You and I have talked about various aspects of this over many, many years now. And so, no, the challenge is much deeper. The challenge is that the United States increasingly, the Americans increasingly don't know what the country stands for. They don't actually believe in the system or the leaders. And when you lose that legitimacy and when you allow people to actually believe, as Trump said, that the enemy, the principal enemy is the enemy within. And everyone agrees on that. They just disagree on which side that actually is. That's not sustainable. Right. It's not sustainable. That will not lead to a country that you would want to be in and thrive in the future. That's a country that's beginning to tear itself apart. And it will lead to more Charlie Kirks. It will lead to more people taking the law into their own hands, more vigilantism, which is incredibly misplaced, which is the opposite of rule of law, which is exactly what America has stood against, at least in its own system since it's founding. You know, we want the ability for the people that first, the colonists that escaped repression to be able to make their own lives. And that is, you know, okay, it didn't apply to women, didn't apply to black people. I get all. It didn't apply to. Even people didn't own property to begin with, but still, Those principles at that time meant something fundamental. And now a lot of Americans, and I fear increasingly a majority of Americans, really aren't convinced by that anymore.

[A]

I agree. Or at least they don't know how it manifests or they don't see it outside of their own life. As soon as you get into public life and what everything else is, it all seems very messy. And it seems that the majority is disconnected because it's almost. It's toxic to their existence to take it on. So you have the few dominating the many right now. Now, I believe social media is the focal point, but I also believe that I am on the wrong side of the debate of what to do about it, because I can win the debate very easily. And not just, you know, in a silly, facile way, but regulations of speech. I don't want anything to do with that. Okay, well, then what do you do? So then I said, well, I want to even the playing field, though, so that the people. I don't believe what we said in 1996. I don't believe Section 230. They didn't just build the stadium, they built Thunderdome. And they curate the content, they amplify the content, they. They monetize the content, even if they're not writing the content. Somebody else makes the content. Who writes it. They decide what happens with that content.

[B]

That's right.

[A]

So I believe they are publishers just as much as my boss doesn't write my monologue.

[B]

I believe if they promote something algorithmically.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Then they are responsible for it. And I think you can start by saying that only human beings can be verified. Bots cannot. It should be illegal to verify a bottle. You should not be able to make money. A bot should not. A fake account should not be able to pay $10 a month to get a star to be algorithmically verified. Number one. Number two is that if you. If someone wants to post something and it's hateful and it, you know, is against the terms of service, you shut it down. If it's not against the terms of service, you leave it up. Plenty of stuff that's hateful can be left up. But if you are promoting it algorithmically, you are responsible for that. In the same way that if you and I have a phone call and we're talking about assassinating somebody, the phone company's not responsible for that. You and I are. But if the phone company then takes that conversation and promotes it to all people they think might be interested in extremist violence, the phone company's suddenly responsible for that. Of course they are. So do not tell me that these social media companies aren't responsible. And the governments around the world, authoritarian governments, are very good at finding individual accounts that are threatening to them and telling the social media companies, you deplatform those people, or we will shut you down. Turkey has done it. India has done it. A whole bunch of countries that are not as free and fair as the Europeans, the Americans, Canada, and those democracies need to start focusing on the accounts that are a threat to them because they are promoting things that are antithetical to their interests. And say, you can't promote those, and we'll shut you down if you do. It's that simple.

[A]

So what does it look like? You remove section 230, you have new legislation. Do we have to develop a sophistication within our government where they can have review of algorithms? I'm gonna look at your algorithm. I'm gonna be able to tell what you're amplifying, Elon, and you are amplifying these ideas that we know are untrue. Like, for instance.

[B]

So I'm not a tech specialist, but my understanding is that you don't need that. My understanding is that there's lots of ways to determine which accounts are being amplified, which are being throttled. And certainly it's easy to tell whether or not an account is acting like a human being or not.

[A]

Well, no, that part's easy. The bot versus a person. I'm with you. But I think that it's in terms of what they're amplifying, what becomes a hashtag, you know, what trends, what gets put in your. For you feed. That's what they're figuring out on the terms of what's most provocative, because that's where people. So you got 40% of the S&P 500 are in the attention economy. They want the most provocative shit. Okay? Elon wants the most provocative shit. That's why he says provocative shit. The other 60% want the ads next to that stuff. So you'd have to be able to. It's not just individual accounts. I think that's the easier part. I think the harder part is how you negotiate the ideas that he's putting out. That the left. That the ADL hates Christians. Okay, that to me, is way over the line. It would get me fired immediately if I were to say it. I think Jews have a problem with Christians because they just said that Christian identity is an. Is a hate movement. It is a hate movement. The FBI said it in 1986. You know, it's not Christians. It's this fringe group. I would get fired. To me, that is what needs to be attacked, that he is amplifying that for profit in a way that no other media platform is allowed to.

[B]

Yeah, well, TikTok will be about. Is about to be. And let's also keep in mind that when Trump had his phone call with Xi Jinping, finally, that there are all sorts of issues between these two countries. You've got precursor chemicals on fentanyl, you got critical mineral supply chains, you got semiconductors for AI, and on and on and on and on. There's one thing that Trump wanted to make sure that he got done in that call, and that was wants an agreement on TikTok. Why? Because he understands the power of having politically aligned people supporting him, controlling and promoting the algorithms on that space. And that is, again, obviously not going to help our democracy.

[A]

No. And that's the problem. But see, then is the answer really to not do what I'm saying and to keep it as free and unchallenged as possible, because that's how you get the most ideas out there that aren't being shaped by the power which is the sell on it right now, but look at what it's doing to us.

[B]

Yeah. I think that if you can actually get rid of the bots, which is such a huge percentage of what's actually promoting this stuff algorithmically, you'd get rid.

[A]

Of a big part of this problem.

[B]

So many of the people that you think you're engaging with aren't actually people. And as AI models improve, that problem becomes exponentially greater. Have to deal with this before that happens.

[A]

Yeah, I agree. A buddy of mine, I'll leave you with this little anecdote. And Ian, thank you so much, man. You're so smart and worldly and basic, and I appreciate you. Thank you for being my friend. Thank you for being my resource.

[B]

No, thank you, man. It's really great talking to you.

[A]

Buddy of mine gets a call from his daughter in college. Dad. Car broke down, ran out of gas. This guy's trying to help me. He's going to take me to this place. He's got a tow service. Tow service is coming. Come in. When his buddy runs it, it's great. Raleigh, Durham. I need the credit card, though, because I got to pay for the tow and I don't have the. The card number. Mom never gave it to me, whatever. And he's like, geez, credit card number. All right, let me get my credit card. And as it's happening, his Wife walks in laughing. It was like, Cheryl just told me the funniest thing that happened. And he was like, like, Cheryl just told you. I'm talking to her right now. Wasn't her.

[B]

Wasn't her.

[A]

It was AI.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And, yeah, it scared it. By the way, right now, me, Mr. Multiple Trips into war zones, all kinds of death. It gives me the tingles now.

[B]

Well, fortunately, this is not a problem for young people because they don't take phone calls.

[A]

Well, that's true, but I'm saying that's how good it's getting.

[B]

Absolutely.

[A]

And we got to deal with it. Ian Bremmer, thank you for saying the best thing that we needed to hear before anything else. You're a human being and it begins with you and what decisions you make for yourself. Okay?

[B]

Be good, man.

[A]

God damn. Gave me the chills. Doesn't it give you the chills? I mean, all of it gives me the chills, but I just. We gotta talk more about where we're heading because it seems to me that we're all battling about, like, the course and missing the destination of where we're going. And that's why I wanted to talk to Ian, to get that world perspective, to get the understanding of history and past, meeting present and what it means there and what it means here. So hopefully it was the brain food for you that it was for me. And I thank you for subscribing and following, checking me out at NewsNation, 8P and 11P every weekday night, Eastern. I gotta tell you, it is hard to be philosophical, to be expansive, to be open in an atmosphere, specifically social media, where everything is so narrow and tight, it's all outrage. And that's what's selling and that is what is made to sell. It's really tough. It's tough to keep doing what I know is the right thing for me and the best thing for us. What do you think? Let's get after it.

[B]

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. It's Cybersecurity Awareness Month, and LifeLock has tips to protect your identity. Use strong passwords, set up multi factor authentication, report phishing, and update the software on your devices. And for comprehensive identity protection, let Lifelock alert you to suspicious uses of your personal information. Lifelock also fixes identity theft, guaranteed or your money back. Stay smart, safe and protected with a 30 day free [e-mail] podcast terms apply.