← The President's Daily Brief
The President's Daily Brief
PDB Situation Report | August 16th, 2025: Putin’s Crumbling Economy & Trump’s DC Takeover
00:59:08
Loading summary
Transcript81 lines
- [00:01]
A
Corporate megastores are spending millions lobbying D.C. politicians on one sided policies that send small businesses tumbling. They want to enact harmful credit card mandates that take resources away from your local credit union and community bank, leaving Main street businesses with less access to credit, making it harder for your family to pay for everyday goods like gas and groceries. Tell Congress to guard your card and oppose the Durbin Marshall credit card mandates paid for by electronic Payments Coalition. Welcome to the PDP Situation Report. I'm Mike Baker, your eyes and ears on the world stage. All right, let's get briefed. First up, President Trump and Vladimir Putin meet in Alaska to talk ceasefire. Perhaps you've heard about this, but is Putin negotiating from a position of strength or is Moscow playing with a weak hand? Correspondent for the Keef Post, Jason J. Smart joins us with his insight. Now, mind you, this interview is taped just ahead of Friday's summit, so we'll be talking about expectations for the summit as opposed to actual results. Hopefully we'll be correct in our expectations. Later in the show, the Trump administration has deployed the national guard to Washington, D.C. and placed the city's police department on under federal control. It's an unprecedented move to tackle the crime in the nation's capital. We'll be joined by senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Zach Smith for more on what this means and what could come next. But first, today's Situation Report. Spotlight. President Trump and Vladimir Putin meet in Alaska on Friday for a high stakes summit aimed at hammering out a potential ceasefire in Ukraine. But any deal will hinge on what kind of position Putin is really in on the battlefield. Ukrainian forces are still pressing in some key areas. While Russia's military has taken heavy losses and is leaning hard on conscripts and foreign fighters. And yet with a surprise offensive occurring. But in the past week, they are also making some gains in Eastern Ukraine. Inside Russia, the economy is strained under sanctions, dissent simmers beneath the surface, and the Kremlin's grip on power is being tested in subtle but important ways. So the question becomes, is Putin sitting at the table with a strong hand or is Moscow playing a desperate 27 off suit? You should look that up in the poker handbook. Joining me now to help answer that question is Jason J. Smart, a KE based national security strategist and correspondent for the Keev Post. He also holds the distinct honor of being banned for life by the Kremlin. Huh? For supporting Russia's democratic opposition back in 2010. That's a lifetime ban. You can find his work on YouTube and you should find his work on YouTube at Jason J. Smart. Jason, welcome to the show. Thank you very much for taking the time here on THE Situation report.
- [02:59]
B
Thank you for the privilege. Great to see you.
- [03:01]
A
Great to see you, too. Well, let's start with that big question that everybody wants to wants to know about. What do you expect to happen from this summit in Alaska between Trump and Putin?
- [03:12]
B
I don't think there's going to be a lot of outcome, and I think most people in Ukraine, where I am, don't expect sort of a big change. The reality is that it's going to be an initial conversation, and at this stage, it's going to be probably just more talking about what is necessary to conclude this war. I think it's very clear that on the Russian side, there's an interest of distracting the US President to bring him to other issues to talk about everything except for Ukraine, because Vladimir Putin has no intention of ending this war. And so I don't think that there's a lot of hope that anything useful will come of this meeting.
- [03:43]
A
Okay, so why, let me ask this. Why is Putin agreeing to it, right? I mean, is it because there's really no downside to it, or is he, in fact, using it for whatever strategic purpose? Why has he agreed to do this?
- [03:58]
B
Oh, he has a lot to gain. I mean, let's look at this first. If they were to implement the new sanctions, the one that has support for more than 80 US senators right now, and that would destroy the Russian economy. About 40% of the Russian national budget comes from oil and gas. About 70, 75% of that is bought by India and China. Both countries are currently engaged in talks with the United States about tariffs. And undoubtedly this is something that they're trying to wield. To get a better deal on tariffs is to stop buying Russian oil and gas. This alone, if let's imagine they stop buying this, 30% of the Russian national budget disappears. Russia's in a very bad situation economically. And this being doubled down on, would simply sink Russia. Their economy would collapse. So Vladimir Putin has a few other options. And I think that Vladimir Putin, the career KGB officer, is entering this thinking, how do I have to talk to Trump in order to manipulate him essentially to fool him to believe that there's other issues here, there's outside concerns, and not to focus on the Ukraine issue. Let's talk about a million different ways that will work together as two countries. But we don't have to really focus on the Ukraine issue. That's a side issue because for him, it's wholly Unbeneficial. Should the United States decide to use its weight to force Russia out of Ukraine?
- [05:14]
A
I mean, you could make the argument that, look, given what you're saying, and I want to, I want to dig back into the economic situation in Russia in just a minute, but given what you're saying about their economy, you have to ask yourself, why wouldn't you have laid on these sanctions and the secondary sanctions earlier? I mean, it seems like if you want to get Putin to do business, you've got to make him feel some pain.
- [05:39]
B
Absolutely. The case, and it was part of the, I think that we've seen a few different things happen during the last administration. There was a fear of escalation, that this would lead to worsening situations. And so I think that was the primary reason during that period. You recall during the previous administration, there's always a fear about striking within Russia. There's a fear of giving long range weapons to Ukrainians, fear of giving the F16s to the Ukrainians. It was just never ending fear about, But Russia could respond, keep on. Russia's economy is smaller than Italy's. It's not a country that we actually have to fear in that sense. Russia understands very well that it can have, it cannot have a conventional war with NATO, but we still give it the sort of room as if it was the Soviet Union still, which it's not. And so I think at this stage, what we're seeing now is Donald Trump, through his own process, is coming to the conclusion that maybe it is, this is the best way to approach it. First, talk to Putin, see if he can negotiate them, see if he can talk to him. And if he's not successful in that, then you have the carrot and now the stick that comes with it for not being able to cut a deal.
- [06:45]
A
So really the, the, the primary reason why, you know, we've always treated Russia the way that we have is because of their nuclear arsenal. And as an aside, you can see why Iran is, is so keen to pursue their nuclear weapons program because they probably look at Russia and think, look, this is our case in point, right? Once, once you become a member of the club, you know, you, you can always punch above your weight. Jason, if you could, let's, let's dig into Russia's economy, right? I mean, I know there's a lot of people out there that have been saying for a couple of years now that Russia's on the brink of collapse, their economy is crumbling, that, that Putin can't afford his war effort, and yet he continues to so could you expand on the problems the Russian economy is having and what the extreme severe sanctions could do to that economy if in fact, they get enacted?
- [07:41]
B
So we have to understand that the Russian economy is extremely weak. It has extremely high inflation, and it's not able to sustain itself. Now, what's very interesting at this point is simply that the price of oil has gone down a lot. And if sanctions were to be implemented, what that would mean in real terms is that first 40% of the Russian national budget is coming from oil and gas. Now, Ukraine is obviously attacking both the oil and the gas industry. And in fact, it's already been able to effectively influence, let's say, almost 20% of all of the oil and gas in Russia. That is, the Russians cannot just trade with it because the Ukrainians are attacking it. More than 20% of all seaborne oil is been affected by Ukraine's attacks. But there's something very important here. These new sanctions, if they would be implemented, would be namely against the countries who buy Russia's oil and gas. And in fact, it's about 75% of it is bought by India and China. Those two countries right now are in trade negotiations. In the United States, they have a key interest in lowering the tariffs on their goods because in both cases they do about, let's say, 12 to 15% of all their trade with the U.S. in both cases, they do less than 4% of their trade with Russia. So just if they have to select and pick and choose, it's obviously better be with Americans than it is to be with the Russians. So they're undoubtedly using this as a bargaining chip in their current ongoing negotiations with the U.S. but there's something very interesting about this. Within Russia itself, we see the signs that there's a lot of pressure, not just in the banking sector, in the markets, or in even the construction industry or in the other industries. What we do see that's fascinating is the amount of fighting that's broken out within the fsb. The fsb, the intelligence service of Russia. The is increasingly becoming strained. And how we know that is because we see who they're arresting, we see who they are killing, and we see that there's a lot more stress within them. Now, the FSB is not as much of a massive organization that works in cohesion as one would think. It's, in fact, quite separate. It has a few different blocks, a few different groups, and they don't really get along, but they all dislike the military. And it seems at this point they're actively working against Their own military, the Russian military, which is a very good sign. More than that, we see that they are arresting more and more people, such as oligarchs, people that own things like gold mines. And the reason is simple. There's simply less pie to split up, to share. And given that the FSB is effectively a mafia, keep in mind Vladimir Putin. His career KGB. KGB, then became the FSB, and he was the director of the FSB in 1999, before he became the leader of Russia. Now, what's fascinating is that there's simply less money. So we see them now, just a couple weeks ago, they took over all the ports in Russia. Historically, that was run by the Minister of transport, who committed suicide just a couple weeks ago, about two hours before he was fired by Putin. The reality is he was killed. But why was he killed? Well, if you're in charge of the ports, you know what's coming in, what's going on. You can get a percentage. And the FSB now is fighting for control of that, and they're fighting within their own factions about who will control them. There is a lot of problems within Russia, and we see, once again, the external signs. The population of Russia itself is quite placid. However, when we do see signs that there is an interest in politics, it's something like when Prigozhin, who is the head of the Wagner group, tried to lead his uprising back in 2023. You remember when he got to Rostov, which is a city that's only a couple hundred kilometers from Moscow, he was greeted in the streets by the average Russians. They brought him food, they brought him wine. But there's something even more important that happened. The Russian National Guard didn't stop him. The Russian military didn't stop him. The Russian police didn't stop him. The border guards didn't stop him. Nobody stopped him. The Russian people greeted him. In fact, at that period of time, Dmitry Medvedev, the former president, was silent. Kirill, the head of the Orthodox Church, was silent. The senior leadership of Moscow went totally silent because nobody's quite sure if he was going to take power or not. And in fact, when he got to Rostov, a city that today was attacked by the Ukrainians and his Southern Command, which is from where they planned the war in Ukraine. When he got there, Prigozhin, the senior officers, the generals, they came out on the street and they drank coffee with him. They could have called an airstrike in on him two hours before he got there, but they didn't, because they weren't sure if he would take power or not. The situation within Russia is highly unstable. Despite what many people believe, Russia is a very destabilized state and it won't take much. And for the case of Vladimir Putin, I don't think he fears a red revolution. You know, the people rising up in the streets. It's very unrealistic for a lot of reasons. But he does care about, and what he should be cared about is that there is, there are people in the senior levels, the oligarchy, who have a lot of power, they have a lot of money, they have a lot of influence, and they have their own private military companies. And each one of them understands that when Putin dies, the oligarchs will be like the 1990s again, killing each other for power and influence. And they will liquidate each other and their families to take their assets. So if you realize that Vladimir Putin, 72 years old, any day that could happen, game theory would indicate the smartest thing you could do is be the one that seizes power yourself. You don't leave this a chance that one day he doesn't wake up. You should be smart, realize regime is now destabilized. Here's my chance to consolidate my own future, even if I love Putin. And now is my day to secure the future of myself and my family, because otherwise it's just idiocy. You're just waiting for a luck of nature until you get liquidated.
- [13:06]
A
So where is Putin's strongest base? Where's his strongest base of support? Right. Who can he, who can he still count on in his relatively small circle?
- [13:17]
B
So Vladimir Putin himself as a person is incredibly increasing over time, paranoid. He doesn't go out, he doesn't meet with people. He meets with probably three to five people a day. And in fact, there's speculation, significant speculation in the Ukrainian press then. In fact, the person who flew to meet with the US President in, in Alaska is not Putin. It's probably a body double. And to be fair, I don't think that's totally unreasonable to believe. As somebody who spent my Master's degree, my PhD, both dissertations were specifically about the Putin regime. And uh, he, even when he goes to Kazakhstan, which is a friendly country, they build in depth bomb shelters so it can sustain long term bombing campaigns on the Russian Embassy, that's in Kazakhstan. Do you think he would just fly to a US military installation? I think it's very unlikely. He won. Is terrified of germs. Anyone that meets with Putin has to stay in quarantine for over two weeks in a hotel that's owned by the government.
- [14:11]
A
If I, I'm sorry for interrupting. Jason, I find this fascinating. So you say it's not out of the realm of the possible that whoever sits down with Trump at the summit is not actually Putin?
- [14:20]
B
I think it's a reasonable chance. I mean, let's look at this. I'll give you an example. Tbn, which is the major national broadcaster in Japan, did analysis of him, and they looked over the course of just a couple of months, the facial recognition software that they use in their airports with their police. So this is not just some sort of, you know, guy on the Internet. This is their recognition software that the Japanese technologically advanced use. They said there's only 15% similarity between the different Putins that arrive at different events. The thing that you can most easily pick out when you do see there's most likely a difference is simply their ears are different. People's ears don't change a lot in their lifetimes. In the course of a week, that your ear becomes inflected inwards or outwards, it's really unusual. I don't know of that happening very often. But there's another aspect of this, which is the fact that his voice recognition, when you call your bank in the United States, you talk for a second or you just say your name and it recognizes this is you. It's an it is you, because that's what technology is. They did the same test, and they said there is no way that is the same person. And in fact, the head of this equivalent of RAND Corporation, their, their contractor, that is a think tank for the Department of Defense of Japan, said using all these standard tools that are determine whether or not somebody is the same person or not would indicate this is very clearly not the same person. So that's Japan, an advanced country, doesn't have a huge rivalry with Japan at present. Oh, sorry. With Russia at present. They all their scientists come back to the same conclusions. So I think that I, I, I, I, as somebody who has studied Putin very well now for well over 15 years, I think it's almost impossible to imagine he would go to the US I just think that's almost impossible to believe. Vladimir Putin is so paranoid that within his own country, he has dozens of offices that are identical. There's no natural light whatsoever. It's only artificial light, so that he can be in, let's say, the Far east and say he's in Moscow and nobody knows he's there. He doesn't travel by airplane already for many years. And how to get to Alaska. Then for many years he's in trouble. But he understands Stinger missiles could take down airplane very easily. He understands very well that a lot can go wrong there if you fly into a country like the U.S. does he consider the U.S. president to be predictable? No, he doesn't. So how about if negotiations go badly, he says arrest him. He's broken the law internationally. He fears that he doesn't know what's possible. Why, if he doesn't take risk in his own country, would he possibly choose, take risk in a country which he considers to be the greatest enemy of Russia?
- [16:49]
A
Well, I mean, again, it's a fascinating concept, one that really hasn't surfaced in all the coverage leading up to the summit. The US as, as incredible facial recognition, identity verification tools at its disposal. Or so, I mean, let's, let's play this out for just a second. So if we run that, if you run that the facial recognition pass there and with, with some certainty, you realize that the fellow who's arrived with his, his delegation from the Kremlin at the summit is not the real Putin. He's a, I don't, what do you even call him, a faux Putin?
- [17:27]
C
I don't know.
- [17:28]
A
And you know, do you, I, do you continue the dialogue under the theory that he's got the authority to carry on a summit conversation, or do you, do you call him out, which would be an amazing moment in, in modern history. This is really fascinating. Look, I, Jason, I want to shift gears after this. I hate to leave this subject because you, you raised something that hadn't really been on anybody's radar as far as I'm aware of, Tom. But I'd like to shift gears if I could. After the break. We've got to take just a quick break. If you could stay right where you are. And that will be more with Jason J. Smart from Keef here on the Situation Report. Stick around. Hey, Mike Baker here. Let me take just a moment of your time to talk about protecting your hard earned assets. Now, you probably noticed looking around the big wide world that there's a little turmoil out there in the economy, right? Trade wars, tariffs back and forth, a US Federal Reserve that seems a bit at odds with the White House. Uncertainty over employment numbers, a volatile stock market. Well, you get the picture, right? And it's at times like these when it's important to think about your assets and how to protect them. And one way to do that is through diversification. And I'm here to suggest that you consider diversifying with gold from the Birch Gold Group. They're the precious metals specialists. But for decades, gold has been viewed as a safe haven in times of economic stagnation and global uncertainty. And Birch Gold makes it incredibly easy for you to diversify some of your savings into gold. Look, if you have an IRA or maybe an old 401k, you can convert that into a tax sheltered IRA in physical gold or, well, like a lot of folks, you can just buy gold and store it safely at home. First, you want to get yourself educated and Birch Gold can send you a free information kit on gold. Just text PDB to the number 989898. Again, text PDB to the number 989898. Consider diversifying a portion of your savings into Gold. Text PDB to 989898. I'm Piers Morgan, the host of the Piers Morgan Uncensored podcast. We do big interviews and we do big debates about whatever's getting people talking. We make news, we make noise, and we make a little bit of trouble talking, too. Come and see what all the fuss is about. You can listen to Piers Morgan Uncensored on Apple Podcast, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever you get your podcasts. Joining me once again is Jason J. Smart. You can find his work on YouTube at Jason J. Smart. And I suggest that you do that. Based in Kiev, with extensive experience covering both the conflict, also Russia and all things involving the Kremlin. Jason, thank you very much for sticking around here on THE SITUATION report. Let's look at the general mood in Ukraine. Now. The caveat is we're having this conversation, you and I, just ahead of the summit in, in Alaska between Trump and Putin. I'm curious about the mood of the Ukrainian population leading up to this summit.
- [20:36]
B
So in general, there's a lot of questions, skepticism as to what could come of this. There's a lot of fear as well, because it's truly nobody is really quite sure what's going to happen. Now, that being said, I think that in general, the people in Ukraine over time are becoming increasingly aware of the fact that it's Vladimir Putin's own mistakes that is exposing him again and again. You know, he does things, as Donald Trump has said, where he promises that he's going to stop the aerial attacks, but within an hour of a phone conversation with the US President continues those aerial attacks. And it's very clear that Vladimir Putin does believe that he is smarter and more clever than the US President. And he mocks him and he openly mocks him, which is something that you know, the Ukrainian press has been picking up for a long time. It's less picked up in the US press, but it's very typical Vladimir Putin. We have to understand that Vladimir Putin, you probably remember the story is he had a black laboratory dog which he used to allow walk around meetings, including with the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. The name of the black female dog was Condi. He named it after the Secretary of State and had her pet him. So this is the way he treats Americans. He thinks that they're less than he is. He really does have a negative view of Americans and thinks that they're fools, he thinks that they're idiots, and he most certainly believes that the US President is one as well. So I think going forward, what that means is that Vladimir Putin is entering this negotiation with a strategy which is to show that he is more clever, more wise than is the US leader and he's going to do what he can to manipulate him.
- [22:05]
A
Do you think there's any. And again, we're having this conversation just ahead of the summit, so we're talking expectations as opposed to actual results. Maybe we're, we're going to be completely shocked by those results. But going into this, do you think there is room for Putin coming out of the meeting to say, yeah, I can agree to a ceasefire, wouldn't be a full blown peace deal, but that he would agree to a ceasefire, as Zelenskyy and the EU leaders have been calling for?
- [22:32]
B
I don't think it's realistic. I mean, at this point it doesn't really benefit him. I think that he understands very well that the US side is anxious to make a deal and so he'll try to do what he can to leverage this as much as possible. Not very well. They've undoubtedly there's already been conversations. You don't meet with two presidents unless there's already been ongoing, constant conversation and now for a couple of weeks. So let's be clear about that. So there's a lot that we probably do not see that's happening behind the scenes, which is going to predispose them to finding something that they can agree to where they can go home and say, look, there's a success. Now, I think that in the specific case of this one, the Russians are pushing very hard for an aerial ceasefire. They don't want to have any more drone attacks for instances, but that's specifically because Ukraine is actively attacking Russia with drones and is destroying their energy infrastructure, is destroying their ability to produce oil. And as a result of that, The Russians would love to see that sort of a deal, but that's very disadvantage. Disadvantageous for the Ukrainians who are dependent on that to be able to stop the Russian war machine.
- [23:35]
A
Okay. Yeah. And, and so once again, it, it falls in the category of, you know, Putin wants what he wants because it benefits Russia. He's got. There's no compromise anywhere to be to be seen. Is it correct that Zelensky is not in a position without doing a national referendum to cede any territory?
- [23:59]
B
It's sort of ironic, but that is true. But it's funny is that the Russian constitution also doesn't allow them to change the constitution without a referendum. And you remember that right into when the war began, 2022, the Russians decided to change the constitution to put five different regions of Ukraine as part of the consistency of the Russian Federation. So that was actually not legal by the Russian constitution. And so Putin has made the same argument that, well, we cannot change what our constitution says either. Those are all territories of Russia. But this is actually sort of funny because this is very typical kgb, Very typical Soviet lawyer. Yeah. I don't understand. This is a joke. It's like these referendums or these elections in Russia. We understand it's for show. It's not really legitimate, but it checks off a box and that's what they're looking for.
- [24:46]
A
Okay, but Zelensky isn't. Is it wrong when, when, when Trump and Putin separately have been talking about, well, we'll, you know, land swaps, for instance. Again, I'm not quite sure what, what Ukraine would be swapping, you know, what they would gain in return for losing all that territory. But, you know, he's pushed back and said, I, you know, I'm not in a position to agree to that. That aspect of it is. Is correct. That.
- [25:15]
B
That is correct. That is. That is legally and historically correct. Yes.
- [25:19]
A
Okay. Okay. And from a military perspective, what are you hearing about the latest over the past week or so, the latest offensive that the Russian military is engaging in in the East? Are they having any success? Is it still, you know, it's a World War I entrenched, you know, maybe we gave a couple of yards here and there, or are they having some significant success?
- [25:45]
B
So we have to distinguish, like there's two different wars or two different methods at this moment. And that's why it's sort of hard to judge it in such a direct way. So let's look at this. The Russians, for instance, are fighting war of attrition. Historically, that's what Russia's Always done. They're a huge country, 140 million people, bigger than any European country. So war of attrition favors them. The Ukrainians realize with their 40 million people before the invasion today, about 23 million people in free Ukraine, they simply cannot afford a war of attrition. And that's why they must do something different. And that's why we have asymmetrical warfare, the attacks inside of Russia. In fact, I just read the news that they just started hundreds of drones to fly into Russia just now and are destroying things across the country. So Ukraine understands very well the only way they can win this war is to break Russia's ability to wage war. And so the Russians are very anxious to gain some meters or feet of mud. It's mostly abandoned areas. There's nothing there. I mean, it's farmland. But they gain this and they cost them thousands of lives, the Russians. The casualty rates are absolutely incredible. More than a million Russian soldiers have been killed or injured in this war. The Ukrainians realize we can't play that game. So what we can do, though, effectively, is making it possible for Russia to win. And so we will seed land in the short term, because in the long term, preserving the lives of our soldiers has a greater premium.
- [27:07]
A
What are the most accurate casualty figures you've heard on the Ukrainian side?
- [27:12]
B
It's really varied. And to be honest, it's something I've heard a lot of conflict. Now, what's very funny about it, though, very interesting I would rsa, is, is that I initially always assumed that the numbers that came out of Ukraine were too low. I said, it can't be so low. It really. It's not impossible that it's that many times more Russians than Ukrainians. But over time, I've come to believe it. And I say to you, just a very anecdotal example of this is that I, on telegram, follow Russian channels and Ukrainian channels. The number of times you see Russian casualties per day is multitudes. The number of times you see Ukrainians being killed, not Russians, it's a lot less. More than that. When you're in central Kiev when this war first began, I remember very clearly there was funeral masses or services for fallen servicemen regularly. I mean, it was. It was churning one after another. I, in the past month, don't recall seeing one of them here in Kiev. It used to be just constantly in Russia. We know it remains constant. And the reason we know it's constant is because just actually last week, a village in Russia became the first one in the entire country where not one man is left. Every single man has either been killed in the war or has been decapitated. Decapitated. And has been sent to another part of the country. That's what the situation is like inside of Russia. It's a very different situation.
- [28:31]
A
So, okay, just to wrap things up, I want to be mindful of your time, just to wrap things up going into this summit again, where you and I are talking just ahead of it, if, if there is a ceasefire that's, that's agreed to, how surprised will you be?
- [28:50]
B
I'd be extremely surprised. And if there is a ceasefire, I would say that we should be very careful of those who are bringing gifts because the Russians have something to gain from this. And I think actually the majority of people in Ukraine would argue if there is a ceasefire of any sort, it's going to be short term. It's going to be for the length the presidency of Donald Trump because the Russians aren't sure what he would do. The, they're scared of him. And so they might guarantee that for the next two years or two and a half years, three years. But the fact is once he leaves office, then they would begin the full scale invasion again.
- [29:22]
A
Okay, Jason, listen, I really want to thank you for your insight, for your experience. And I hope that after this summit and whatever comes in the immediate aftermath that you'll agree to come back on THE Situation Report because I would love to follow up.
- [29:38]
B
Looking forward to Mike.
- [29:39]
A
Well, thanks again to Jason for joining us here on the situation report. You can find Jason and his work on YouTube. That's at Jason J. Smart. That's J A Y, not just the letter J. All right, coming up next, the Trump administration seizes control of law enforcement in the nation's capital. That would be Washington, D.C. deploying the National Guard and taking charge of the D.C. metropolitan Police. Senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Zach Smith joins us to break it all down. Stay right there. Hey, Mike Baker here. Now, you've heard me talk about the excellent company Jacked Up Fitness before, and they're amazing. All in one home gym. It's, it's a complete game changer when it comes to home fitness. And now, well, I've got some more exciting news from Don and his terrific team over at Jacked Up Fitness. Look, they know that, well, many people are short on time and short on money, but still want to get fit. So now you can start your fitness journey for under $60 and adjust six minutes each day. And for those of you of a certain age, well, stand by for A blast from the past, introducing the allnew Shake Weight by Jacked Up Fitness Look. Fifteen years ago, the original Shake Weight shook the world. You probably remember that. Now the fitness legend returns. Bigger, better and built to perform. Why now, you ask? That's a good question to ask because science has finally caught up with the importance of explosive power and fast twitch muscle training, something that the Shake Weight delivers in a compact, powerful way for beginners. For heavy lifters and serious athletes alike, look. The spring loaded weights on each end send shock waves of energy throughout your whole upper body, forcing your muscles to contract up to 240 times per minute. Beginners can tone and tighten their arms and their shoulders and chest. Lifters can prime their upper bodies in between sets and get that final burn. While athletes can sharpen reaction times and build explosive power. For that competitive edge, check out the Shake Weight. It's serious training made simple. So if you're looking for a fun way to jump start or supercharge your fitness routine, get the all new Shake Weight by Jacked Up Fitness. Just go to jackedupshakeweight.com again, that's jackedupshakeweight. Com Mama, Papa. Muy pronto. Amazon gas, son riemas. Welcome back to THE SITUATION report. The Trump administration has taken an unprecedented step, deploying the national guard to Washington, D.C. and placing the city's police department under federal control. The move, announced as part of what the White House calls, quote, Liberation Day in D.C. is aimed at tackling crime, homelessness and what officials describe as a breakdown in public safety. Critics argue it's unnecessary. Well, of course they do, pointing to statistics showing the city's crime rate is down nearly 30% year over year. Of course, those same critics would not walk by themselves on the streets of D.C. at night. You can count on that. But supporters made the counter that those numbers don't tell the full story and may even be manipulated to look better than reality. So what are the legal implications and how unusual is this step? Joining us now is senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Zach Smith. Zach, thanks very much for joining us here on THE SITUATION report.
- [33:00]
C
Of course.
- [33:01]
B
Thanks for having me on the show.
- [33:03]
A
All right. Well, let's look at it from the from the top down. Does the president have the ability to do what he's done?
- [33:09]
C
Despite what you may have heard from many on the left, the president is well within his authority not only to search federal law enforcement officers into the District of Columbia, not only to call in National Guard troops, of which he is the head for the District of Columbia, but also the law specifically allows him to take control of Washington D.C. 's local Metropolitan Police Department. So everything the President has done is not only within the letter of the law, it is within the spirit of the law. And I think if you talk to anyone who lives, works, or visits Washington D.C. it is something that's been long overdue.
- [33:43]
A
Now, am I correct in saying that the police force in the District has never been federalized like this before?
- [33:51]
C
It has never been federalized before. But I think we have to put this action in context. As I mentioned just a moment ago, the Home rule Act of 1973 specifically contemplates that in certain circumstances, the President can take direct control of the Metropolitan Police Department. The other important factor to keep in mind is that unfortunately, because of the actions of the local D.C. city Council, the NPD is facing a record staffing crisis. They're down several hundred officers or more, and some estimates say it will take them over a decade to get back to the strength that they need to be at to effectively do their jobs.
- [34:33]
A
Okay, if I could ask, this will show my ignorance on this particular part of the subject. The Home rule Act in 73. Prior to that, was the District still handling its own policing or was there some other setup?
- [34:50]
B
Sure.
- [34:50]
C
So prior to 1973, there have been a number of arrangements governing the District of Columbia. It is our nation's capital. The framers of our Constitution envisioned that the federal government would always have the final say on what happens in our capital, federal city. And so historically, the federal government has been much more involved in the local affairs of the District of Columbia. And keep in mind, Even after the HO Rule act in the late 90s, there was the essentially control board put in place to help manage the District's finances after severe financial problems, after many scandals, particularly when Mary Barry and others were in office there. So direct federal involvement in the Districts of affairs, not only does it have a long pedigree, but it was also specifically contemplated by the framers of our Constitution.
- [35:43]
A
Okay, you just brought up one of my, one of my favorite mayors. I actually have owned homes and lived in D.C. in Washington D.C. and in fact, I was, I had a home there when Mayor Barry was. Was there and mayor for life. Man, I could tell you some stories about, about that time. And look, I, you know, my daughter has moved out of D.C. relatively recently because she was tired of, of the, you know, having to walk to her car wherever she was able to park it from her rented house up on, on Capitol Hill. And then For a while she lived over in the wharf area. And it was always the same. There was always this, this edge. You were, you were concerned. I'm not making this up. I'm just saying this is the reality. Despite what we're hearing, I do find it amazingly entertaining to now watch, you know, some of the folks in D.C. and certainly people like Gavin Newsom and Pritzker and others, you know, act as if, you know, okay, you know, hey, you know, we don't need your help with our crime. Our crimes are a problem and we don't think it's a problem, so leave us alone. They're trying in a, in a strange way to defend the crime issue. And I, once again, they find themselves in this, this bizarre position.
- [37:02]
C
Two quick points in response to that. The first is, look, I think you're absolutely right. There is a general feeling of unease, a general feeling of citizens and visitors in D.C. being worried about their surroundings. And what really stood out to me is when the President held his press conference earlier this week. Listen to the number of reporters in the White House press briefing room who had personally been impacted by crime in Washington D.C. or who had friends or family members who have been victims of crime in Washington. It was a significant number of the reporters in the room. The second point I would make is you've heard many of the left, you know, somewhat dubiously claiming that crime is at a 30 year low in Washington D.C. and I chuckle a little bit at that statistic because it's so unbelievable. But again, it's important to put that statistic in context that that number came from January of this year. The Biden DOJ put it out shortly before they left office. I think there are very real reasons to be skeptical of the way that number was calculated, the way some of the crime statistics have been reported. I think there's a compelling argument to be made they may have deliberately been under reported. And then it's also important to understand that over the past several years, Washington D.C. like many other cities, has experienced a record spike in certain violent crimes. And so even if those spikes are down slightly from the past year or two, if you go back six, seven, eight years a decade ago, violent crime today is still much, much higher than it was during those previous time periods.
- [38:35]
A
Yeah, I mean, look, I think, I think it's D.C. is I think, number four on the, on the city's list in terms of homicides, homicide rates in the country. And you know, I do, I find it again, somewhat entertaining when people like Hillary Clinton. Right. Talk about, oh, It's a big, beautiful city. And how dare Trump and his administration, you know, slander it and act as if it's got problems. And I'm thinking, all right, I tell you what, Hillary Clinton or Gavin Newsom or JB Pritzker or really anybody who's taking that position, I, you know, I would put money up, I would donate to the DNC if they would agree to walk on their own by themselves without a security detail, and at night through Northeast Washington or Southwest Washington, you know, they, they would probably stick to Georgetown because that's where all their posh friends live in their secured homes. But look, I, you know, I, I think it's, it's pretty telling when the Fraternal Order of Police, you know, talks about, in, in D.C. talks about how, you know, the, the command structure of the Metropolitan Police was pushing for lower statistics, then you've got an investigation of the, of the Third District police commander who, you know, was reportedly doctoring the statistics. So, yeah, all of that, I think, is just noise. But it's, it's, it's unimportant when the citizens of the city feel unsafe. Right. Walking around that city, whether it's in Lafayette Square, whether it's in Georgetown, whether it's, you know, down near Haynes Point, doesn't matter.
- [40:10]
C
Well, the other thing I would say, look, we've heard a lot of what the residents of Washington, D.C. supposedly want from many on the left. In my conversations with residents of Washington, D.C. particularly those who live in some of the neighborhoods hardest hit by crime, what they will tell you is that they want good, effective policing on the streets. What demoralizes the people in those neighborhoods is seeing someone who commits a violent crime or carjacking, a strong armed robbery, a shooting that gets away with it, or that's arrested and is then back in the neighborhood only hours after being arrested for committing that very violent crime. That is what worries those citizens in those neighborhoods. And so I think often, many of those citizens in those very violent neighborhoods welcome good, effective policing and will likely welcome the increased police presence that the President has brought to bear in the District.
- [41:04]
A
Yeah, yeah, it does seem like all the noise, it's typical, right? All the noise, the protesting, etcetera, is coming from the usual crowd, right? It's the people who are unaffected by it. It's the folks who are up in arms still that Trump won the election, et cetera, et cetera. Is it true that D.C. is operating on the cashless bail system?
- [41:25]
C
Well, D.C. judges. So I think this is an important point to stop and pause here. Bail has traditionally been designed to serve two folks functions. It's designed to make sure that someone shows up to court when and where they're supposed to. And it's designed to make sure that if someone is released back into the community pending trial, they're not going to pose a danger. They're not going to victimize other members of the community while they're awaiting trial. And unfortunately, what's happened is the local superior court judges, that's Washington, D.C. it's essentially local court. They have been essentially granting bail, releasing people on their own recognizance, specifically on their promise not to offend again back into the community. And that's why you're hearing these stories of people being released pretrial, going out, committing further violent acts. And then on the back end of that, many of these same judges are also imposing unduly lenient sentences on those who have been convicted of committing violent crimes. And in fact, I've written about this before. You can go to my X feed at TZ Smith. That's at TZ Smith, where I've talked about why I think the local D.C. court system is itself likely unconstitutional because of the way the judges are selected and the way that it is currently structured.
- [42:39]
A
Okay. I want, I want to dive into the structure of D.C. and how it operates as a district. It's not a state. I want to talk about that. But Zach, if you could stay right where you are. We do need to take a quick break and then we'll be back with more from Zach Smith at the Heritage foundation talking about all things D.C. and here on the situation report, stick around Lowe's nose. To bring your vision to life, it's.
- [43:06]
B
Important to find the right color.
- [43:07]
A
That's why Milo's Rewards members get a free Valspar paint or exterior stain sample to test your look to confidently refresh your space. Offer Valid in store only 87 to 8 20. Limit one per customer while supplies last. Discount taken at time of purchase.
- [43:21]
B
See associate for detail rewards programs subject.
- [43:24]
A
To terms and conditions. Details@lowe's.com terms subject to change. Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Joining me once again is senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Zach Smith. Zach, thanks very much for staying here with us on the situation report. We've been talking about D.C. about the federalizing of the police in D.C. by the Trump administration, which in part has been cast as sort of authority authoritarianism. I knew I was going to have a hard time pronouncing that word, but let's look at that. Let's look at D.C. i think the District confuses a lot of people who live outside the, you know, the sort of the metro area of Virginia, Maryland.
- [44:08]
C
And D.C.
- [44:11]
A
You know, talk to me about. About the District in terms of why it was set up, the way it was set up, and then.
- [44:16]
C
Right.
- [44:18]
A
The pros and cons of this push for statehood which periodically surfaces.
- [44:24]
C
Well, I'm firmly against D.C. statehood. I've written and talked about this extensively. In fact, I had an opportunity to testify against D.C. statehood when I was brought up several years ago. I think it goes against the design of why the framers of our Constitution set up Washington, D.C. as they did. And to understand why D.C. is directly under the control of the federal government, why it's not a part of any state, we have to go all the way back to before the Constitution was ever ratified, before it was drafted, when the Continental Congress was still running the very new United States. The capital was in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There was a group of disgruntled soldiers, and essentially, the state and local authorities would not pledge to protect the members of the Continental Congress. And as a result, the members of Congress had to adjourn. They had to sneak out of town in the middle of the night. And this really left an indelible impression on the minds of the framers of our Constitution. They never again wanted to have the safety and security of the federal government being subjected essentially, to the whims of local authorities. And so that's why they set up this separate and unique federal district. And that is why it is not only legally permissible, but why it's appropriate for President Trump to take the actions that he has and to make sure that our nation's federal capital is safe and secure for everyone who wants to visit there, everyone who lives there, everyone who goes there to conduct the. The business of our nation.
- [45:51]
A
And. And what is the. What's the big push from the other side? I mean, what. What is their point? Is it just taxation without representation? What. What is it?
- [46:00]
C
Yeah, that's. That's a big part of it. I think a lot of the push for D.C. statehood is just kind of a crass political calculation in some respect. Obviously, it'll give two new likely Democratic senators who will be members of the US Senate, help change the composition, maybe the majority balance in that body. And unfortunately, I think it has been that political calculus that's been driving a lot of the conversation around D.C. statehood for so many years.
- [46:26]
A
When I was actually in D.C. living in there, on various occasions, it was. It Was the, the idea of statehood would pop up periodically and, you know, only to disappear at some point when I think, you know, people would realize this probably isn't, is in the direction we want to go. Now, how about, how about the people who, Gavin Newsom being one, Pritzker being another, who said this move by Trump when it comes to DC Right now in terms of security and, and trying to get crime more under control is really just a power grab that he intends to do the same thing in other states. That's been a big rallying cry. Gavin Newsom, he's coming for, coming for your state. Now, from a constitutional perspective, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't believe that's possible, is it?
- [47:16]
C
No, you're exactly right. I guess that may play well politically. I'm not politician, I work on policy issues. But yeah, again, the District of Columbia is unique in its constitutional status. It's unique in the fact that the President directly controls the National Guard. It's unique in the fact that the President can directly take control of the local police force. None of that would be permissible in other cities or states around the country. Now, the, the President can, in certain instances, federalize local National Guard. We saw that in California and Los Angeles when unfortunately, local officials were not protecting federal buildings, other federal property there in downtown la. And the President can certainly surge federal law enforcement officers, FBI agents, DEA agents, ATF agents to many of these very violent cities to help combat the violent crime crisis that many of those cities are experiencing as well. So, so there are actions the President can take and has taken to combat violent crime in those cities. But again, D.C. is unique in the extent of actions that the President can take.
- [48:20]
A
Have you been surprised by the reaction from the mayor of dc, Muriel Bowser? I think probably there were a number of folks on the left who thought she would join sort of this, this wailing, you know, angst ridden crowd and dropping onto the fainting couch. But she seems fairly pragmatic in the way that she's been dealing with the Trump administration after this announcement.
- [48:45]
C
Well, I think she's certainly been more subdued than many on the left would like her to see. Now, of course, she has made some inflammatory statements trying to, I think, give the appearance of pushing back against the President's agenda. But I think certainly she understands that the President is on firm legal footing with the actions that he's taken. Now, what I have found action interesting is the reaction by the locally elected D.C. attorney General. And I think it's important to pause here for a Minute and understand how prosecutorial authority is divided in the district. The D.C. u.S. Attorney, Janine Pirro. Judge Jeanine is unique among all U.S. attorneys in that she essentially also serves as the local District Attorney, the local DA for the District of Columbia, and can essentially prosecute anyone for any offense except when it comes to juvenile offenders. Juvenile offenders are primarily prosecuted by the local D.C. attorney General. Now, the problem with that is that the local D.C. attorney general, he has a very radical view of our criminal justice system. He's pledged never to prosecute juvenile offenders as adults, no matter how heinous their crime, no matter how old they might be. He said that in his view, kids should be kids. And essentially we can't prosecute our way out of the crime crisis. The result has been it's created perverse incentives. And what we've seen is gangs going out recruiting very young individuals to commit very violent crimes because they know even if those individuals are caught, even if those individuals are prosecuted, they'll only receive at most a slap on the wrist. And I've advocated for. And I think you're hearing the administration advocating for Congress to step in and change the laws in D.C. surrounding juvenile prosecution.
- [50:28]
A
So this, the fellow we're talking about was. Was. He's locally elected. He runs on local slate.
- [50:36]
C
Okay.
- [50:36]
A
All right, that's. That's fascinating. And I. And you're right, look, we've seen this in other places. Like, you do something like this, you refuse to prosecute in a meaningful way actual perpetrators of violent crime because of their age. And they become a target of criminal organizations and gangs because, you know, that's. That's attractive to them. They put them out on the front lines. And you can see that in D.C. where so many of the perps on the. On the carjacking issue, for instance, are underage.
- [51:10]
C
More than all of the current carjackings in D.C. are committed by juvenile offenders. And more than 70% of those carjackings are done while the offender is armed. So this is absolutely a huge problem. The other thing just. Again, if I can quickly put this in perspective, if we go back to 2018, there are about 148 carjackings in the District. That's a lot. But if we Fast forward to 2023, there's something like 957 carjackings, almost 1,000 carjackings in the District. Now, if you listen to District officials, last year, they claimed. And again, I think there's reason to be skeptical of these numbers, but they claim they reduced those carjackings by half. I Think they reported something around 497, almost 500 carjackings in 2023. Now, reducing that number by half, if that's true, is good, but think about it, that's still almost three times as many carjackings as occurred in 2018. And so binding crime and district in the District is certainly still a very real problem.
- [52:16]
A
Yeah. Not to sound churlish, but you can reduce those numbers if you're just doctoring the statistics.
- [52:22]
C
Right? Right.
- [52:23]
A
And again, there have been indications and certainly, you know, there is an investigation which I think is still ongoing into the nature of the statistics in D.C. so it doesn't give you a lot of confidence in what they're telling you. So final question, being concerned about timing here is at the outset, it appeared as if what the Trump administration did with D.C. they had a 48 hour sort of grace period, and then they have to go up to Congress to get approval for extending that. Is that correct?
- [53:00]
C
Well, it's more nuanced than that. So Donald Trump, the president, can unilaterally take control of the local D.C. police for 48 hours. And if he gives appropriate notifications to Congress, which he has already done, he can extend that for up to 30 days. If he wants to extend the federalization of the D.C. police beyond 30 days, then he would need to get approval from both houses of Congress. Now, what he can unilaterally do beyond that 30 days, he can continue to deploy National Guard troops. He can continue to search federal law enforcement officers, again, those FBI, DEA security agents, into the District. And if a separate emergency were to be declared and arise, then that may be an avenue again for the president to continue his direct oversight of the local D.C. police force.
- [53:49]
A
From what you're hearing, what you're seeing, what sort of timeframe do you think we're looking at here?
- [53:56]
C
Well, I certainly expect the surging of federal law enforcement officers is going to continue past the 30 days. The deployment of the National Guard troops may continue past the 30 days. And I think certainly some of the structural reforms, the need to change the laws surrounding juvenile prosecutions, the need to allow many of these cases to work their way to the criminal justice system, which Judge Jeanine has pledged to aggressively prosecute those in the District and break the law. That is all going to take some time. So I suspect we'll be watching this develop and watching this story for some time to come.
- [54:29]
A
Okay. It's a really important story. I would like to have you back on to talk more about this. Look, it's the nation's capital. Right. It's also this, this is not saying it's not quite the same, right. As saying we're worried about crime in Chicago or New York City or St. Louis. This is the nation's capital. Right. And, and the fact that, and I'm not making this up.
- [54:49]
C
Right.
- [54:49]
A
I know a lot of colleagues, one of my own kids, etc. Everybody in that city. When you're walking around, whether it's day or night in, depending on where you're at, you've got your head on a swivel. And that's not what should happen in a place like Washington, D.C. so I again, we'd love to have you back on Zach at some point here on THE Situation report, but we really appreciate all your time and consideration.
- [55:12]
C
Of course. Well, thank you so much for having me on the show today.
- [55:15]
A
Zach Smith, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation. That's all the time we have for this week's PDB Situation Report. I know.
- [55:24]
C
Don't worry.
- [55:25]
A
We'll be back next week. If you have any questions, comments or humorous anecdotes, please reach out to me at pdb@the firsttv.com you've heard me talk about this before, but I'm serious when I say one of the favorite moments every week or so at the at the PDB compound, which is located underneath a dormant volcano, is when we all gather around the table and we even let the interns in, although they have to bring snacks. And we empty the bags of mail from Carl the Mailman and we get to look at your postcards and your emails, your faxes, your telegrams, your wires. And we choose the best and then we mush them all together into what we call a monthly Ask Me Anything episode. Finally, to listen to the podcast of this show ad free. You can do that. Just become a premium member of the President's Daily brief by visiting PDB premium.com It couldn't be any simpler. I'm Mike Baker. And until next time. Well, you know the drill. Stay informed, stay safe, stay cool.