PDB Situation Report | October 25th, 2025: POWER STRUGGLE: Xi Jinping Purges China’s Military & The U.S. Expands Its War at Sea

Summary

---

The President's Daily Brief – Situation Report

October 25, 2025: POWER STRUGGLE: Xi Jinping Purges China’s Military & The U.S. Expands Its War at Sea

Host: Mike Baker (Former CIA Operations Officer)
Guests: Steve Yates (Heritage Foundation, China Policy Expert), Joshua Phillip (Epoch Times Senior Investigative Reporter)
Topics: Xi Jinping’s military purge in China, U.S. maritime actions against drug smuggling, geopolitical links between China, Venezuela, and the wider implications for U.S. national security.

---

Episode Overview

This episode of The President’s Daily Brief delivers an incisive analysis of two major strategic developments:

1. Xi Jinping's aggressive purge of China’s military elite amid rumors of instability and power consolidation.
2. The U.S.’s expanding military campaign at sea, targeting alleged drug smuggling vessels in the Pacific, raising complex questions about broader geopolitical motivations.

With expert insights from Steve Yates and Joshua Phillip, the discussion dives into the underlying logic, internal debates, and international implications behind these breaking headlines.

---

[00:12 – 14:36] Power Struggle in China: Xi Jinping's Military Purge

Key Discussion Points

• Major Purge: President Xi Jinping has orchestrated his most sweeping military purge to date, ousting top generals including his second in command, General Heidong.
  • Official narrative: “Crackdown on corruption.”
  • Widespread analyst consensus: It’s a play for loyalty and tighter personal control over the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
  • Context: Follows the mysterious disappearance of China’s defense minister and a prior shakeup of its nuclear missile force.
• Insider Debate:
  • Steve Yates:
    • “This is just Xi not really being completely comfortable in his own skin and just ‘trimming the herd’…to stay in power.” (02:11)
    • Many purged are Xi’s own appointees, suggesting paranoia and a need to reassert dominance, not simply rooting out old disloyalties.

Notable Quotes and Moments

• On Corruption as a Tool:
  • Steve Yates: “This is a giant mafia, and…the first point of entry in joining any mafia is committing a crime. And so everyone…has dirt on them, and the boss gets to choose when and how to use it against them.” (03:14)
• Centralization of Power:
  • “Ultimately, that's why I come down on this, is an indication of [Xi] having overwhelming power…he can, and I will wager in a week or two or four weeks time, no one in China is going to be questioning this. And so that's… the icing on the cake…” (18:43)
• Significance of the Purge:
  • “It is a sign of his grip on power…that he can just wave his hand and nine senior officers in the PLA are gone.” (18:13)

Analysis of Internal Logic

• Debate persists among China-watchers:
  • Is Xi’s purge motivated by genuine fears of being deposed, or is this routine maintenance of power common among bad leaders with long tenures?
  • Xi’s own “loyalists” aren’t immune—reflects possible disillusionment with their performance or paranoia about “groupthink.”

Party Politics and the Plenary Meeting

• Xi’s dominance is overwhelming; the annual party plenary meeting is performative, with little real collective leadership.
  • “It’s all basically Xi and it is basically all top down.” (09:52)
  • These sessions, while a ritual, may be less insightful nowadays regarding actual power shifts.

Taiwan, Military Readiness, and Strategic Options

• Xi wants “viable options to take decisive action against Taiwan in 2027,” but may be dissatisfied with PLA preparedness.
• Internal resistance may exist:
  • “We’re all against America, we ought to take Taiwan back, too, but we think you're being reckless with the Philippines and you're provoking Japan…” (11:08)
  • PLA's rapid expansion is untested in real combat—the generals may have been ousted for their reluctance or skepticism.

---

[14:36 – 28:19] U.S. Maritime Strikes: Transparency, Motivation, and Geopolitics

Escalation of U.S. Operations at Sea

• Recent Developments:
  • U.S. forces struck two more vessels in the Pacific (nine strikes total), as part of a crackdown on alleged drug smuggling.
  • Unclear what narcotics (if any) were found—this lack of detail raises questions about the operation’s true intent.

Joshua Phillip’s Perspective

• Cartels as Terrorists:
  • “They should be labeled as terrorists. These are paramilitary organizations… Allowing them to go as long as we have has basically let them take over entire countries…” (29:24)
• Secrecy vs. Transparency Debate:
  • “The White House wants to have less information public is what I think they want…” (31:16)
  • Recent Pentagon changes restricting press access are seen as supporting this more secretive approach.

Calls for Information and Narrative Control

• Baker’s Concerns:

  • “Providing a bit more transparency about the targeting process…negates some of this pushback that…is happening now, particularly from the left…” (35:41)
  • Average Americans would not object to a genuine anti-cartel campaign but want reassurance these are legitimate targets.

• Parallels to Immigration Narrative:

  • “Give the people…a little bit more information and you know, they'll make up their minds and, and usually they'll figure it out.” (39:22)

---

[41:24 – 52:16] The Bigger Picture: China, Venezuela, Cartel Networks & the “Multipolar World”

China–Venezuela Connections

• Strategic Depth:
  • China (and to a lesser degree, Russia) deployed security forces to Venezuela in 2018, effectively preventing U.S. intervention during the contested Maduro–Guaido standoff.
  • “The CCP owns Venezuela. They were protecting their assets... The whole story about Venezuela and the US basically died.” (41:44)
• Drug Trade as Geopolitical Weapon:
  • Many Latin American cartels were Maoist-trained; CCP established much of the early infrastructure for narco-trafficking for profit and geopolitical leverage.

China's Grand Strategy

• Distraction Doctrine (Citing Xi’s advisors):

  • China wants America ‘dragged into’ four simultaneous conflicts (Russia, terrorism, Latin America, and—potentially—Asia/Taiwan) to dilute U.S. strategic capacity.
  • “They need to basically distract America…They wanted a war with Russia…with terrorism…in Latin America…” (43:34)

• The Multipolar World Order:

  • China’s long-term goal: weaken U.S. leadership (the “Pax Americana”) by segmenting the world into spheres of influence, diminishing U.S. power to sanction and discipline adversaries.
  • “America loses its ability to sanction. And so that's what they want.” (47:18)
  • China's “surround the city with the countryside” strategy: isolate the U.S. globally via alliances in Africa, Latin America, Eurasia, etc.

Narrative Manipulation & Latin American Socialism

• The CCP's strategy intertwines with efforts by Lula’s Brazil and Cuba’s Castro to spread socialist revolutions across Latin America (Forum of Sao Paulo).
• Gustavo Petro (Colombia) and others accuse the U.S. of violating "international order" through its anti-cartel campaign, despite their own ties to cartel interests.
  • “They want to destroy the Pax Americana by going around the, you know, the countryside...for decades now, the Chinese Communist Party has been doing that.” (50:01)

---

Selected Memorable Quotes

• On Xi’s Purge:
  • “This is a giant mafia…everyone who’s in the mafia has dirt on them, and the boss gets to choose when and how to use it…”
    — Steve Yates [03:14]
• On U.S. Campaign Against Cartels:
  • “I think with drug cartels, honestly, they should be labeled as terrorists…allowing them to go as long as we have is basically…let them take over entire countries…”
    — Joshua Phillip [29:24]
• On Narrative and Transparency:
  • “Either need to lean into transparency or lean into secrecy…either make it more secret and quit posting videos…or they go more transparency…where they detail these are the guys driving the boats, this is what they were carrying…”
    — Joshua Phillip [35:53]
• On China’s Global Strategy:
  • “They want to destroy the Pax Americana by going around the…countryside…for decades now, the Chinese Communist Party has been doing that.”
    — Joshua Phillip [50:01]

---

Timestamps of Major Segments

• 00:12 Introduction & Overview of China’s Military Purge
• 01:57–14:36 Interview with Steve Yates: China’s Power Struggle, Xi’s Strategy, Taiwan
• 16:50–24:59 Continued with Steve Yates: China–Russia Oil, Sanctions, Global Strategy
• 28:19–41:24 Maritime Operations Against Narco-Vessels: Risks & Narrative, Joshua Phillip comments
• 41:24–52:16 Venezuela, Cartel Networks, China's Multipolar Worldplay, Forum of Sao Paulo

---

Summary Takeaways

• China’s PLA purge is more about consolidating power and ensuring loyalty than rooting out corruption; even Xi’s own trusted appointees aren’t immune.
• Taiwan looms large: military reshuffles may signal disappointment in PLA’s readiness for Xi’s 2027 timeline.
• In the U.S. crackdown on narco-smuggling, the lack of transparent targeting data risks undermining public support, despite the genuine danger cartels pose.
• China’s geopolitical reach in Latin America (especially via Venezuela) holds deep military, economic, and strategic implications for U.S. policy—and is designed to weaken and distract America globally.
• The Big Picture: Both internal and external challenges require nuanced reading of signals, credible intelligence, and coherent policy communication.

---

Engage with the show:
Questions/comments? Email [e-mail].
For ad-free episodes and extras, join PDB Premium at PDBPremium.com.

---

Transcript

[Mike Baker]

Welcome to the PDP Situation Report. I'm Mike Baker, your eyes and ears on the world stage. Coming to you this weekend from, well, clearly somewhere very posh. All right, let's get briefed. And first up, China's military is in chaos. Xi Jinping has purged his own generals in a growing power struggle inside the People's Liberation Army. We'll be joined by Steve Yates, friend of the show and smart guy. For more on that later in the show, the US Steps up its operations at sea, striking two more vessels, this time in the Pacific, allegedly tied to drug trafficking. But questions are growing about the targets, the evidence, and what this mission is really aiming to achieve. Epoch Times senior investigative reporter Joshua Phillip gives us his insights. But first, today's PDB Situation Report. Spotlight. President Xi Jinping has launched his most sweeping military purges yet, ousting his second in command, General Heidong and several other top generals in what insiders describe as a full blown power struggle inside the People's Liberation Army. Beijing calls it a crackdown on corruption, but analysts, well, they say it's really about loyalty and Xi's fear of losing control over his own military. The purge follows the mysterious disappearance of China's defense minister and last year's shakeup of its nuclear missile force, raising new questions about the stability of the world's largest army. So what's really driving this and what does it mean for China's future military ambitions? Joining me now is Steve Yates. He's a senior research fellow for China and National Security Policy at the Heritage foundation and good friend of the show. Steve, thanks very much for, for coming on the show again. Thank you, Mike.

[Steve Yates]

It's great to be back.

[Mike Baker]

Well, I'm, I'm impressed that you would say that. If you'd write a note, send it to the producers, I'd appreciate it very much. Let's start from the very, very, very top of this whole purge situation. What do you make of it?

[Steve Yates]

Well, I have very, very good friends I've known for decades who watch this stuff pretty closely. And frankly, they're divided. And I lean more on the side that this is just Xi not really being completely comfortable in his own skin and just sort of trimming the herd as much as he feels necessary to stay in power. So some of my friends say that this is him exercising control because he's at risk of being deposed. I'm more of the mind that bad leaders stick around a lot longer than people estimate or want. Not because I wish it, because I don't wish it, but I think that this is more of the trimming of that herd. So he keeps control and it likely consolidates his power for a bit.

[Mike Baker]

So you're not putting a lot of weight or credibility into what his usual explanation is. Anytime she does this, he usually talks about corruption and graft. And I'm just, you know, I'm, I'm cleaning things up.

[Steve Yates]

Yeah, well, I mean, this is a giant mafia, and sort of the first point of entry in joining any mafia is committing a crime. And so everyone who's in the mafia has dirt on them, and the boss gets to choose when and how to use it against them. And that's, I think, essentially what's going on. I don't think there are any clean hands in the top levels of the People's Liberation army or the Central Military Commission. But it's really Xi's kind of prerogative to pick when he's going to clean these folks out. The oddity this time is that because he's been a leader for so long, a lot of these people are his appointees. So when he was doing it in the early stages, it was seen as thinning the herd so that he could get his own people in. Now he's cleaning some of his own people out.

[Mike Baker]

Okay, tell us about the top guy here that's been kicked off the team, as it were. General Huawei Dong.

[Steve Yates]

Yeah, well, you have a couple of positions that are really, really important, have to do with strategies and plans. And there's another position that has to do with, especially looking at Taiwan contingencies. And so the, you know, we've had changes in these positions, but this was supposed to be a really close confidant of Xi. So it does make you have to scratch your head about, well, what, what did he do and why this change now. But frankly, we just don't have sufficient visibility in to get a sense for what difference this will make, especially until you see how the new person actually does things. Is there any change other than the name, rank and serial number of the person who swapped in?

[Mike Baker]

Is it, is it the case that this fellow General Huedong, is he, has he been one of Xi's guys? Was he appointed by Xi? Yeah, yeah.

[Steve Yates]

Basically, I'm told he's been a loyalist for a very long time. He was sort of assumed to be very, very trusted by him. But I guess, you know, he, he, he came up through a system that is going to taint you along the way. And for whatever reason, I don't know if she is getting paranoid or if he's feeling pressure to change the chess pieces. And I just don't see the evidence yet that this change of chess pieces means that she is getting replaced. I have some good friends who say, nope, this is.

[Mike Baker]

This is it.

[Steve Yates]

It's getting close. This is a weakness being shown in public. But until this gathering in Beijing that's going on now is concluded, I don't think there's any basis to draw them to that conclusion.

[Mike Baker]

Tell us about the gathering you just referred to. You talking about the plenary commission? Yeah.

[Steve Yates]

So the Communist Party. I mean, as you know, Mike, Communists love to have good meetings. And everyone in the audience is beautifully.

[Mike Baker]

Hey, I love a good meeting, but I'm not.

[Steve Yates]

But they do it with pizzazz in the sense that everybody is like in a little red notebook scribbling down every word that the Dear Leader says as if it's coming down on the tablets on Sinai and it's going to. The posterity is ever going to read all these notes, but they've got to look to the main guy like, not only am I listening to you, but I'm writing this stuff down because this is my bedtime reading. This is what I'm going to have breakfast to. This is going straight into my veins. And they. And they do it. And now I say it's pizzazz. That's really the wrong word because these guys look near dead while they're doing. I mean, there's nothing. There's not a sound in the room. They barely move. They're just doing their thing. But that's so. But they'll have an annual meeting where personnel decisions will be made. Sort of core doctrine gets espoused from the podium. And in old times, whether we're watching the Soviets or the Chinese Communists, we would look at, well, who's sitting next to who and who's up, who's down. I think there's a less to read into that stuff these days. So now it's. Is there really any shift in strategy that's announced by Xi and do these personnel changes actually change some of the rumors that go out about, say, timelines against Taiwan, or do people think he's been a little too aggressive in South China Sea and the Philippines and that blowback is actually not to China's advantage. Do they see the venture with Russia as having hurt China now that sanctions might be coming? Those are the kinds of things we'll be looking for tea leaves on?

[Mike Baker]

Okay, well, you're absolutely right. At the Agency, we used to have teams of analysts who would spend days picking Apart the, just the, the seating chart, whether it was North Korea or China or even Russia, just to try to gather something, which was an indication that, that oftentimes it was very hard to get human, their human intelligence that could tell you, you know, who was in, who was out, who was, who was being pushed out the, out the door. So let me ask you this, with, with the plenary, with a meeting like this, is it completely top down? Meaning when you talk about, you know, people who get voted in or, you know, positions changing or policies being confirmed or stressed, does that all come in from Xi? So everybody else is basically just scribbling in their red book and, and they're serving very little purpose.

[Steve Yates]

It's basically Xi and the people on the committee that he appointed, and over time, those are all people he has significant power and influence over. So on the Central Military Commission, there are other members of the commission, technically they would vote and they're probably playing a role in setting whatever the agenda is. They might be able to sort of steer the aircraft carrier a degree or two. But like an aircraft carrier, it's not changing fast and, and no one of them is going to be able to have enough weight to make significant change. So I think we're looking at orders of magnitude like that, where there might be some, some influence. But I think, make no mistake, under all circumstances, the top leader of the Communist Party of China is overwhelmingly in charge. And sometimes what they call the collective leadership, there can be divisions and poles to the left, to the right. Deng Xiaoping famously presided over supposedly divided government on that. When you look back in retrospect, there was a maniacal consistency to the outcomes, which makes me doubt that there was really all this tug of war. But, and in real time, we felt like there's these reformers and hawks and all of that today. This is all basically Xi and it is basically all top down.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, I would, it's interesting what you said about Deng Xiaoping. I would have argued, and still actually would argue that, you know, the, the, the two leaders in the past that have had the tightest grip have been Ma and Dang Michelle Ping, and now you got Xi. But it with Xi, I mean, if you set aside his, his reason or his narrative that, yeah, I'm doing these changes, whether it was with the rocket force or his defense minister or now these generals that have been pushed out, that he's doing this because of a desire for cleaning out corruption. Right. You know, and, and which makes him sound like a, you know, a good guy corruption fighter, if you if you set that aside, then this move, I mean, it's hard not to read into it that he feels threatened. Right. Which then would speak to what you were saying about some of the analysts, some of the people that, you know, who are talking about the potential for him to lose his grip on power.

[Joshua Phillip]

Yeah.

[Steve Yates]

So, I mean, it's still there. I see a divide. And you're absolutely right. There are people who are arguing strenuously that this is how this evidence stacks up. The counter to it is that you can also stack up evidence that says Xi wants to have viable options to take decisive action against Taiwan in 2027. Not because he intends to invade or execute in 2027, but he wants to have options, those viable options. By that point now, it could be that nearing the end of 2025, he's looking the options and he's saying, you know, this isn't, this isn't giving me what I asked for. And so he's cleaning house on. These may have been people I appointed, they may have been loyal enough, but they're not giving me what I asked for. And so out with them and bring in the people that will give me the options that I need. It's also a plausible stack of evidence to say that the, even the PLA could be divided about, is all of this worth it? Right now they have a rapidly expanding military manufacturing complex, but none of this stuff has been tested in real combat. And even a lot of their sea vessels, they haven't put that many out to see whether all the welds are holding, whether they have double or single hull to be torpedo resistant. I mean, we, There's a lot that's untested in that, and the military itself knows that much better than the political leadership does. And so there could be people that are saying, whoa, yeah, we, we're all, we're all against America. We, we ought to take Taiwan back, too, but we think you're being reckless with the Philippines and you're provoking Japan. And now we got this Trump guy who says that they're going to revitalize the, the spirit of war and the Department of War. We think you've pushed too far. And so he could be meeting that resistance, but he's pruning those branches out. So the problem, just like in the old days, we know so little that very, very smart and engaged and interested people can build up all these narratives, and our leaders have to just sort of pick which is the safest bet and how do we hedge?

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, yeah, it does. It all comes down to do you have sufficient credible a human, you know, do you have good sources who can can tell you these things? What's happening inside the tent? And China has always been a heavy lift, of course. Absolutely. Steve, if you would stay right there. We got a lot more to talk about, but we've got to take a quick break and then we'll be back with more from Steve Yates, the Heritage foundation in just a moment. Stick around. Hey, Mike Baker here, BDB host and of course, fashion icon. So I want to tell you about a great clothing company called True Classic. Now, the guys at True Classic started with a very simple mission to bring premium comfortable clothing to the masses because looking and feeling great, they believe shouldn't come with a designer price tag. And clearly people agree. People vote with their dollars and True Classic has sold over 25 million shirts. Get that 25 million shirts to more than 5 million customers and in the process racking up over 200,000 five star reviews. This brand, True Classic, is all about helping guys show up every day with confidence and purpose. Their shirts fit where they should, they feel incredible and they don't break the bank. You get that tailored look without sacrificing comfort or blowing your budget. Now, I've been wearing True Classic shirts for quite a while now and you can feel the difference the moment you throw one on. They fit great, they look great. What's not to like? Come on. Forget overpriced designer brands. Skip the cheap throwaway stuff. True Classic is built for comfort, built to last and built to give back. You can find them on Amazon or Target, Costco, Sam's Club, or just head on over to trueclassic.com PDB to try them out for yourself.

[Miranda Devine]

Power, politics and the people behind the headlines.

[Mike Baker]

Our country's back. We're really back.

[Miranda Devine]

Candid conversations with the people making the rules and changing the game. Can you see yourself as president one day?

[Mike Baker]

I don't think about that.

[Joshua Phillip]

We just had an invasion over our southern border.

[Mike Baker]

My husband is in the corner for.

[Miranda Devine]

The record, pumping his fist right now that you're asking this question. This is real talk with lawmakers, newsmakers and political disruptors.

[Steve Yates]

I think Elon's Port probably paints himself.

[Joshua Phillip]

More of a Viking. I think I'm more of a ninja.

[Miranda Devine]

Join me, Miranda Devine, host of Pod Force One, for insightful talk, news making moments and behind the scenes peeks at what makes America's greatest minds tick. Find podforce one on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Mike Baker]

Your ratings are very Good. And I want to congratulate you. I usually ask potential criminals to have a seat, but now I'm asking you to join me, Chris Hansen, for my new series, have a Seat with Chris Hansen. Guests each week are fascinating personalities who are grabbing headlines, making waves, or changing our lives for the better. Have a Seat with Chris Hansen, available wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Joining me once again is senior research Fellow for China and National Security Policy at the Heritage Foundation. You know him, you love him. Can't live without him, right? I just made that saying up. It's Steve Yates. Steve, thanks very much for sticking around. Thank you, Mike. Something you said during the previous segment, I wanted to pick that up. Very interesting. We're talking about Xi Jinping moving out these generals, nine of them, in a fairly significant purge, the senior levels of his military and the People's Liberation Army. And I'm fascinated by the concept that maybe General Hoedong and the others weren't fully on board with cheese timeline for moving on Taiwan. And for one reason or another, who knows what that is? I know this is speculation, but I find that to be a very interesting thought.

[Steve Yates]

Well, again, we don't get to know. But in looking at these changes, it's just among the logical possibilities that even in the evil regimes, there occasionally is a burst of rationality where they go, oh, crap, if. If this guy hits the go button, a lot of us could die or these systems could fail and our own people or our own military might kill us. And. And you sort of had sense during the Cold War along the lines of that Sting lyric, we hope the Russians love their children, too. You just wonder, even in these other regimes, every once in a while someone is looking at this and they know because they've got access to it all. Whoa, this. This might not work the way. The way we've been building it up. Or they think that they've got a better idea and they've been overruled on the plan. And of course, it's a cardinal sin in a mafia or the CCP to try to offer a plan that's at odds with what the top leader seemingly has conducted a seance with Marx and Len and now and come up with.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, oh, by the way, kudos to you for coming up with a Sting reference and citing Sting lyrics. That's the first time that's ever happened on the.

[Steve Yates]

I am of that age, so it's seared into my mind.

[Mike Baker]

I mean, I. I often cite Taylor Swift lines, I can't do that. Me, I'm, I'm, I'm a little more hip, you know, to the range of the kids nowadays. Look, are you surprised? This is going to sound like an odd question, but it is a sign of his grip on power or his control that he can just wave his hand and nine senior officers in the PLA are gone.

[Steve Yates]

Ultimately, that's why I come down on this, is an indication of him having overwhelming power and wielding overwhelming power, even though you can sort of take the glass half full, glass half empty. Well, he shouldn't have to remove that number of people if he was doing so great. But because he can, and I will wager in a week or two or four weeks time, no one in China is going to be questioning this. And so that's the icing on the cake that says this is a power move that he can do and get away with because he's in that position of ultimate power. And until there's some kind of real demonstration otherwise, I don't know how you nudge off of that being the dominant thesis.

[Mike Baker]

Okay, yeah, that's really interesting. I want to switch gears just slightly. I want to stay in China, but I want to talk about a very recent development related to China's purchase of Russian oil and gas. They've been the number one consumer and have been really, I would argue, the primary reason why Putin's been able to keep his war machine moving. But now it looks like they're backing off of those purchases. Talk to me about that. Where are we with this? Why is it happening?

[Steve Yates]

Well, this is one of those things where I've always had the problem of the wish being the father of my thought. I have wanted these kinds of sanctions to be imposed on China from the get go because it seemed very obvious to me that China was more actively vested in the Russian invasion of Ukraine than was accepted wisdom for at least the first year and then most of the second year of the conflict. I think now almost everyone just takes it as a given that they have been involved, if not the whole time, much of the time. And the magnitude of this, of this money transfer, it's that funny word fungibility, that this exchange gives them the wherewithal to sustain that war machine. And especially when the President hit India with the tariff hike as a penalty, it was really awkward about why India, who percentage wise buys a lot less. And one of the rationales I was given is because they shouldn't buy any at all and we should probably be able to get them to stop first. Well, maybe, but the Magnitude with China is big. China has been sending propaganda back our way that don't even bother sanctioning us. Well, we can survive this. We'll adapt. You're going to fail. All this, all this kind of clap trap which doesn't come as a shock for political warfare terms, but seemingly they might believe that this is coming now. I don't know if it's because the President is more visibly perturbed about Putin, the calling off of the meeting in Hungary, at least for a time, having Besant openly announce sweeping new penalties on, on Russian entities. Maybe this makes the Chinese say, well, shoot, if Xi Jinping goes to APEC and has a pull aside with Trump, he just might slap some of this on us. And so preemptively there, I would say air quotes. Commercial entities seem to have at least dialed back. I don't know how long that will last or how strategic it will be, but it's the first indicator I've seen move in that direction for a while.

[Mike Baker]

What do we know about the specifics of just how much they pull back and which entities and you know, to what degree?

[Steve Yates]

Yeah, I mean, I, I've seen the same headline you have and frankly, that was fresh news to me. So I don't know that there's any meaningful data right now. I would think in a, in basically a few days time we'll see if there's a move in markets and there's a few energy people that seem to watch things by the barrel. They probably know that answer and I gotta go, gotta go give them phone a friend to have them fill me in on what, what's, what's.

[Mike Baker]

Go ahead and do that right now. I'll wait, I'll just sit here and you do that. I'll, I'll listen to the jazz downstairs. Yeah, I haven't seen a real specifics, I guess also I'm, I'm, I'm somewhat cynical. Right. So, yeah, until we see some.

[Steve Yates]

Which is the right position.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, yeah, you have to, you have to, you have to see the movement in the markets and, you know, other actual evidence before you would believe that this is, you know, more than just kind of set dressing. So. But it is fascinating, it is interesting that they have stood up and took notice and I think you're on to something when you talk about that upcoming meeting, potential upcoming meeting between Trump. Is that going to happen? You think that Trump and Xi Jinping meeting at this?

[Steve Yates]

We get a mixed message every single day. It's on, it's off, it's a meeting It's a pull aside. She might not go. All this stuff about the purge in the military leadership, people are suggesting that she's at risk. He can't afford to leave the country. APEC leader meetings are not always represented by the top leader of each country. And so there's been so many variables, but from, from the White House and from the Chinese, there's been no confirmation yet that Xi is going, and there's no confirmation that a meeting is set. There is one lesson from the past that I, that I would apply to this oil markets issue, and that's, what are we. If we are the ones pressuring China and the pressure works, what have we asked them to do in response to that pressure? And if it is to get Putin back to the table? That reminds me of when we put the overwhelming sanctions on Banco Delta Asia to get the North Koreans to the negotiating table. And we got them to the table and we got more talk. We got a fake deal, nothing changed. And so if this is a temporary use of this leverage, and then what it does is it gets the Chinese to compel Putin or his rep to get back to the table for more talks, and that's all it is. That's a repeat of the sort of diplo garbage that we went through in the past.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, yeah, I couldn't agree with you more. And frankly, I have no belief that Putin has any interest in doing anything other than just stringing things along and keeping the status quo. It is interesting that you mentioned it briefly. It is interesting that we've put additional sanctions now, I think, on Luke Oil and Rosneft, amongst other entities in Russia. But look, we've seen that over the years, the Russians and the Iranians. And so by, you know, that example, you have to assume the Chinese are very good at evading sanctions, finding worker. So you always have to wonder, you know, exactly how, how productive are they on that point. So, Steve Yates, thanks so much as always. Senior Research Fellow for China and National Security Policy, the Heritage Foundation. Safe travel, Steve. All right, coming up next, U.S. forces strike two more vessels, this time in the Pacific, expanding their maritime crackdown on drug smuggling. But questions are mounting about what's really behind the operation. Joshua Philip of the Epoch Times will join us to provide insight. Stay right there. Hey, Mike Baker here. Let me take just a moment of your time to talk about sweat. Yeah, I guess you probably didn't see that coming. Now, you likely have noticed that fall is here. Some people call it autumn, fancy people call it autumn, and staying fresh. Let me Tell you through backyard football games, pumpkin carving, apple picking and yard work. Don't forget the yard work. Well, it's tough. That's where Mando deodorant comes in. See, I told you I'd talk about sweat. I've been using their sweat Control Solid stick and it's a game changer. It delivers all day odor and sweat control with zero clothing marks. You know what I'm talking about. It prevents odor before it starts using what they call mandelic acid. It's clinical strength protection that reduces sweat by 92%. Get out of here. 92% after just 12 hours. So give it a go. You'll feel dry, confident and energized without reapplying. Mando starter pack is perfect for new customers. Solid stick cream tube and two free products like their mini body wash and deodorant wipes. Plus you get free shipping. As a special offer for our PDB listeners. New customers get 20% off site wide with code [e-mail] that's shopmando.com code PDB for 20% off sitewide plus free shipping. And after you make your purchase. Yeah. Mando will ask you. Hey, where'd you hear about us? Do me a favor. Tell them the PDB set you again. That's shopmando.com code PDB for 20% off site wide plus free shipping.

[Craig Carton]

Hey there, it's your buddy, Craig Carton. And if you're like me, you could use a timeout from the chaotic news cycle, a pause from the politics, a break from the bedlam. I'm inviting you to join me every day on the Craig Carton show podcast, where we tackle the biggest sporting events of the day and give honest, hot takes on and off the field. Sports talk should be fresh, informative and fun. And that's what we deliver every single day. So give your ears a much needed vacation. It's time to tune out the noise and take a break from the non stop news cycle. Subscribe now to the Cray Carton show podcast, available on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcast.

[Mike Baker]

Gas. Welcome back to the BDB Situation Report. This week, the administration confirmed that U.S. forces struck two vessels in the Pacific Ocean. The latest in a growing campaign against seaborn drug smuggling. It marks nine strikes that we know of in total. Since the operation began weeks into this campaign, one crucial detail remains conspicuously absent. No one has confirmed what narcotics these boats were allegedly carrying. Were they loaded with coke from Colombia's cartels or fentanyl components? From Chinese suppliers routed through Venezuela. What is clear is that this new narco boat initiative marks a major escalation in America's use of military force in the Western hemisphere. And here to help us break it all down is senior investigative reporter for the Epoch Times, Joshua Phillip. Joshua, thank you very much for taking the time to join us here on the Situation Report.

[Joshua Phillip]

Hey, real pleasure being here. Thank you.

[Mike Baker]

Where do you stand on, on this anti piracy thing we got going on out there in the seven seas? Blowing vessels out of the water. What do you think about it?

[Joshua Phillip]

Well, you know, I, I think we're being told that it's just innocent fishermen. Maybe they're fishing for fentanyl. But no, I'm all for it. I think what I think with drug cartels, honestly, they should be labeled as terrorists. These are, these are paramilitary organizations in terms of influence, subversion, bribery, blackmail, murder, assassinations. The way they control entire governments, it's horrible. And allowing them to go as long as we have is basically, basically let them take over entire countries within Latin America to the point where you have the heads of entire states, Venezuela, now Colombia, being labeled as effectively like leaders of the drug cartels. So I don't know if anything short of this could solve it.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, I will say from my perspective, I'm old enough. I actually spent time during the 80s engaged in the drug wars. And, you know, I would, I'm happy now to see that we're actually treating it like a war and because in the past, you know, we did a lot of interdiction, but you never really changed things. Right. You could, you could take a ton of gear off the street, right, or out of a warehouse somewhere and it wouldn't change that street price at all. Right. Because there was just so much of it, so much warehouse. And you just felt like all you were doing was just kind of putting lipstick on a pig every time you had a successful operation. So I am kind of happy to see this. I will say. Well, let me phrase this different. I don't need to tell you what I think. The viewers, you know, they don't want to hear that. They want to hear what you think. What do you think about the level of information that is being provided by the White House during the course of this campaign?

[Joshua Phillip]

Well, my current, my perspective right now is the, the White House wants to have less information public is what I think they want. And let me explain a couple parts in that. You know, they just held this big press conference. Trump's coming out alongside Hegseth, and they're Basically saying they're going to expand the war against the cartels. When Trump was running for office, he made it very clear he was going to use basically the whole military, the intelligence system to wage war in the cartels. He said he was going to do it. And he said that if any government in Latin America tries to block him from doing it, that he would expose their connections to the cartels because most of them are implicated. That's just how it goes. The recent changes they made at the Pentagon, making it so that journalists can't just wander around, they have to show their press badges so they can't sneak around listening to conversations. And also they can't publish, like, you know, illegal leaks. I believe that's also tied in with this. I think they're. I think they don't want to have it. Like, every time they plan on doing something, the media publishes it and then blows a lid on it and the whole operation gets thrown out of the under the bus. I think that. I think they don't want that anymore. And if you were to ask me a lot of what's happening in Latin America, it's actually bigger than just a few little boats and a few little cartel. A few little cartels, you know, running their operations. The cartels are tied in with broader things. They're tied in with terrorism. You know, post 9, 11, that was the narrative. You know, remember the commercials? If you smoke marijuana, you're supporting terrorism. You know, it's actually kind of true, like a little bit more like opium and stuff like that. But there are narco. There are narco terrorist organizations in Latin America. You know, Shining Path, one of the big ones. You have very active Hezbollah networks all throughout Latin America. Hezbollah has been working, training the cartels on drones, on roadside bombs, on tunnel building, including even in Mexico, actually. It's very intertwined with that. Then you have a lot of nation state actors. Iran, Russia, huge influence. But the Chinese Communist Party really established most of the networks, most of the drug trade in Latin America. The big, the big stuff that was, that was started under Mao Zedong. He called it people's opium, right? People's heroin. And he modeled it after the opium wars. He wind up a way to make money for the entire, you know, international revolution. They trained a lot of the cartels. That's why they're, you know, they're narco terrorists. They're actually Maoist. A lot of them are Maoist trained. I'm not talking just Mex. I'm talking about all throughout, like, Central and South America. Their Maoist trained. And the CCP went mainly through Cuba, and Cuban intelligence established most of those, you know, subversive movements. These are very much tied into political movements. You have entire political parties compromised by the cartels. You, They've made their way into, like, the political systems where in some areas, like in Mexico, they're governed by the cartels. You have some areas where the cartel is the government and they've infiltrated the culture, the economy, and a lot of people don't want to get rid of it because it's become part of the lifeblood of the region. And, and, and they make their money by poisoning and killing Americans and terrorizing populations.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah. So, I mean, I, I don't disagree with, with anything that you're saying. I mean, I think it is. Look, we know that Al Qaeda, as an example, had liaison with a handful of the Mexican cartels back during sort of the Al Qaeda heyday, because what they knew that the cartels knew how to move people and, and weapons and gear across the border. So that made perfect sense. Right. They're just being efficient. The. I guess the question about the, the White House and the level of transparency in terms of their targeting, my concern isn't so much that I have a problem with targeting narco terrorists. I don't clearly, given my background. But I, I do think that they could arm themselves better against pushback from, from the left in particular, by providing better information, more transparency to the degree that they can. Right. Obviously, you're not gonna, you're gonna jeopardize sources and methods, but providing a bit more transparency about the targeting process, about how they're selecting these targets and what these targets are, who they're connected to, what they're carrying. I think what that does is it negates some of this pushback that. That is happening now, particularly from the left, which is always looking for something to push back against the Trump administration with.

[Joshua Phillip]

Yeah, I agree with you, actually. I think it would actually be in their interest to go further in one direction or the other direction. The either need to lean into transparency or lean into secrecy, you know? Yeah. They either make it more secret and quick posting videos of them blowing up boats, or they go more transparency. Like you were saying, where they detail. These are the guys driving the boats. This is what they were carrying. This is what intelligence says. This is how they, this is how we know, because otherwise they're going to deal with this. Like, you remember when they were blowing up like the Houthis and they were posting videos of it and the Media was like, Trump blows up tribal meeting. Yeah. Right. Now, remind. Reminds you that. Or, or when, like, you know, they started operations against the Somali pirates and they were like, Somali fishermen being targeted.

[Mike Baker]

You know, Gustavo Petro of Colombia is, Is, you know, he's kind of leading that charge from the international side, right? And he's pushing out there, oh, my God, this is murder. These people were just out there trying to earn a living on a fishing boat, and how dare you. And you know what? Without. Without sufficient information. I mean, it's one thing, you know, President Trump pushed back and said, well, you're a lunatic. But that's not going to satisfy, you know, those that are saying, okay, well, how about give us some information that. That negates what somebody like Petro is saying, or the New York Times or, or whomever, because the average American is not going to have any heartburn over targeting narco terrorists. It's just not going to happen. But I think they need to feel that it's a little bit like, okay, careful now, Joshua, I might jump up on a soapbox here. But it's a bit like the issue of illegal immigrants. And who do you go after, right? When Tom Holman talked about we're going after the worst of the worst, well, by God, everybody's like, yeah, sure, pick up criminals off the street and, and deport them. Why not? But then what happens is you get these scenes at a Home Depot, right? Or so. And, and that's when people who are sort of in the middle and there are a lot of them, I would argue, but they're just very quiet. They get a little squirrely, right? And they say, well, I'm not sure. That doesn't, that doesn't sound like what we talked about. And, and, and so I think with the, with this targeting campaign, I think it's. There's a little bit of that there, right? Provide a little bit more information and you push back. And the average person who's not going to have a problem with it will go, oh, yeah, I get it. That makes perfect sense.

[Joshua Phillip]

Yeah, I, I agree with you. Actually, it would be very much in their interest to do that. You know, on the point of deportations, I think they have turned the narrative around quite a bit, because every day it's like, I follow the, like the Homeland Security account on the ICE account on, On X. Every day it's like they show the mug shots and they say what the guy's guilty of. You know, child predator, domestic abuser, you know, repeat drunk driver. Like, you know, they List these things. You know, when they did that raid just recently in New York where they rounded up a bunch of these like African guys selling counterfeit bags and stuff. You know, I mean, I've seen, I've seen those guys for years. I'm in New York right now. I've seen them for years. Nothing ever happens to them. See them around that, those guys up and then posting. Not all of them. They, they arrested some 20 and 40 of them. They only deep, they only detailed nine, but those nine make the whole thing look pretty serious. You know, you're talking about guys who were like guilty of assault, repeated criminals, and, and they tell you that. And that's part of the information campaign.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, I think that's, I think that's right. And, and that's, I guess that's what I'm talking about is, is give the people, give the average American a little bit, trust them, give them a little bit more information and you know, they'll make up their minds and, and usually they'll figure it out. Right? But you know, oftentimes we just, it seems like the Trump administration just lets the, the left drive the narrative because they're not explaining themselves or their messaging isn't quite word it needs to be. Listen, as I climb off my soapbox now, I want you to, if you could stick around. We got to take a quick break and then we'll be back with more from Joshua Phillip at the Epic times. Stick around. Hey, Mike Baker here. Now, if you own a handgun for self defense, like, like I do. Okay, maybe more than one, then your storage options likely fall into two relatively frustrating categories, Right? Locked away and out of reach or unsecured and vulnerable. And frankly, neither is a good option. So let me tell you about Stopbox. It's a terrific company that has built a better mousetrap. Stopbox USA solved the weapon storage problem with the Stopbox Pro. It's a mechanical, keyless safe that offers fast, secure access without batteries or keys. Its push button locking system ensures reliability when every second counts. It drastically reduces response time while keeping your firearm protected. With StopBox USA, you no longer have to choose between security and readiness. The Stopbox Pro delivers both efficiently, reliably and without compromise and for a limited time. Our listeners at the PDB get 15% off at StopBox when you use Code Baker. That's B A K E R At checkout, head over to stopboxusa.com and use code BAKER for 15% off your entire order. And after your purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Do me a favor and tell them the PDB sent you. Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Joining me once again is senior investigative reporter for the Epoch Times, Joshua Phillip. Joshua, thanks very much for sticking around. I really appreciate it.

[Joshua Phillip]

Yeah, real pleasure. Thank you.

[Mike Baker]

Staying with the. The drug campaign, the anti drug campaign that the Trump administration is currently engaged in. Talk to me, if you could, a little bit about the linkages, the connections between Venezuela and China.

[Joshua Phillip]

Oh, yeah. So in my opinion, China is the real issue around Venezuela. And a lot of this goes back to 2018. So let's go back 2018, what happened? Right. Trump was still president, first term in office, still, you know, Biden did not come in yet. The Venezuela elections happen. It's chaos. Maduro is accused of rigging the election. Trump calls him out where there's protests in the streets of Venezuela. 2019, you have Guaido come in as like the opposition leader. The United States backs Guaido, you know, Juan Guaido. And you know, Venezuela basically accuses Trump of trying to overthrow their government. Trump says, no, you're the illegitimate government. Then something interesting happens. If you remember, Trump was actually talking about possibly intervening in Venezuela. There was talks of a US Government intervention in Venezuela. Then what happened? Russia and China deployed security forces to Venezuela. The narrative in the media at the time was that they're protecting Chinese and Russian investment. You're talking 60, $80 billion of Chinese investment through the Belt and Road Initiative. Basically, the CCP bailed them out in Venezuela in many regards because of, again, debt traps or the Belt and Road Initiative. Infrastructure deals, mineral deals, resource deals. The CCP owns Venezuela. They were protecting their assets. Right. They intervened there. And then Russia sent a message telling the United States during Trump's first term, if America intervenes, there will be bloodshed. And, you know, you take it as you will, whether they were threatening us or not, but it worked because Trump actually backed off. The whole story about Venezuela and the US basically died. Then Trump, of course, went into 2019 and the whole, you know, the whole leading up to the election, I think he was kind of busy with that.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah.

[Joshua Phillip]

Biden comes in and actually maintains Trump's narrative on Venezuela. So, you know, the Biden administration, they actually maintained that they said Maduro was the illegitimate leader, the opposition leader was the official leader. The Biden administration actually designated Maduro as the leader of the cartel of the Suns. Said that basically, again, it was a criminal cartel running the entire government. Same position as Trump, which is, which is really interesting on that front. And Then, of course, something else big happened, you know, again, more so during the Trump time, but came in later, just north of Venezuela, in Guyana, you had one of the largest oil reserves in the entire world get discovered. And everybody wants it, China wants it, the US wants it, everybody wants it. ExxonMobil is currently involved there. America has a good stake there. Then what happens? A few months back, just a few months back, Maduro says he's going to work with Brazil and Lula and they're going to take it. And Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, goes down there. Actually, just a few months ago, even threatened Venezuela, saying, look, you intervene, you threaten America's, you know, threaten ExxonMobil, because we're active there, then you're going to regret it. And that's kind of where things are at. And so in my view, this is not just about drugs. It's about the Chinese footprint in Latin America. It's about oil. You could say, in some regards, this is actually an oil war. It also ties into the Chinese Communist Party strategy with Brazil and with Venezuela. So one of Xi Jinping, the head of the CCP's main advisors, his name's Qin Canrong, and Shin Kanrong, several years back, had a proposal. He said that if China wants to invade Taiwan, if they want to start a war, they need to basically distract America. He said, Basically, the U.S. military is designed to fight two wars. We have the Eastern front and the Western front. He said if they're going to win America, they need to get America dragged into at least four wars. They wanted a war with Russia. They. This was before Russia, Ukraine. This was before that happened. They wanted a war with terrorism. Think, you know, Israel, Hamas, think, think Iran. This was before any of that happened. And they also wanted to warn Latin America. This was actually during. When they came with this plan. It was during Lula's original term in office, before Bolsonaro came in, in Brazil. They wanted America to go to war with Brazil. Is as crazy as that sound. This is public reporting in China. And what do we see now? Well, we have war with Russia. We have. We have a war in the Middle east, although Iran is maybe disabled. We don't know how much. So. And we do see a war getting stirred now with Brazil and with Venezuela, and of course, China's threatening Taiwan. So, you know, is this the plan? I don't know, but. But this is what they were talking about.

[Mike Baker]

Well, your point is, is excellent. Which is, look, these things are always more complicated than they appear to be, or then they're explained Right. Because maybe the, you know, the news outlet only has a three minute segment to tell you about what's happening. Right. Or people just lose interest. But it's, these stories are always more complex and nothing happens in a bubble. So I like the fact that you're, you're tying these things together because it's true. The world is incredibly interconnected. And look, China spent a great deal of time while doing, particularly while we were distracted with the G, with the global war on terror, digging around Latin America in particular. Right. And Africa. But in Latin America doing what we now realize which is locking up mineral resources. Yeah.

[Joshua Phillip]

And when it goes further than this too, actually. Yeah, it goes further than this. So the Chinese, you know, people say, well, what does Russia care? You know, what is, what is Latin America care about America? So in the eyes of these countries, the problem of America is sanctions. America basically disables their economy. We hit Russia with sanctions, it destroys their economy. We hit North Korea with sanctions, it makes them the hermit country. We hit Venezuela with sanctions. And China has to run these black ships where they turn the radar off and go and trade with them. We basically isolate countries when they violate standards on the international order. The international order is the Pax Americana. Basically the entire system of what Russia would call the liberal democratic world order, an idea of what government is. The government is instituted basically to protect what we regard as God given rights. The alternate world order. The China model basically says, do whatever the heck you want. Genocide, murder, crime, we don't care as long as you trade with us. Do as thou wilt, don't question us, we won't question you. And that's the CCP's world order. Now they have a plan to take over America. But it's not like invading our streets. They might do that eventually. They have what's called the multipolar world order. And what they want to do is they want to make America not the world leader, top of the Pax Americana, what they call the unipolar world order, and instead make us just one seat at the global system of governance. So you'd have Russia controlling eu, know the former Eurasian, what they call the Eurasian Empire. Right. They want to have basic, basically the former Soviet bloc and then controlling Western Europe through like oil and energy sales. China wants to control most of East Asia. They want to have the US in its own little box, Canada in its own little box, Latin America in its own box. Middle Eastern powers. And then of course, you know, like af, an African power. The China model would be the main model for this and, and what happens, America loses its ability to sanction. And so that, that's what they want.

[Mike Baker]

It's a, it's a bit of a reason why they, they've been pushing on this Global south concept.

[Joshua Phillip]

It's exactly what it is. Exactly what it is.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah. So I think it's, I think it's. That is absolutely correct. I, before I forget, because you know what, if I don't write it on a post it note and stick it to my forehead these days, I might forget. But you mentioned international order. It's interesting because that's one of the things that Gustavo Petro is saying. You know, Trump administration is, is, is neglecting international order. They're violating international order by, by attacking narco trafficking boats. I mean, he's kind of hitched his horse to a strange wagon.

[Joshua Phillip]

It is. And so, you know, so this ties into a Maoist strategy. Mao Zedong, when he was fighting the civil war in China, you know, with the ccp, they knew they couldn't take the cities, they knew they couldn't just fight the cities. So they came up with a strategy called surround the city with the countryside. So rather than attack the city, you isolate the city. Same thing with, with America. They can't defeat America. What do you do? You defeat it by taking the countryside. You isolate it from its trade partners. You isolated from Latin America, you isolated from other people and you divide it like that, right? If, if you can, if you can take away the people of a, of a king, the king is not the king of anybody, right? You don't have to fight the king, you just destroy his sovereignty. Basically. Same thing with America. And so that, that's what they want to do. They want to destroy the Pax Americana by going around the, you know, the countryside, as they call it. And so for decades now, the Chinese Communist Party has been doing that. They've been very active, especially in Africa, very active in most of Asia, very active in the Middle east and very active in Latin America. Well, America has really turned a blind eye to it. And, and a lot of this was run through what's called the 4 0, Sao Paulo, the Forum of Sao Paulo, which was Lula in Brazil working with Castro in Cuba. And they established kind of a, like a, like a system. You know, we think that the World Economic Forum think of like that on the government level through all of Latin America. CCP is involved with it, Iran's involved with it. And they were the guys behind the pink revolution, like the whole pink wave, right, the communist revolution that basically swept most of Latin America. They work again also with Shining Path. They used to be part of it. One of the narratives they've had with drugs is basically, let's solve the drug problem by basically legalizing it. We won't go after them. And then everybody's happy and we all make money. And so they normalize these things. Part of this again for our so Paulo model that really has worked as a CCP model of transforming these countries.

[Mike Baker]

I got a lot more questions for you. So I'm hoping when we call you again that you'll pick up the phone and say, sure, yeah, I'll. I'll get back on the situation report because we do have a lot more to talk about.

[Joshua Phillip]

Yeah, anytime. Yeah, no problem.

[Mike Baker]

Well, that's all the time that we have for the PDB Situation report for this weekend. There is a lot there to talk about. If you have any questions or comments or humorous anecdotes, please reach out to me at PDB@the FIRSTTV.com you know what we do Once a month, select team of PDB executives rather gather around our incredibly expensive mahogany conference table in our, well, somewhat posh conference room. And they choose the best comments and questions. Then we smash them all together into a monthly episode that we call Ask Me Anything. So keep the large cards and keep the large. Keep the cards and letters coming, huh? To listen to the podcast of this show ad free. Yeah, it's simple. Become a premium member of the President's Daily brief by visiting BDB premium.com now. I'm Mike Baker. Until next time. You know the drill. Stay informed, stay safe, stay cool.