Podcast Host (2:23)

There's so many stories out there and.

Erica and Mila (2:25)

If you can find a way to.

Podcast Host (2:27)

Curate and the right person discover the.

Erica and Mila (2:31)

Right content, the term that we always hear from our audience is that they feel seen. Listen to Good company on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Gavin Newsom (2:56)

This is Gavin Newsom. And this is Richard Haas. Richard, thank you so much for taking the time to come on, particularly at a remarkable time in, in world history, particularly in history unfolding in the Middle east today. President Trump seemed to have a day that he's been, you know, looking forward to for years and years and years, pushing NATO to move from 2% to 5%. What was your takeaway from this NATO summit? At least the first day? And does Trump deserve, I think, a lot of praise and for an accomplishment.

Erica and Mila (3:35)

Here, I would argue President Trump. Well, first of all, Gavin, good to be with you. Thank you. Look, I would argue President Trump deserves credit for spurring the Europeans to do what they ought to have done years before. They ought to be putting forward a larger share of the effort for what's a common defense. I would just as an aside, I would say much more important to me than whether The Europeans spend 3% or 2 and a half or 4.5 is how they spend it. And I'd actually say something you'd probably agree with. In public policy, how you spend money is almost always more important than how much you spend. And the problem with European defense is not just that they spend too little, but each country pretty much determines how it spends its defense, euros. So the whole ends up being less than the sum of its parts. So I would be pushing, if I were advising the president, I would say, yeah, push them to do more, but secondly, also push them, in a sense, to become more European rather than country by country by country, which is the way they often go about it. But I think that part is good. Less good is, I think he's introduced some doubts into the reliability of the United States and what you might call the automatic quality of Article 5, America's willingness to go to bat for Europe. And obviously, there's also some fairly significant differences about how to handle the most immediate threat, which is Russia and the war in Ukraine. So I think it's a mixed bag. But, yes, it's good to see the Europeans essentially getting pushed to do more.

Gavin Newsom (5:10)

And it's interesting just as you unpack and I appreciate how you spend and where you spend. It was interesting just looking at some of the details, that their direct spend in support of Ukraine would be considered as part of that contribution as it relates to that breakdown of 5%. It was also, though, interesting to see the breakdown within the countries. Obviously, Germany looking to move quicker by 2029 with close to 70% increase in their domestic defense spending. And then Spain, who was called out by the president today, looking not necessarily to, to reach that numeric. Is that, does that mean much to you or is that just. That's just noise.

Erica and Mila (5:52)

The most interesting part of that is Germany. Less what Germany is prepared to do in defense, though doing more is welcome. But Germany has changed its laws and essentially now is able to raise serious debt, which was something that modern Germany had an allergy to because of the whole Weimar experience. And the fact that Germany now can really go into the markets and raise debt gives them 5 far more capacity to potentially grow their economies as well as to contribute to national security. And I'd even go so far as to say the most interesting figure in Europe right now is the new chancellor of Germany. And even though he had a rough start and getting confirmed and so forth by his parliament, I actually think that Chancellor Merz is in a position to in some ways have Germany stake out the leadership position in Europe, something that historically, Since World War II, Germany's been reticent to do so. I would watch that space, particularly since the French, the British and others are so gridlocked domestically. I think Germany now occupies the critical position.

Gavin Newsom (6:57)

When you referenced the Article 5, sort of, you know, I think the president, when he was flying over, there was some ambiguity once again, sort of creating some doubt and anxiety. He seemed to shift tone a little bit when he landed. But is that, is this that on again, off again relationship to the Article 5? Is that what you're referring to is sort of a lack of, of certainty and confidence in the president?

Erica and Mila (7:20)

Yeah. For those who haven't read the NATO Treaty recently, Article 5 is the core of the agreement, where essentially an attack on one is considered to be an attack on all. Curiously, it's only been invoked once in NATO's entire history, and that was on behalf of the United States after 9, 11. But alliances depend upon predictability and reliability and dependability. And I would argue that President Trump has introduced a significant degree of uncertainty into that, which I think is counterproductive. He would argue perhaps it was necessary to get the Europeans to do more. I would have said, well, probably there's better ways to do that, but that's where we are. To the extent Russia senses there's uncertainty there, Putin, who, as we've seen in Ukraine can be risk prone, might be more likely to take risks. So I always believe that the best way to determine is through certainty. So your friends know you'll be there for them, and just as important, your enemies know you'll be there for your friends. So I would. I would like for President Trump, as the days and weeks and months unfold, to look for opportunities to make clear that whatever our differences are with Europe over their level of defense effort, we see it as in our interest to be there with them.

Gavin Newsom (8:35)

You're here. What? What? In terms of the actual bombing itself, and I think by most objective standards, it was a success. Whether or not these sites were, quote, unquote obliterated. That's a separate conversation. Is that your assessment that this was a success? That in the spirit of what you just said around some certainty that the president wasn't bluffing in terms of wanting to get diplomatic deal done, they appeared not to want to move in that direction. So then he asserted himself militarily.

Erica and Mila (9:06)

I think it was the right thing to do. For years, we've been playing this game with the Iranians where they were enriching uranium far, far, far beyond levels anybody would need to generate electricity. So we all knew what this was about, to put into place the prerequisites for a nuclear weapons program. I also understood we couldn't allow Iran to get on the threshold, much less have nuclear weapons. We made that mistake. I would argue with North Korea. We don't want to have it now in this part of the world, because if Iran ever got nuclear weapons, not only would they act more aggressively, impose potentially an existential threat to Israel, but you know, and I know the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Turks and others would follow suit. And the only thing worse than the Middle east we've known is the Middle East I just described. So I think what Israel and then the United States did was warranted. We'll see what the results are. Whatever happened, the Iranian program was not obliterated. Elements of their program, I expect, will have survived the attacks on the three sides. More important, I don't know. You don't know? Probably the president doesn't know what amount of uranium or number of centrifuges and so forth are under some roof of some warehouse in some other part of Iran. I actually think going forward, Devin, we have got to assume just the opposite, that the Iranian program was not obliterated, but elements of that program exist. And what's worrisome to me, I'll be honest with you, I would think that a lot of Iranian leaders have said, hey, this never would have happened had we had nuclear weapons. We could have deterred the Israelis and the Americans. So I worry that going forward, I think their determination to develop nuclear weapons might, if anything, be Even greater.

Gavin Newsom (10:50)

Well, you know, I want to just pick up on that point because that's an interesting observation and an important one. And we'll get to North Korea as well in a second because your reference goes back to the opportunity the United States had under the Clinton administration to take out their program before it proliferated. But I want to talk a little bit about the non Proliferation Treaty. People have brought that up since the 1970s. I think 200 countries were signatories to that, including Iran. There were a number of countries that have developed nuclear programs that were not original signers to that. Obviously Korea and Israel, to the extent they have a nuclear program, quote unquote. But certainly India and Pakistan. But those countries as a consequence would make the claim you just made that they've been, they've had that deterrent. Now Iran assumed that they would not be bombed, I presume under the terms of the non Proliferation Treaty. Does that put at risk the entire notion of the non Proliferation Treaty, what's just occurred?

Erica and Mila (11:53)

So let me give you a slightly convoluted answer. The non Proliferation Treaty is only a small piece of the effort against non proliferation. I don't think it's a wildly successful piece in many ways because it really is a gentleman's agreement. We declare what facilities we're doing certain types of research or engineering in and then the inspectors come look at them. Inspectors can't look at places that are not known. So the entire treaty in that sense is based upon a degree of faith that I tend not to have. North Korea withdrew from the treaty and there was no particular penalty or anything for them having done so. Turns out the most important non proliferation tool out there is not the treaty. It's called America's alliances. By giving countries the confidence that we are there for them, they then don't need to become self sufficient. And the biggest way to accelerate proliferation will be, for example, if the South Koreans or others come to have doubts about their relationships with us. So don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the non Proliferation Treaty doesn't have some utility and I think in particular the inspection provisions can be useful, but we shouldn't exaggerate its impact that Iran I would think is going to, was going to do and is going to do what it wants regardless of its obligations under this treaty.

Gavin Newsom (13:11)

So back to what you were saying. I mean, so just let's speculate what goes happens going forward. Obviously this notion of regime change, people sort of pulled back a little bit or at least it appears the President's pulled back. I don't know if Bibi is pulled back on the notion of regime change, but what won't change is their pursuit, presumably of a nuclear weapon. As you note, we don't know that the program was quote, unquote obliterated, even at the physical sites may have been. We don't know where this enriched uranium is and centrifuges you imagine. Now your concern is now what? That they accelerate that program with the darkness, meaning without any international inspectors.

Erica and Mila (13:53)

That's my concern. It might not be their immediate priority, which I think is to shore up the regime. But at some point, I do think reconstituting a program will become a priority, which means, by the way, the day may come where Israel, the United States, needs to once again use military force. If we discover some activity going on and the Iranians won't voluntarily give it up, it's not normal that problems get solved. When I was the head of the Council on Foreign Relations, I used to discourage the fellows from using the word solve or solution because that's just the way history works. So I don't believe whatever it is we accomplished the other day, and however much we accomplished, it didn't solve the problem. It may have reduced it, it may have set back the Iranian program, but that'll pop up again. It's. By the way, you mentioned regime change. It's one of the reasons that people, I think, are attracted to the idea. If you can't solve the Iranian problem through military force or through diplomacy, then people say, what's left? Well, let's get a benign government. And I think that's why there's so much interest in regime change. The problem is it's easier to talk about it than bring it about. I don't see the prerequisites in place for it. And in any case, you can't base your policy on it. People don't like it when I say this, but it's a wish more than a strategy. If it were to happen, I think it brings problems, but obvious benefits with it, but we just can't count on it. And no president can give the order to say secretary of defense or state and say, get me regime change in Iran. They wouldn't have then the tools to necessarily carry it out when it comes.

Gavin Newsom (15:33)

To just issues of trust. And, you know, I think one of the questions that I get and I ask myself all the time, I feel like for most of my adult life, I've been hearing Bibi Netanyahu say they're just months away, a year away, from having weapons grade nuclear weapons. And you know, at a certain point you just stop believing it. But your assessment, you know, your own objective assessment this time did appear to be different, that they were getting closer and actually appeared to be within matter of months in a position where potentially we had a weapons grade weapon coming out of Iran. Is that accurate?

Erica and Mila (16:13)

Pretty much. Look, this was a gathering threat. It wasn't an imminent threat, it was a gathering threat. And the question is how close? Now we know they had done most of the enrichment work they need to do to get it uranium enriched plus or minus 60%. That's not just 60% of the effort. That's actually closer to 90% of the effort for reasons of physics that I couldn't explain because I don't understand them well enough. But I think I'm right there. What you don't know is how close they were on some of the other things, the actual fabrication of explosive devices, the bomb and so forth. And there's, there was, the Israelis believe, and the economists published some very interesting stuff about it, that they had made some breakthroughs, they had had some secret programs and so forth. And I think we have to be tolerant. Just like after 9, 11, we were less willing to run certain risks, say about what Iraq could do. And this is not a justification for the Iraq war. I was against it, but just I understand some of the thinking. I think Israel after October 7th had less tolerance of running certain risks in their case. So I just think the combination of a change mentality in Israel, the evisceration of groups like Hezbollah, which couldn't really attack Israel anymore, and this new intelligence which suggests that however far along the Iranians were, they were farther along. And I think for all those reasons the Israelis decided to act and we came in behind.

Gavin Newsom (17:43)

And does this keep Bibi in power for another extended period of time?

Erica and Mila (17:46)

Well, he's got roughly, what, 16, 17 months to run before he has to. I think the elections are scheduled for October of next year. It certainly helps. I mean, Israel, as you know, is deeply divided about issues on democracy, Gaza, what have you, whether the religious can be drafted and so forth. They are not divided on Iran, left and right. Hawk and dove. There aren't a lot of doves in Israel when it comes to Iran. So it clearly helps Bibi. It changes the conversation a little bit. It brings Israel together. It's seen as an accomplishment. And he has, he has changed in many ways. Israel's strategic reality, given the change in Syria, Hezbollah, the weakening of Hamas, whatever you think, however critical people Watching this might be of what Israel's done and how it's done it in Gaza. The reality is that Bibi Netanyahu in the last, what, 18 months, has dramatically reduced the external threat to Israel. Life in general can be chaotic. And if you're in charge of order.

Podcast Host (18:48)

Fulfillment for an e commerce business, you.

Erica and Mila (18:50)

Know that it's its own special kind of chaos. But with Shipstation, you can count on.

Podcast Host (18:54)

Your day to day remaining calm.

Erica and Mila (18:56)

With Shipstation, you can ship from all your stores with one login, automate repetitive.

Podcast Host (19:01)

Tasks, and easily find the best shipping rates.

Erica and Mila (19:04)

It's the fastest, most affordable way to ship products to your customers, with discounts up to 88% off UPS, DHL Express and USPS rates, and up to 90% off FedEx rates.

Podcast Host (19:16)

Shipstation grows with your business, no matter.

Erica and Mila (19:19)

How big it gets, leading your business into the future with smart features and.

Podcast Host (19:23)

Automations that boost efficiency and save you time.

Erica and Mila (19:26)

There's a reason that over 130,000 companies use ShipStation to grow their e commerce business.

Podcast Host (19:32)

And 98% of companies that use Shipstation.

Erica and Mila (19:35)

For a year become customers for for life.

Podcast Host (19:38)

That track record speaks for itself.

Erica and Mila (19:40)

Calm the chaos of order fulfillment with.

Podcast Host (19:42)

ShipStation, the shipping software that delivers. Go to shipstation.com and use code iHeart.

Erica and Mila (19:48)

To sign up for your free trial.

Podcast Host (19:49)

That's shipstation.com code iHeart.

Erica and Mila (19:52)

I think everything I might have dropped in 95 has been labeled the golden years of hip hop. It's Black Music month, and we need the talk is tapping in. I'm Nyla Simone, breaking down lyrics, amplifying voices, and digging into the culture that shapes the soundtrack of our lives. My favorite line on there was my son and my daughter gonna be proud when they hear my old tapes. Now I'm curious, do they like rap along now? Yeah. Cause I bring him on tour with me and he's getting older now too, so his friends are starting to understand what that type of music is. And they're starting to be like, yo, your dad's like, really the goat. Like, he's a legend, so he gets it. What does it mean to leave behind a music legacy for your family? It means a lot to me, just having a good catalog and just being able to make people feel good. Like that's what's really important and that's what stands out, is that my music changes people's lives for the better. So the fact that my kids get to benefit off of that, I'm really happy or my family in general. Let's talk about the music that moves us. To hear this and more on how music and culture collide, listen to we need to Talk from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast or wherever you get your podcast.

Podcast Host (20:57)

I know a lot of cops and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no.

Erica and Mila (21:12)

Across the country, cops called this Taser the Revolution.

Podcast Host (21:16)

But not everyone was convinced it was that simple.

Erica and Mila (21:18)

Cops believed everything that Taser told me.

Podcast Host (21:22)

From Lava For Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multi billion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolut Season 1 Taser Incorporated.

Gavin Newsom (21:37)

I get right back there and it's bad.

Podcast Host (21:40)

It's really, really really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1 Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2 and 3 on May 21 and episodes 4, 5 and 6 on June 4 ad free at Lava for Good plus on Apple Podcasts.

Dan Flores (22:06)

The American west with Dan Flores is the latest show from the Meat Eater Podcast Network. Hosted by me, writer and historian Dan Flores and brought to you by Velvet Buck, this podcast looks at a West available nowhere else. Each episode I'll be diving into some of the lesser known histories of the West. I'll then be joined in conversation by guests such as Western historian Dr. Randall Williams and best selling author and Meat Eater founder Stephen Rinella.

Erica and Mila (22:37)

I'll correct my kids now and then where they'll say when cave people were here. And I'll say it seems like the Ice Age people that were here didn't have a real affinity for caves.

Dan Flores (22:46)

So join me starting Tuesday, May 6th where we'll delve into stories of the west and come to understand how it helps inform the ways in which we experience the region today.

Podcast Host (22:58)

Listen to the American west with Dan Flores on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

Gavin Newsom (23:06)

Our iHeartRadio music festival, presented by Capital One, is coming back to Las Vegas Vegas, September 19th and 20th, streaming live only on Hulu. Ladies and Gentlemen, Brian Adams, Ed Sheeran, Fade Glorilla, Jelly Roll, Sean Fogarty, Lil Wayne, LL Cool J, Mariah Carey, Maroon 5, Sammy Hagar, Tate McCray, the Offspring, Tim McGraw. Tickets are on sale now at AXS.com get your tickets today AXS.com and on that basis, are you confident that we'll have Sort of, you know, Abraham Accord 2.0 with Saudi coming in. Is that, is that the map that you see changing or is that still open ended question with the everything that's going on or not going on in Gaza, West bank, etc. What's your over under on that?

Erica and Mila (24:01)

Look, as you know, you know, for a while it looked like it was going to happen before October 7th and then because of if you follow October 8th and Israeli policy, the Saudis backed off. They got nervous or uneasy about it. Two things may have changed now though, which is interesting. One is Bibi Netanyahu, as you were just suggesting, Gavin politically is stronger than he was. So he might give him more leverage against those in his government who oppose any sort of change in policy on Gaza. Secondly, there's this guy named Donald Trump. It's interesting on how many occasions Trump has distanced himself from Bibi Netanyahu. He did it on the Houthis, he did it on the prisoner move with Hamas. He told the Israelis a few weeks ago, don't you dare attack Iran. We're trying to see if diplomacy works. Just the other day, shall we say, in rather colorful language, he was out there. So it's possible that tomorrow he would tell the Israelis, hey, knock it off in Gaza or do this on the West Bank. There's an unsentimental quality to America first ism. And one of the things you see, we began the conversation talking about Europe. Well, one of the things, whether we're talking about security or tariffs or now this being an ally of the United States ain't what it used to be. When it comes to Donald Trump, friends and allies no longer get preferred treatment. So it wouldn't shock me if Donald Trump, in his hope to get the Saudis to normalize with Israel, put real pressure on Bibi Netanyahu and put the Israelis in a real jam. Trump is popular in Israel and also it's almost like Nixon going to China. Nixon once said they didn't have Nixon to worry about. Well, you can't do an end run around Donald Trump. So if Donald Trump leans on Bibi Netanyahu, who are the Israelis going to appeal to in American domestic politics? So I actually think that's a curious possibility that something could happen there.

Gavin Newsom (25:58)

Do you find him under the influence, and I say that loosely, I mean because of his own financial relationships to the UAE and Qatar and the Saudis, Arab, I mean, do you think they will play an outsized role in influencing Trump in that respect?

Erica and Mila (26:17)

Look, if they had, he probably wouldn't have gone ahead and done the strike. As much as they wanted Iran cut down to size, they were very nervous that they were going to be in the line of fire of retaliation. So my guess is they're an influence but not a determinant of what he does. And I say that in no way, how would I put it. I'm not comfortable with, shall we say, this merging of the personal and the governmental when it comes to wealth creation or, and you know, the fact that people don't recuse themselves from things or they carry on private sector activity. I'm as uncomfortable as I expect you are or a lot of people watching that. But I don't think they have. I haven't seen that they have undue influence over them.

Gavin Newsom (26:57)

What is. You've written a lot about doctrines. You talk about the Monroe doctrine. I think 1823, you've sort of walked us through the Truman Doctrine and aspects of not only Reagan, but even the Freedom Doctrine as you refer to it under the Bush administration, dealing with terrorism. No place to hide. What? Do you have any sense of what the hell the Trump Doctrine is? Or. I mean, J.D. vance tried to assert one in a speech yesterday. What America First. What is it? What's your sense? It's a good question.

Erica and Mila (27:28)

I think about it a lot. One, it might be early. It's still early, particularly in the second term. And the second term is a hell of a lot more than a continuation of the first term. You may love it, you may hate it, but it ain't Trump. 2.0 is more than an extension of Trump 1.0. There is something with this America first ism that our alliances aren't as predictable, our enemies aren't seen as enemies. There's a kind of perpetual maneuver in American foreign policy. I'm not quite sure if that adds to a doctrine. In some ways, doctrines lead you to predictable outcomes. In a funny sort of way, Trump America first ism at times leads you to unpredictable outcomes. It's not isolationist, though I would say it's quite unilateral, as we saw the other day. I also wrote a few weeks ago that there is something of a doctrine. It's the opposite of the Freedom Doctrine, where under people like George W. Bush or even Reagan or Carter, we cared an awful lot about how governments treated their own people. This is just the opposite. This is a look the other way foreign policy. What you do inside your borders is your business. All we care about is our business. So there's almost amoral quality to Trumpian foreign policy. And again, Doctrines have to explain and predict. So I'm not quite sure yet we have anything that quite rises to that level.

Gavin Newsom (28:52)

It's interesting. I mean, the only thing that would, that would contradict that modestly was J.D. vance's speech in Munich where he was lecturing the Europeans 100%, you're right to.

Erica and Mila (29:02)

Point out that contradiction. It's the one area where it's almost like there's an equation of elite Ivy League universities with elite Europe, and that's the one place where the administration is willing to tackle internal situations or circumstances in foreign countries. But I think that's the exception that kind of proves the rule.

Gavin Newsom (29:25)

Interesting. So where's Putin now? What's he seen? What do you think he's made of the last 12 days? Where. Where is he in relationship? I mean, he's got a free pass in some respects. The eyes are off him. He's stepping things up in Ukraine. Is it status quo ante, or is he now reconsidering things?

Erica and Mila (29:45)

Probably a mixed bag. Well, as you say, I think you're 100% right. He has to be happy with the fact that Both at the G7 and then at NATO, Zelensky and Ukraine, we're not quite center stage. And that very much fits or feeds Putin's idea that time is on his side. So I think he has to feel pretty good about that. Anytime there's instability, that increases energy prices, not that we've seen a real price spike, that's got to make him feel good. Given his economy, he's got to feel a little bit uneasy with this demonstration of American power, with the discrepancy between what the United States can do and what, say, Iran could do. That's got to make him a little bit uneasy. But I would think all things Meeko the last few days probably made him feel okay for one other reason. I don't know if you noticed the one, my chutzpah award for the month. The statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry critical of Israel for not respecting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of a UN member. And I'm sitting there reading that going, really? Really? But the Russians have to like the idea that we would unilaterally decide that certain uses of force were somehow acceptable. And that's got to be something that Putin might actually, you know, welcome and.

Gavin Newsom (31:04)

Do you welcome sort of, I mean, look from a tactical perspective, turn the page in terms of trying to negotiate peace in Ukraine, obviously stubborn. He wasn't able to get it done before he took the oath of office. He wasn't able to get it done within the 24 hour time clock he set himself up for. But sort of the overtures to Putin, sort of negotiating Putin's talking points and putting Zelensky on the spot. Where do you think Trump is right now in relationship to, you know, he's been a little more critical, at least publicly, been willing to be slightly more critical of Putin. Where do you, where do you think the administration is vis a vis, moving to a conclusion or a solution here?

Erica and Mila (31:44)

They're caught in the inconsistency of their own policy. They're right to say that we need peace there. And I think they had one improvement over the Biden policy where the Biden administration would never speak honestly with Zelensky at least publicly and say, look, you know, and we know that you're not going to militarily liberate Crimea or all the East. Let's go for a deal that we get a ceasefire doesn't prejudice your long term goals, but let's stop this war. That's Trump's idea and I think that's smart, I think that's realistic. Where he's inconsistent, is he sabotage? He's sabotaging the chance for getting it by not being supportive of Ukraine. That gives Putin again the confidence that time is on his side. If this president would announce this summer when the pipeline begins to run dry, we're going to re up American aid for Ukraine, not so they can militarily liberate all their land. That's going to have to be done diplomatically, but so Russian efforts will not succeed. I think that would turn the war around and I actually think more specific, I think that would persuade Putin over time that more war would not lead to more territory. And I think that actually would be the way to get things at the negotiating table, not for peace, but for ceasefire. So the administration has the right goals. It's just not going, it's going about it in 100% the wrong way.

Gavin Newsom (33:10)

Is, is she looking at, you know, year, whatever we're in with, with Ukraine, is that make him more or less likely to pursue and make advanced pursuits in Taiwan, or is he see, is he seeing something different, the asymmetry of warfare now, the nature and change, the transformation of warfare? What's your sense of where she is at this moment as well, in relationship not only to Ukraine, but also perhaps more broadly as well to what the Trump administration just initiated and Bibi in Iran?

Erica and Mila (33:49)

My glib answer to you is going to be both or yes. I think on one hand he looks at Ukraine he looks at the sanctions that have been introduced. He looks at how Putin overestimated the capabilities of his own military. He's seen how the west came to bat indirectly but decisively for Ukraine. That had to have given him pause. I mean, look, think about it. There's no general in the Chinese military who has military experience. Last time they fought a war against Vietnam, they didn't do so hot. And for the Chinese government to go to war against Taiwan and not succeed, imagine the domestic political consequences of that, the questions of legitimacy it would raise, not just for Xi as a person, but for the party. So I actually think they're somewhat cautious here. I also think they have to find it impossible to read Donald Trump again, given the tariffs, given what he just did the other day. And I think that must introduce a role of caution. I think they've got some internal issues. He's been purging a lot of military leaders. They've obviously got their economic challenges. So he hasn't given up, don't get me wrong, that Taiwan is his legacy. That's his way to make himself a major figure in modern Chinese history. But I don't think the moment's arrived. I think he wants to get a better reading on Donald Trump because we still don't have a good feel for the Trump administration's relations with Japan, Taiwan, Australia, but none of it's going particularly well. I think he probably wants to see some more about the lessons of the modern battlefield. He still wants to build up, among other things, his nuclear arms. One of the lessons I think Xi Jinping learned, Gavin, was the United States did not get directly involved in helping Ukraine. And he, I think from Xi Jinping's point of view, that was because of the massive Russian nuclear arsenal. So China right now is the owner of the world's fastest growing nuclear arsenal. They're adding hundreds and hundreds of nuclear weapons each year. They want to get. They kind of want to get the bronze medal and the serious nuclear arsenals, Olympics, and they're moving as quickly as they can in that direction. But my guess is they don't want to showdown over Taiwan for several years until they believe they can offset or deter any American pressure because of our nuclear advantages.

Gavin Newsom (36:17)

What do you make of the new president in Taiwan? He's rolling out, I think, this week, a unity tour. He's giving speeches. I mean, he seems to be, you know, you know, sort of not poking the bear, but certainly trying to sort of suggest more muscularity vis a vis mainland China. Is that, you know, what. What do you read into that?

Erica and Mila (36:41)

Yeah, I mean some of that's politics, some of it's spoken to bear. My view is what I really want to do is see Taiwan get stronger. And Taiwan's the level of defense effort is not in the right zip code. Still they've got to do a lot more. I look at, I mean we talked about Israel a lot and you know, Israel is in a, shall we say, difficult strategic situation, at least it has been for most of its existence. And you look at the level of military effort they've produced or even auster. In the Cold War we were probably spending, I don't know, on the average of maybe 6, 5, 6 7% of GDP. Taiwan's nowhere near that. And look at the disparities between the mainland and Taiwan. So Taiwan, more important than what they say is what they do. And I would say they've really got to make a much larger effort. They've got to also look very carefully at what just happened in the Middle east and what's happened in Ukraine and ask themselves whether they are incorporating the right strategic lessons. Too much of the Taiwan military historically has elements almost of ours large, a small number of expensive aircraft and so forth. I actually think they need something much larger. Numbers of smaller, cheaper systems would probably be helpful. The other country to really watch there is Japan. I actually think we're at a moment in history where Japan's our most important ally, still the world's third largest economy. And militarily it's central to any scenario involving Chinese pressure against Taiwan. And I worry about the deterioration in that relationship of late. So again, things like that might actually affect Chinese calculations as well. But all that said, even though, you know, I worry about a lot and I worry about this as a strategic medium, long term challenge, I don't get the sense this is a near term challenge.

Gavin Newsom (38:29)

Interesting. Only slight Correction, Japan is fourth to California's third. Just had to comment on that. 4.1 trillion reasons.

Erica and Mila (38:41)

Did I miss the declaration of invitation?

Gavin Newsom (38:42)

I'm just saying I'm waiting for my G7 invitation, that's all. You know, or G5, I mean, I don't know, whatever. G4. 3.

Podcast Host (38:53)

I know a lot of cops and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no.

Erica and Mila (39:08)

Across the country, cops called this Taser the revolution.

Podcast Host (39:12)

But not everyone was convinced it was that simple.

Erica and Mila (39:15)

Cops believed everything that Taser told them.

Podcast Host (39:18)

From Lava for good. And the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multi billion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season one Taz Incorporated.

Gavin Newsom (39:34)

I get right back there and it's bad.

Podcast Host (39:37)

It's really, really really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1 Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2 and 3 on May 21 and episodes 4, 5 and 6 on June 4 ad free at Lava for Good plus on Apple Podcasts.

Dan Flores (40:02)

The American west with Dan Flores is the latest show from the Meat Eater Podcast Network. Hosted by me, writer and historian Dan Flores and brought to you by Velvet Buck, this podcast looks at a West available nowhere else. Each episode I'll be diving into some of the lesser known history. I'll then be joined in conversation by guests such as Western historian Dr. Randall Williams and best selling author and meat eater founder Stephen Rinella.

Erica and Mila (40:33)

I'll correct my kids now and then where they'll say when cave people were here. And I'll say it seems like the Ice Age people that were here didn't have a real affinity for caves.

Dan Flores (40:43)

So join me starting Tuesday, May 6th where we'll delve into stories of the west and come to understand how it helps inform the ways in which we experience the region today.

Podcast Host (40:54)

Listen to the American west with Dan Flores on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast Hell and Gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders.

Erica and Mila (41:17)

I was calling about the murder of my husband. It's a cold case. They've never found her and it haunts.

Gavin Newsom (41:23)

Me to this day. The murderer is still out there.

Podcast Host (41:25)

Every week on Helen Gone Murder line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking.

Erica and Mila (41:35)

Police really didn't care to even try. She would steal somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's son. Sister. There's so many questions that we've never gotten any kind of answers for.

Podcast Host (41:47)

If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone murder line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Helen Gone Murderline on the iHeartRadio app. Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

Erica and Mila (42:02)

The summer of 1993 was one of the best of my life. I'm journalist Jeff Pearlman and this is Rick Jervis.

Gavin Newsom (42:08)

We were interns at the Nashville Tennesse Inn.

Erica and Mila (42:11)

But the most unforgettable part, our roommate, Reggie Payne from Oakland, sports editor and aspiring rapper and his stage name, Sexy Sweat. In 2020, I had a simple idea. Let's find Reggie. We searched everywhere, but Reggie was gone. In February 2020, Reggie was having a diabetic episode. His mom called 911. Police cuffed him face down.

Gavin Newsom (42:38)

He slipped into a coma and died.

Erica and Mila (42:41)

I'm like thanking you, but then I see my son's not moving. No headlines, no outrage, just silence. So we started digging and uncovered city officials bent on protecting their own. Listen to finding Sexy Sweat on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Gavin Newsom (43:02)

Our iHeartradio Music Festival, presented by Capital One, is coming back to Las Vegas. Vegas, September 19th and 20th, streaming live only on Hulu. Ladies and gentlemen, Brian Adams, Ed Sheeran, Fade Glorilla, Jelly Roll, Sean Fogarty, Lil Wayne, LL Cool J, Mariah Carey, Maroon 5, Sammy Hagar, Tate McCray, the Offspring, Tim McGraw. Tickets for are on sale now at AXS.com get your tickets today AXS.com it's interesting you say Japan is the most important. I've heard people, others sort of, you know, suggest that Australia plays an outsized role in terms of just, you know, looking at this sort of strategic realignment. Where do you make, I mean they that the president or the leadership there surprise some pundits and pulling out a pretty healthy margin and a victory. Obviously their overtures back and forth to China. But you made a point which I hadn't really reflected on Trump's sort of ambiguity with those relationships. South Korea, obviously and Japan and the trilat that the Biden administration had. Now we're seeing that taking shape with xi and obviously Australia seems to be sort of the plus one right now. But give me your sense of where Australia plays.

Erica and Mila (44:25)

Look, Australia does play an outsized role. I think that the relationship isn't as robust as it ought to be. Hasn't gotten a whole lot of attention. A lot of, you know, a lot of our economic policy has alienated our friends. You know, the tariffs in particular, most of the line on defense is do more, do more, do more. And that gets a little bit old after a while. So I would like to see if you will, more consultation with them. And again, you can't have economic policy and military or strategic policy carried out in separate silos. It's very hard to hammer an ally or friend over trade issues on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and expect on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. The strategic relationship is going to be just fine. It doesn't work that way. So I would say this is, again, I'm critical of a lot of the economic policy on its own merits. I don't think it makes sense full stop. But even putting that aside, it certainly doesn't make sense because it ends up penalizing more than anyone our friends, just those with the exception of China. It's our friends and neighbors who are, as you know, our biggest economic partners.

Gavin Newsom (45:37)

With today Donald Trump. In his press conference, when I was confronted on why he hasn't solved the conflict in Ukraine immediately, well, he pivoted to his success in immediately solving the crisis in Pakistan and India. Overstated, understated. Is that early success that he deserves more credit than perhaps he's even been given.

Erica and Mila (46:02)

It sounds slightly ungenerous on my part, but I think it's a bit exaggerated. And it also has rub raw US Indian relations.

Gavin Newsom (46:11)

I was going to ask that next.

Erica and Mila (46:14)

Look, it's always been difficult dealing with Pakistan and dealing with India, but I think the great breakthrough, and it was a bipartisan one of the last several administrations, was that US Indian relations got on a firmer, more important strategic footing made sense given India's demographics, economics, relationship with China and so forth between Vienna, Genoda bring into various Asia Pacific strategic groupings. I've always seen Pakistan more as a problem than as a partner. That was a problem in Afghanistan in many ways. And questions of democracy and human rights, the role of the military in politics. It's been a very uneasy country. If you had asked me years ago what keeps me up most tonight, I might have said Pakistan, in part because of potential loss of command and control over nuclear materials. So the evenhandedness that we've reintroduced and the shorthand for this is that we've once again hyphenated the relationship. So rather than having a strategic relationship with India and a lesser relationship with Pakistan, we now once again have an India Pakistan policy. And it seems to me that is not a wise approach given what I would argue is India's greater inherent importance and potential, how close they really were to I don't think things were that close to escalating or getting out of hand. That said, look, anytime the United States can dampen down actual or potential hostilities, great. And I would, you know, say well done to the president or the Secretary of State or anyone else who had a hand in it. But yeah, I wouldn't exaggerate it here. And again, it may have come at some cost as well.

Gavin Newsom (48:06)

Yeah, well, and then there was also a price, the largesse, I think one of their crypto exchanges and in Pakistan now is. Yeah, well, and we'll get back into the corruption questions, or at least questions of corruption.

Erica and Mila (48:21)

Look, I've heard that. And again, I don't know. But yeah, it is what it is.

Gavin Newsom (48:25)

Is what it is. So you've been writing a lot about, talking a lot about, and obviously only highlighted with the last few weeks, but what the hell's wrong with American foreign policy? We get so damn bogged down in the Middle East. You've made the point. There's a whole world out there. We talked, we sort of jumped around, different countries, different regions, but the reality is we have been for decades and decades and decades bog down in the Middle East. You, you've an interesting history working in Republican administrations, Bush administrations, but you made the notation earlier and it's important point to highlight. You were opposed to that last war in Iraq. And so you've seen some light and some wisdom through all this. But what the hell has happened to the United States over the last. I mean, my entire lifetime been consumed by countries none of us could pronounce. No one knows the difference between Iraq and Iran. I think there was a song about that. And you know, what's going on, Richard, help us.

Erica and Mila (49:21)

Fair question. Just for the record, I did work for a Democratic administration. I worked in the Carter Pentagon. And one of the big issues then was the Middle east, because 1979, you had the revolution in Iran, then you had the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan. Look, when the Cold war ended, what, 35 years ago, I don't think anyone would have predicted, Gavin, that the Middle east would be such a focus of American foreign policy. The first real crisis of the post Cold War era was the Iraqi invasion of kuwait. We, President Bush 41, rallied the country and the world to Kuwait's defense. It was quite extraordinary. I think it was actually, to me, like I duly note that I was part of the administration, I worked on the Middle East. But credit, I think is due to the President, Brent Scowcroft, Jim Baker and others quite remarkably done well. And that I think what we did was necessary. The 2003 Iraq war was a war of choice. I think it was misguided and some other. I think with the other day, what we did was, I think was warranted. But in General, if I look at the map of American foreign policy, we still have 40,000 troops in the Middle East. It seems to me that it's a disproportionate focus for us. It's one of the parts of the world where you don't have a great power presence. You don't really have much great power competition, and that it's your regional powers, not great powers. I would say ultimately, 21st century history is going to be much more written about what happens in Europe and above all, the Asia Pacific. Asia Pacific is where the people are, it's where the wealth is. It's where the militaries are going to be. Us China, competition will be defining. So it seems to me strategically there is still something odd about the emphasis that the Middle east gets. And I think we've gotten too ambitious there at times. I think in particular, 43's effort to transform it to bring about democracy was, I think, ill advised. I'll be diplomatic here and so forth and some other things that we've done. Again, we're. I would say we should do no more than is necessary in the Middle east because there's other parts of the world that I would argue are strategically more important and we just find ourselves more involved. I don't have a good answer for you exactly why at times, but somehow it's captured our imagination. One of the odd things for secretaries of state and I worked with quite a few, how getting heavily involved in Middle Eastern diplomacy was almost part of the job after Henry Kissinger. Like it or not, people found themselves doing it. And yeah, my list, my take on all that is no mediator can ever be more successful than the protagonists want or would allow him to be. And I think at times we've too often substituted our own efforts for what was missing on the part of the locals. So my argument is not to get out of the Middle east, but I would, where possible, dial it down. So what?

Gavin Newsom (52:28)

You know, it's interesting we had Steve Bannon on this show, and I don't even get the merits of demerits of that conversation, but he's had a lot of more public conversations about what he perceived, or at least asserted was the wisdom of Trump focusing on things like Greenland or countries like Greenland, focusing on the Panama Canal, looking at it more from a strategic prism, sort of, you know, hemispheric framework and sort of creating a stronger consciousness to sort of regionalize our American first framework and to put it in, you know, in at least creating a narrative around what some of us perceived as just the absurdity of these threats to take over Greenland, make Canada 51st state and invade or take over the Panama Canal. Is there any merit to that argument or is it just folly?

Erica and Mila (53:26)

Folly would be generous, a terrible idea. Look, it seems to be setting up a kind of spheres of influence approach to the world. So we would have the lead role in this part of the world. Presumably Russia would have a lead role in the European theater, China and the Asia Pacific. Russia and China would be very happy with that arrangement. No one in this hemisphere would be. So in a funny sort of way we wouldn't succeed at playing an outsized role because it would be resisted every inch of the way. Americans, including a lot of the MAGA people wouldn't want us involved in imperial wars in this part of the world, whether it's Panama or Mexico or Greenland or Canada. So I just think it's unnecessary. We can have the access, the influence we need without an imperial coercive role. And again, the real strategic challenges of the century are not going to be met here. They're going to be met in other parts of the world. Above all Asia and the Pacific. So I think it's really a truly misguided approach but it makes me uneasy because I can see something of it in this kind of. People don't yet speak about spheres of influence, but it's kind of in the air or the water and I'm uneasy about it. But it's not a recipe for order. We would be resisted here and history suggests that wherever the there'd be a lot of opposition. And by the way, it would become a real recipe for proliferation. Watch how if something like that were to begin to gain momentum. Watch countries in Europe and Asia decide they need nuclear weapons of their own. So I think that kind of an approach to the world would be quite honestly catastrophic.

Gavin Newsom (55:11)

You're here questions around the globe in terms of concerns we we so often neglect. Continent of Africa was a reference today of Congo from the President. The only time we tend to focus on Africa is in relationship to China's investment. The same with the Central America or South America as well. I mean parts of the globe that seem to be under resourced in terms of mind share and investment. Strategic investments. What's your over under in terms of America's posture in South America? Central America. But first let's start in Africa.

Erica and Mila (55:53)

Look, what makes Africa sui generis, what makes it unique going forward is demographics. Most of the world is getting shrinking in number and getting older. South Asia is the one partial exception. Africa is an enormous exception. Africa is going to be increasing by what, more than a billion people over the next generation or so. And the question is whether that's a burden or a bonus. And that remains to be seen. So I just think Africa is important, not in the sense of great power, strategic competition, that's a sideshow for the most part. But really it's a human story. It's with all these people. And the question is, can economically these people, can they be employed? Can governments provide services? Can you have good enough governance in places like Nigeria, South Africa and other countries that you don't have civil wars and so forth? So I think that's the big question for Africa, and by the way, pretty true of Latin America as well, without demographic dimension. But again, the biggest problems in Latin America are not whether Brazil is going to invade Argentina or whether Russia or China are going to do something. The biggest issues there are internal, their governance. Can the Mexican government meet the responsibilities and challenges of sovereignty within Mexico? Can they deal with cartels and drugs and criminals and the like? And where possible, I think our policy ought to be to help these countries meet their challenges because it's good for them, but it's also good for us. Then there'll be conditions of stability, better chance for democracy, better chance for trade and investment, better way to deal with whether it's health challenges or climate challenges or what have you. So we do it. It's both. Again, it's not either or. It's the right thing to do. It's helpful to them. But I think it also very much works in our favor. It's one of the reasons, by the way, I'm so critical of what we've done to the Agency for International Development. The real folly of that is not that it provides opportunities for China, which it does, but again, we weaken the ability of these societies and these governments to deal with their immediate challenges. That can't be good because ultimately failed states become places where terrorists set up shop, where disease breaks out and spread. Pirates do their things, criminals do their thing. So again, even out of narrow self interest, we ought to be doing more in these places. So I just think it's. It's quite shortsighted.

Dan Flores (58:27)

The American west with Dan Flores is the latest show from the Meat Eater Podcast Network. Hosted by me, writer and historian Dan Flores and brought to you by Velvet Buck, this podcast podcast looks at a West available nowhere else. Each episode I'll be diving into some of the lesser known histories of the West. I'll then be joined in conversation by guests such as Western historian Dr. Randall Williams and best selling author and meat eater founder Stephen Rinella.

Erica and Mila (58:58)

I'll correct my kids now and then where they'll say when cave people were here. And I'll say, it seems like the Ice age people that were here didn't have a real affinity for caves.

Dan Flores (59:07)

So join me starting Tuesday, May 6, where we'll delve into stories of the west and come to understand how it helps inform the ways in which we experience the region today.

Podcast Host (59:19)

Listen to the American west with Dan Flores on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. I know a lot of cops and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no.

Erica and Mila (59:43)

Across the country, cops call this Taser the Revolution.

Podcast Host (59:47)

But not everyone was convinced it was that simple.

Erica and Mila (59:49)

Cops believed everything that Taser told them.

Podcast Host (59:52)

From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a mother multi billion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season one, Taser Incorporated.

Gavin Newsom (60:08)

I get right back there and it's bad.

Podcast Host (60:11)

It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1 Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcast. Podcasts binge episodes 1, 2 and 3 on May 21 and episodes 4, 5 and 6 on June 4 ad free at Lava for Good plus on Apple Podcasts.

Erica and Mila (60:37)

The summer of 1993 was one of the best of my life. I'm journalist Jeff Pearlman and this is Rick Jervis.

Gavin Newsom (60:43)

We were interns at the Nashville Tennessean.

Erica and Mila (60:45)

But the most unforgettable part, our roommate, Reggie Payne from Oakland, sports editor and aspiring rapper. And his stage name, Sexy Sweat. In 2020, I had a simple idea. Let's find Reggie. We searched everywhere, but Reggie was gone. In February 2020, Reggie was having a diabetic episode. His mom called 91 1. Police cuffed him face down.

Gavin Newsom (61:12)

He slipped into a coma and died.

Erica and Mila (61:15)

I'm like thanking you, but then I see my son's not moving. No headlines, no outrage, just silence. So we started digging and uncovered city officials bent on protecting their own. Listen to finding Sexy Sweat on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Podcast Host (61:36)

Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast Hell and Gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I'VE received hundreds of messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders.

Erica and Mila (61:51)

I was calling about the murder of my husband. It's a cold case. They've never found her. And it haunts me to this day.

Gavin Newsom (61:58)

The murderer is still out there.

Podcast Host (62:00)

Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking.

Erica and Mila (62:09)

Police really didn't care to even try. She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's sister. There's so many questions that we've never gotten any kind of answers for.

Podcast Host (62:21)

If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Helen Gone murder line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murderline on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

Gavin Newsom (62:36)

Our I Heart Radio music Festival, presented by Capital One, is coming back to Las Vegas. Vegas, September 19th and 20th on your feet, streaming live only on Hulu. Ladies and gentlemen, Brian Adams, Ed Sheeran, Fade Glorilla, Jelly Roll, Sean Fogarty, Lil Wayne, LL Cool J, Mariah Carey, Maroon 5, Sammy Hagar, Tate McCray, the Offspring, Tim McC Gro. Tickets are on sale now at AXS.com get your tickets today AXS.com so let me move back and I see you got a book behind you that I want to talk about in a moment. And, and it brings us back a little bit more domestically and it brings back sort of just the prism of, you know, my lens has changed dramatically in the last few weeks since I have just shy of 5,000 members of the US military on the streets of one of America's largest cities, Los Angeles, without counsel, consent and the support of the state. Revere the men and women in uniform that are out there, just not their assignment. But it also sort of assigns some consideration and consciousness to this administration and what distinguishes it from the first Trump administration. I know you've got a blog, you've written a little bit about this, where you said Trump has organized a cabinet that are more of amplifiers than more traditional sort of metrics of people that would sort of, you know, create sort of a governing of our framework regulatory or regulate some of the thinking. I mean, where's, where are you today in terms of this administration? 150 or so days, in however many days it's been growing concern, simmering concerns. We overstate authoritarianism. Is that a word that we should even be using. Is democracy hanging in the balance or are we fine? What's your sort of over under? What's the temperature right now?

Erica and Mila (64:46)

The fact that we have to have this conversation tells you something. I'm uneasy. I'm uncomfortable with words like authoritarianism and all that. That's something to be avoided, ultimately. But there's tendencies that worry me. We haven't had just two major lines that the administration's walked right up to and played footsie with, but hasn't quite crossed in a decisive way. One was the one you were alluding to, which is the use of the American military inside our borders. That, to me, has all sorts of implications for American democracy, but also it's terrible for the American military. It reduces readiness. It politicizes what has been in some ways the most successful modern American institution that we have. So that's one thing that makes me uneasy. We haven't quite crossed that line, but we tiptoed up to it, as you know better than I do. The other is defiance of decisions by the judiciary and again, some of the quasi defiance, not quite hearing what the courts were saying on deportations and so forth. So that leaves me uneasy. But I don't think either yet has reached the point of, shall we say, broad crisis or crisis of the first order. But I think there's grounds for being uneasy. Look, it's the irony of this isn't lost here we are, it's now, what, late June and approximately, what, 12 months. In a week we're going to be marking the 250th anniversary of this country. And to me, the lesson is not to take democracy for granted. You've done good things, by the way, in your state with Josh Friday. I think in terms of promoting volunteerism and public service, which I think is great both for the values enhancers, but also it brings Americans together. I try to make a big thing about civics education. We shouldn't assume that people don't need it or somehow get it automatically. The answer is they do need it, and they don't get into their schools for the most part. That ought to become much bigger priority and we ought to think a lot about what we need to to do to make sure American democracy works. But I get uneasy with some of the attacks on civil society, whether it's law firms or universities or what have you. So, yeah, I think there's a lot of yellow lights flashing. And so my view is we ought to be mindful of them and not again, not take anything for granted or Churchill's always quoted for everything. And one of them is that Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing after they do everything else. It's a kind of sanguine quality or, yeah, we get in trouble, but we've always come out in the right place. And never sell America short. Probably. But let's not take it for granted. That's my only view. I think it's just we ought to feel a sense of urgency. And given how enormous the stakes are, I don't think anybody kind of. How to put it. Democracy can't be a spectator sport. Whether you're in positions of authority like you, whether you're, quote, unquote, just a citizen or you're a CEO of some business or what have you, I just think there's ways for people to make a difference. And again, we just can't. It's too valuable to not. How would I put it? None of us wants to be in a position where if things do head south, we wish we had done things that we, you know, that we. We simply sat. Sat on the sidelines.

Gavin Newsom (68:33)

You talk about citizenship, you've written about citizenship, and you've challenged us to reconsider what you refer to as sort of a lopsided notion of citizenship, that it's not just about rights, it's about obligations. You wrote a book, the Bill of Obligations, and you enumerate a framework about the. The critical importance of. Of service and civics, the common good, the best of, you know, the Roman Republic, Greek democracy, I think the principles our founding fathers took. Talk to us a little bit about what inspired you to write the book. You wrote it a few years ago. I imagine inspiration today would be even more acute. But it's an important and essential read. And by the way, it's fant. For anyone that's listening. Talk to me, Richard, a little bit and all of us about what inspired this book and. And what you're really trying to communicate.

Erica and Mila (69:31)

Well, first of all, thank you. Years before, I wrote another book called Foreign Policy Begins at Home. And, you know, I'm a. Far as you look, as we can see from this conversation, for better or worse, I'm a foreign policy guy. That's my educational training. That's my professional experience. But probably about a decade ago, I started to see much greater connection between what we were doing or not doing here at home and our ability to be effective abroad. I wrote about everything from indebtedness. Ten years ago, a big issue was energy dependence, which, by the way, shows we can work through Things quality or lack of it, of our public education, strength of our democracy. And I was worried very much a decade ago about our inability to generate majorities, to deal with challenges increasingly, particularly at the federal level, less so at the state level. We were gridlocked. And what I noticed in the year since that things weren't getting better, things were getting worse. And so I just decided, I can't quite answer your question, what inspired me, but I was just thinking a lot about it and I take long walks when I think about a book and Central park becomes my co author and. And just went back and reread or in some cases read for the first time a lot of the great works of American political history. And I was just struck by how much explicitly a lot of our modern or not so modern history was about the expansion of rights, what Lincoln called the unfinished work. And I get it, and it's actually been one of the great things, civil rights and so forth. We have a lot to be proud of in this country. It's towards a more perfect union. We're not there, but we've made some real strides. But it seemed to me lost in that increasingly was the other side of it that no one was anymore talking about obligations. It's interesting, the founding fathers didn't talk about it a lot explicitly. I think they assumed it, Gavin. I think it was implicit. They didn't think they needed to remind people about it. But increasingly it seemed to me we. Did you look at the numbers of the people who are eligible to vote and don't vote, the amount of people who get their information, quote unquote, from TikTok rather than from serious sources, the polls that show young people don't value democracy don't think it's worth saving. The lack of public service opportunities, increasingly, the failure to require quality civics to be taught in classrooms, growing threats or realities of political violence, and on and on and things like Covid and so forth, showed me that a lack of what you mentioned before about the common good, whether to get vaccinated or wear a mask, it's not just for me, but it's also for the other person. So it just all added up and I just decided that I would, I would put my hand to it. So it's. For me, as an author, it was great. But I learned more writing that book than any other book I've ever written because I knew less about it going in.

Gavin Newsom (72:32)

And you've written what, 16. How many books?

Erica and Mila (72:35)

I've written a dozen and edited a few more. So it's yeah, it's a large, it's up to 16, but I'm not done yet. A few more in me.

Gavin Newsom (72:47)

There's, there's plenty of chapters of your life left. And, and, and look, I'm grateful for this opportunity to share a little bit of, of your time and your, your, your action and passion, as it were. And, and when we get you back, I need you back for the original conversation that we haven't had, which is what the hell's going on with my party, the Democratic Party, and how we're going to take back the House, what we need to do and how we get back on the right side of these presidential elections.

Erica and Mila (73:19)

Give me 30 more seconds. I was going to raise that, which is that everyone's talking about BDA battle, damage assessment in terms of Iran. I was going to raise BDA in terms of the New York mayoral primary.

Gavin Newsom (73:33)

Okay, Is that how we're going to end this as opposed to begin this conversation? That is for all of you listening, a preview of the next podcast with Richard Haas by guests on. Well, part one of this two part pod. Richard, thanks for being here.

Erica and Mila (73:51)

Thank you, sir. Enjoyed it.

Podcast Host (74:02)

I know a lot of cops. They get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. This is Absolute Season one, Taser Incorporated.

Gavin Newsom (74:18)

I get right back there and it's bad.

Podcast Host (74:22)

Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Dan Flores (74:32)

Why is a soap opera western like Yellowstone so wildly successful? The American west with Dan Flores is the latest show from the Meat Eater Podcast Network. So join me starting Tuesday, May 6, where we'll delve into stories of the west and come to understand how, how it helps inform the ways in which we experience the region today.

Podcast Host (74:54)

Listen to the American west with Dan Flores on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Erica and Mila (75:01)

The OGs of uncensored motherhood are back and better than ever. I'm Erica. And I'm Mila.

Podcast Host (75:06)

And we're the hosts of the Good Moms Bad Choices podcast brought to you by the Black Effect Podcast Network every Wednesday.

Erica and Mila (75:13)

Yeah, we're moms, but not your mom Mommy.

Podcast Host (75:15)

Historically, men talk too much and women have quietly listened. And all that stops here.

Erica and Mila (75:20)

If you like witty women, then this is your try. Listen to the Good Moms Bad Choices podcast every Wednesday on the Black Effect podcast network. The iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast or wherever you go to find your podcast.

Gavin Newsom (75:32)

Our I Heart Radio Music Festival, presented by Capital One, is coming back to Las Vegas Vegas, September 19th and 20th, your feet. Streaming live only on Hulu. Ladies and gentlemen, Brian Adams, Ed Sheeran, Fade Chlorilla, Jelly Roll, John Fogarty, Lil Wayne, LL Cool J, Mariah Carey, Maroon 5, Sammy Hagar, Tate McCray, the Offspring, Tim McGraw. Tickets are on sale now at AXS.com get your tickets today AXS.com I'm Jeff Perlman.

Erica and Mila (76:05)

And I'm Rick Jervis. We're journalists and hosts of the podcast Findings and Sexy Sweat. At an internship in 1993, we roomed with Reggie Payne, aspiring reporter and rapper who went by Sexy Sweat a couple years ago. We set out to find him, but in 2020, Reggie fell into a coma after police pinned him down and he never woke up. But then I see my son's not moving. So he started digging and uncovered city officials bent on protecting their own. Listen to finding Sexy Sweat on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an I Heart Podcast.