Loading summary
Transcript105 lines
- [00:00]
Charlie Sykes
Foreign. Welcome to this episode of to the Contrary podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes, joined once again by our good friend Olivia Troy. Good afternoon.
- [00:19]
Olivia Troy
Good afternoon. Hi, Charlie. How are you?
- [00:22]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, now, well, now, normally we would be, you know, having this discussion. Where do we start? What do we talk about? I mean, I. This is like. I'm sorry, what the fuck? The story in the Atlantic, which broke just a little while before you and I began recording this. This is by Jeffrey Goldberg, who is the editor of the Atlantic. The Trump administration accidentally texted me its war plans. US national security leaders included me in a group chat about upcoming military strikes in Yemen. I didn't think it could be real. Then the bombs started falling. And now, what's amazing about this. And by the way, just parenthetically, let's just notice that this comes just days after they revoked the security clearance of all kinds of folks, because we have to protect national security. Also, as we are learning about what could be the biggest data breach in history, with all of the musk Doge folks getting access to very sensitive information in the IRS and Social Security immigration officials as well. But, Olivia, you worked in the national security space. Can you talk to me about this? Apparently, there's a. What? A signal app where. It's supposed to be this secure app where you go back and forth, and somehow they included Jeffrey Goldberg, who is, shall we say, not MAGA adjacent. He's been a really sharp critic. And so we now have screenshots of all of the texts back and forth between the vice president, the Secretary of Defense, the CIA director, just about everybody. And you can read them in real time, bitching and moaning at each other, talking about the plans, delegating their authority, their feelings about the plan. I mean, how does. Okay, just give me your reaction to this. I mean, I can't really get past what the fuck? So I'm looking to you for the expert analysis.
- [02:24]
Olivia Troy
I had a similar reaction. I've actually now read the piece three times because I really, like. I was in such disbelief that I kept going back to it and being like, wait, no, okay, wait, did this. He said, that's real, right? This actually really did happen. And then I was also thinking. And then just a reaction. I actually, like, felt like I was in his shoes, getting, like. I could only imagine being a reporter, a journalist in his shoes. And then the natural reaction, which is. I could totally see him having that as a legitimate reporter, being like, am I being. Am I being punked? Is this entrapment? Right?
- [02:57]
Charlie Sykes
That would be. That would my.
- [02:58]
Olivia Troy
Right. Is this the Russians.
- [03:00]
Charlie Sykes
Well, my first, my first reaction would be, am I being punked? Is this just. Is this just a scam? And then the second one would be, if it's real, am I going to be in trouble?
- [03:07]
Olivia Troy
100. That also went through my head. I was sitting there thinking, okay, so now what kind of information are they sharing here with. Here with him? And he is totally in the middle of possibly a classified discussion. And what are the implications for this poor, innocent person that just got added to this? Right. And the other part of it is, yeah, so are we now doing cabinet level coordination and meetings on the Signal app? Is that what's happening here? Because that was also striking to me because I, I've actually never, I never had the luxury of doing that. And I coordinated cabinet meetings for Pence, and I have attended many cabinet meetings, and I don't remember having the luxury of seeing the cabinet level official that I was supporting coordinating on encrypted messaging apps and actually doing live, like war planning and strategy and then including a national reporter on it as well. So, by the way, I would lose my clearance if I did that too. Just to be clear. I just, I would be literally summoned and there would be a whole cleanup effort of a paper tray.
- [04:09]
Charlie Sykes
Well, I think there's going to be a cleanup. Well, to give people just, just some flavor of this. I mean, you're sitting in the room with these guys, Bas, J.D. vance, talking to Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense. If you think we should do it, let's go. I just hate bailing Europe out again. Let's just make sure our messaging is tight here. And if that is talking about bombing the Houthis, you know, and if there are things that we can do up front to minimize risk, we should do the Saudi oil facilities. We should do it. Hegseth writes back, VP I fully share your loathing of European freeloading. It's pathetic, prophetic in all caps. But Mike is corrected that we're the only ones who can do this. And then there's some, you know, back and forth, you know, where Vance appears to be questioning whether Trump actually understands.
- [04:57]
Olivia Troy
That was super interesting.
- [04:58]
Charlie Sykes
Right? Tell me about that. Yeah.
- [05:02]
Olivia Troy
Do we understand the implications about what we're doing? And how do we explain this to American public? That was actually also interesting that he's looking at it like, how are we going to explain this to our supporters? Like, does this make sense? He's actually having a policy discussion in the Signal chat. Right. And then, I mean, it was. What's also striking to me is the amateur hour of the level of the individuals having these conversations. And you can tell that they have no idea what they're doing. Even some of the coordinator names in there. I was so super confused seeing them on there. A little upsetting. And then to think, like, just the fact that this is how they're conducting national security, that what else and blowing.
- [05:44]
Charlie Sykes
Things up and killing people has happened on these apps?
- [05:48]
Olivia Troy
I mean, think about that. Like, what is. What else are other potential foreign adversaries possibly collecting in some way if they have access to those apps? So I'm just, I'm quite perplexed by this because this can't be the only signal chat then coordinating policy. There's no way it sounds like this is.
- [06:04]
Charlie Sykes
Oh, I don't think so. It's probably the only one that Jeffrey Goldberg or anybody else from the Atlantic will be part of. So he writes, I have never seen a breach quite like this. It is not uncommon for national security officials to communicate on signal, but the app is used primarily for meeting, planning and other logistical matters, not for detailed and highly confidential discussions of a pending military action. And of course, I've never heard of an instance where in which a journalist has been invited to such a discussion. So I don't know. You know, he talked to a bunch of lawyers about this. These lawyers said that a U.S. official should not establish a signal thread in the first place. Information about an active operation would presumably fit the law's definition of national defense information. So I guess, I mean, the stupidity, the sloppiness, and, you know, I mean, I'm old enough to remember when, you know, American politics was roiled by who was using what server. Now they're just emails.
- [07:04]
Olivia Troy
There we go.
- [07:05]
Charlie Sykes
So I. I don't know. So what do you think is going to happen as a result of this? I mean, so who's. Who's head rolls?
- [07:11]
Olivia Troy
Well, I don't know, because it was started by Mike Waltz, the National Security advisor. That, by the way, who knows better? And just to be clear, wonderful. He served in Dick Cheney's office when he was vice president. He was in a role similar to mine for pets. He knows better. Right. That's what's, that's what's so interesting, is that. So I also was sitting there reading the article thinking, is it just blatant egos of their power that they're drunk on, where they just don't even care anymore and they're just kind of like short circuiting processes going around them? I just, I can't, I don't understand it because a person that actually cares about national security would not behave this way and not be so blatant.
- [07:50]
Charlie Sykes
Well, you would think so. I mean, the larger question is, and it goes to the question of just competence, who are these people, these loyalists who have been shoved in these positions? And everything is moving at ramming speed very quickly in so many parts of the federal government. And so you do wonder who's got their fingers on these buttons? Who is making these decisions? Do they know what they're doing? How competent are they? Now? The most sensitive piece of information you can imagine is, is an actual real time war plan. So if we're wondering what could possibly go wrong with Social Security information, what could go wrong with IRS information, what could go wrong with all of this other stuff that's being turned over to Elon Musk or Doge or to some 19 year old kid who goes by big balls who was dragged off the street because he happened to be a buddy of Charlie Kirk. I mean, this ought to raise much more fundamental questions about who is in there and who, I won't say thought this was a good idea because I don't even think this reached the level of anyone thinking about it.
- [08:54]
Olivia Troy
That's the issue. And I think it's how are they handling this type of sensitive information. And if they're handling in such a callous way, I mean, they're doing it probably across the board. And that's what's really disturbing here and upsetting is just, I mean, you would think that war plans and strategies and actual tactical operations would meet the threshold of wanting people to be very careful. You would think that. But here we are again. And you know, I do have to give credit to Jeffrey Goldberg, who did the article, right, who's on the signal chat, because he withheld the name of an active intelligence officer, someone who is serving right now. And he chose to do that. Right. He, he had more care about the information that he was privy to and he actually protected, what a great point, protected the identity, what a great of an active intelligence officer. And so to that I say thank you because I'm grateful for that. I question why this person is in the single chat to begin with. That's a different thing that I would be asking. But his boss, John Ratcliffe is on it too, so. And so is Tulsi Gabbard. So I guess he's got top cover for that. But you know, credit to the reporter who had the due diligence and the, and the care to say, hey, I'm not going to Publish this person's name, because they are. They are an intel person.
- [10:15]
Charlie Sykes
Okay. Well, we know that retribution and revenge and intimidation are core principles of this administration. I mean, when we see it directed at anyone who's perceived to be a critic, Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic would certainly be on that target list. And I certainly don't. I don't want to give anybody any ideas whatsoever. But what do you think in terms of their reaction? I asked this a little bit earlier. Are they going to come after him for. I was being on this and then. And then publishing it. Given how many other people they've gone after and used the cudgel of the federal government to try to intimidate them, what do you think is going to happen?
- [10:53]
Olivia Troy
I thought about that when I was reading it. I actually was like, oh, gosh, I really hope that he is prepared for the wrath that he will incur in whatever way it shows up in. And we don't know that yet. Right. But I mean.
- [11:07]
Charlie Sykes
Well, I. I mean.
- [11:08]
Olivia Troy
And we don't know, but.
- [11:10]
Charlie Sykes
And he won't keep.
- [11:11]
Olivia Troy
No. And I think, you know, I just hope he has security. I hope he has, you know, that he's thinking about all the different levels and layers that you have to think about when you're in situations like this. But I think, you know, he had a duty to report this because it's so egregious, and I'm grateful for his courage in today's times. I mean, I know that sounds, you know, he is. He's a journalist. This is what journalists do, and this is what, what, what media does. This is their role of the free press.
- [11:40]
Charlie Sykes
While we still have hope, they do.
- [11:41]
Olivia Troy
And I think that that is important. And I'm glad, you know, I'm glad that he had the courage to do this. And I'm sure that he knows he's already been the target of their criticisms. Right. And he is a critic, and so he knew what would come with it. But even more so, I'm glad that he did, because this is important. We need to understand the way they're handling sensitive matters like this, how it impacts our national security. Again, we already have concerns, I mean, I have grave concerns about how our European allies and our friends are looking at this and whether they want to share intelligence information with the likes of Tulsi Gabbard at the helm and people like that. Do they want to share that info with us? Do they see us as alliances? Imagine what they're thinking right now, reading this article. I mean, they're just like, okay, so we're getting trash in this signal chat. This is how they're coordinating war operations and, oh, that's how they feel about us. Tell us in real time how you're doing. You know what I mean? Like, it's just so many different layers of this that are just calling.
- [12:40]
Charlie Sykes
Well, and, you know, you remember that one of the great press freedom cases of, of the 20th century involved the Pentagon Papers and the decision by the New York Times and the Washington Post to publish them. But that was after the fact. Those were not real time war plans. And yet back then, back in the day, you had a Supreme Court that was willing to support them, but also you had members of the media like Katharine Graham, the publisher of the Washington Post, who was willing to really put her business at risk in order to tell the public the truth. It's not clear that we have that. The reason I'm asking this, and again, it's not a frivolous question, given this campaign of retribution to go after him and to go after, and I want to get into this, go after any lawyer or law firm that might defend him because, you know, last week we had a big discussion nationally about the attack on the judges and the attempt to intimidate judges and the threats to impeach judges who ruled against him. By the end of the week, it was clear that this strategy was much broader and deeper, going after the lawyers and the law firms that might defend anyone who's been a critic of the administration. And so they strip these security clearances from a number of really big law firms. And some of them have pushed back. But of course, we had Paul Weiss, one of the mega law firms, a law firm that raked in $2.6 billion in revenue last, last year. And it caved in. It basically said, yeah, we're really sorry, Mr. Trump. Even though, again, they had long Democratic ties, but they agreed to basically put themselves into receivership. That's my rather radical way of putting it, that they will give $40 million in free legal services to causes that Donald Trump agrees with. So I guess the question is now, you know, we are seeing this all out attack not just on the judiciary, but on the full legal system. And you have been, you know, I'm not telling anybody anything that's not public record. You've been kind of a target for the Trump administration. Kash Patel threatened to sue you. Your lawyer has not caved in. But you can see that there is an attempt not just to intimidate journalists, not just to intimidate judges, but to tell Lawyers, if you're thinking about taking on a controversial anti Trump figure, we might come after you, too. And if a $2.6 billion law firm doesn't have the guts to stand up, who will? I mean, let's be honest about it. Our entire net worth is a rounding error for Paul Weiss, and yet they were too scared to fight back.
- [15:33]
Olivia Troy
Yeah. And I think that's all gets back to what we've thought about along the way, the chilling effect. And they're being very calculated about what they're doing at the different layers. And I think they're doing it in such a manner so that they feel like they're isolating people. And so when someone decides that I'm going to do the right thing or I'm gonna stick my neck out, they want you to feel like you're alone. And they want you to know now, ahead of time, that, okay, but if you do that, just know you may not have anyone to have your back. You may not be able to get a lawyer. And we're gonna go after the lawyers when they do represent you. So that's a message to the law firms and the people defending these people, saying, well, okay, but choose carefully and choose wisely, because if you choose to defend that person and stand by them, you too, will become a target. Right. And I think that is the different permeations of the layers here of what they're doing. And it's being strategic. This is a classic playbook. It's very strategic on their behalf of, like, as much as chaotic and as amateur hour and incompetent that they are. One thing that they are executing very, very well is their authoritarian, like, tendencies and playbook. That is one thing that I have seen that they are looking at in the way they're kind of controlling people, the manipulation of people and what they're trying to do, because they don't want critics. They are trying to silence people and trying to also instill fear. And, you know, my lawyer had his security clearance revoked. My lawyer's Mark Zade. He represents me.
- [17:01]
Charlie Sykes
Right.
- [17:01]
Olivia Troy
He's on the list of people that have been mentioned repeatedly. They've had their clearances taken. And by the way, Mark Zane has represented people in the Trump administration defending them. He represents. He's an attorney, and he represents various cases across the board. Right. Whether it's a critic, whether it's a person that's still in the administration. And so he will no longer be able to defend some of those people. That's a counter to this. Right? I mean, the Law is a law. He is following the rule of law.
- [17:28]
Charlie Sykes
Well, at least for now.
- [17:28]
Olivia Troy
Yeah, for now.
- [17:29]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah. Well, I mean, for now. I mean, like, I mean, some of the law firms, you know, have pushed back, and there's indication that the federal judges are finding that what Trump is doing is lawless. I mean, this is the part that I think is so frustrating, is that you have this giant law firm with all these lawyers who make $2.6 billion a year in theory, protecting their clients will not protect themselves against a. What I think is a constitutionally questionable lawless order, and they cave in. And so you're right when you say that this is a strategic effort on the part of the Trump administration to go after critics, but it feels like it's like prob. They're probing with universities, they're probing with the media, they're probing with the law firms. And as soon as they realized that they could get big law firms to cave in, they realized, aha, this is going to work. We're going to separate them out. And then they put out that order late last week, I think it was Friday, saying, you know, we may do this to any law firm that files a motion, in other words, does their job, a motion that we deem to be frivolous. And Pam Bondi is going along with this. So essentially saying that if you represent someone who is suing the Trump administration or that we are going after, and you as a lawyer, make a motion that we don't like, we might do the same thing to you that we did to Paul Weiss. Now, you would think the entire legal profession would, as one, you know, band together and say, you know, we either hang together or we're going to hang separately. And what Trump has done is he's basically shown that, you know, going after the venality, the rivalry, the cowardice, whatever of these institutions, he can split them up and pick them off one at a time. It's really, really sad.
- [19:18]
Olivia Troy
Yeah. And I think that that's how they're going to continue to push the boundaries. This is how they get away with things. Right? They test it, they push it and say, okay, can we get away with that? And then the next time, they're going to push a little more and be like, okay, now we're going to go to the next layer and see, can we get away with this? And so I think that's going to permeate across, like you said, all pillars of society. We're seeing it when it comes to immigration initiatives. We're seeing it on college Campuses. We're seeing it. At the irs, we're seeing it. I mean, it's just multiple layers here of any department, any area, any issue area, really. They're just going to test it and say, well, this is our plan. This is what we really want. Let's try to see what happens when we do this and how much we can get away with and see where the pushback is.
- [20:02]
Charlie Sykes
Well, and, yeah, I mean, I wrote this morning. I mean, the problem with all of this, of course, is that you may rationalize the fact that you're surrendering, that this will make us safer, but it emboldens the jackals and it demoralizes other targets who, again, are meant to feel isolated and you're alone. And you can certainly imagine businesses and law firms looking around and going, why should we stick our necks out if nobody else? So it is an incredibly dangerous period. Not because the administration is doing anything that we didn't expect them to do, although I think the speed and the scope is somewhat surprising. But this rolling capitulation, this great grovel, is really remarkable, bringing civil society to its knees. And can I get a little wonky here? Because I quoted Michael Roth, who's the president of Wesleyan University, who's written, you know, he's trying to get his colleagues in higher education to push back. And he says, you know, the. It used to be a conservative understanding from going back to Tocqueville and Burke and others, that the institutions of civil society need to maintain their independence for the society to be free, that in an authoritarian regime, you make all of those institutions of civil society, private society, you know, conform to what the regime demands. And this is an element of this. And so as we see this cave in, by the way, did you catch the. The thing that Oliver Darcy had over the weekend, that, that when those astronauts splashed down, that none of the. The news networks called the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico. I mean, speaking of, like, what the fuck? No, it's like, okay, you're abc, NBC. It's like call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico. And like, no, no, no, we don't want to go there because what we, you know, they. They might kick us out of the, the press room. Like, are you kidding me?
- [22:03]
Olivia Troy
Again? So what's next, the Gulf of Mexico? Now we've got offerings. Now we've got this. So what other things are we going to continue to cave and give in on? And, you know, on the law firm thing, I think I get it. I mean, they're worried. They're probably I mean, not probably. They're worried about how this impacts their clients. And then you probably have clients that are also looking around. And the Trump administration knows this. Their clients are looking around and they're like, well, do we want to be connected to that burn? Because are we next by association? I mean, that's what it is. You know, guilty by association is the layer here. And they know exactly what they're doing. But yeah, I mean, that's pretty incredible about the astronauts. It's still the goal for Mexico.
- [22:42]
Charlie Sykes
It is.
- [22:42]
Olivia Troy
Okay, I'll wait for the letter to show up about whatever threat I'm going to get for calling it that.
- [22:48]
Charlie Sykes
I mean, some of this stuff is a little bit silly. The, the, the breach about actual active war plans is not, not at all. But let's, let's talk about, let, let's talk about this. I'm looking, I'm sorry, his, Trump's chief negotiator, Steve Witkoff. Do you know him at all, by the way? I never met him, no.
- [23:07]
Olivia Troy
I know Kellogg, but I saw that.
- [23:09]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, so, yeah, apparently he was too pro Ukraine, which is not a problem with this. Steve Witkoff. So on the eve of these talks, Steve Wykoff, who is Trump's chief negotiator, is basically parroting Kremlin talking points on the, on the war. And, and people are, it's, I, I think there's been this sort of collective intake of breath where he's talking about that Putin's really a good guy and, you know that, you know, you know, maybe Ukraine's not a real country. In a lengthy interview with Tucker Carlson, which ought to be a tell, Wykoff articulated a vision for the biggest reset in Washington Moscow relations since the Kremlin's invasion of Ukraine. That's a nice way of putting it. He recounted his meetings with Vladimir Putin. Wykoff, who insisted he wasn't taking sides, then took sides with Moscow, repeated the Kremlin's assertions. The overwhelming majority of the people in four parts of eastern Ukraine want to be under Russian rule and pointed to Kremlin run referendums in those areas that the European Union and the US have denounced as shams. They were shams. And the fact that he would cite them is, would be stunning if we were capable of being stunned anymore. So we have, I mean, in case there was any doubt that we have really switched sides on.
- [24:31]
Olivia Troy
Yeah, it's pretty appalling, especially to me for a long time, being in national security for so long. And it's hard to watch that because basically Like Putin's winning. That's what it comes down to. Right? I mean, he has basically, he's got mouthpieces at the highest levels of our country right now delivering his propaganda, not just, you know, on the world stage, but two Americans. This is going into American households every single day, right through right wing media stations. Tucker Carlson, he, he, you know, he has been fully in line from day one on this. And so I think that is the appalling thing, is that now we are in a situation where we are, we have a bunch of Americans out there who are aligning themselves with a long time foreign adversary of the United States. And I think it just puts us in a very precarious situation here domestically on the division on this, because there is no doubt in our minds of where Russia would be on us when it came to that. They are not our friend.
- [25:36]
Charlie Sykes
No.
- [25:37]
Olivia Troy
But to walk this back when you have leaders in place like this that are basically saying what Putin wants him to say. This is what Putin's telling his own people too, right? I mean, this is how he sells his own, his own authoritarian regime to them. And I think that is what is, is dangerous here for our country is that I think that we are, we are going to be in this moment in terms of how we're going to walk this back throughout the American populace. I think we're in this moment for a long time, Charlie. I just don't, don't see anybody come along.
- [26:13]
Charlie Sykes
I think, I think you're right. But, you know, Witkoff says that Vladimir Putin is kind of a good guy who commissioned a beautiful portrait of Donald Trump. And then after the assassination attempt, he prayed for him. Did you know that, that Vladimir Putin went to church and prayed for Donald Trump? This is something that of course did not happen, but which Witkoff apparently thinks did. Okay, so what did you make of that phone call from last week? I know it seems like a million years ago now where Putin kept Trump waiting and then agreed to this very, very limited ceasefire which he broke five minutes later by attacking electric facilities in Ukraine. What's interesting is that even people on the right who have been MAGA adjacent folks at National Review are saying, you know, Vladimir Putin rolled Donald Trump, Donald Trump, obviously. I mean, so what did you.
- [27:12]
Olivia Troy
I think it was very clear who's in control here and it's not Trump and it's certainly not the United States with Trump at the helm. So, I mean, I think Putin knows he's got the control as much as Trump and the, you know, MAGA machine might want to message otherwise. But he's the one pulling the levers here. And I think, you know, when you talk, I think if you look at the rest of the world and European allies, I mean, they're. They're fully aware, they're watching this play out, and they know what they're up against. I think they're looking at this and they're like, we don't know what's going on in the United States, but we can't. We can't trust them, basically. Right? They're making plans themselves to figure out how they navigate this, whether it's NATO and other alliances, because they don't know where the United States is now in terms of what we used to be, in terms of the free world. And so I think, you know, that was classic Exhibit A of Putin getting on the phone, holding him off, by the way, which is kind of almost comical.
- [28:04]
Charlie Sykes
Humiliating.
- [28:06]
Olivia Troy
Exactly. It's sort of like, okay, well, who's the puppet in this situation? And it's pretty clear to me. And you would think that there would be a national security meeting to discuss this and be like, okay, look, whether it's good faith by the assets that are enabling this or not to have this, you know, conversation, have a serious discussion of being like, okay, even if we're trying this approach, it's not working. Maybe we need to regroup. But I don't think that's the situation we're in here right now.
- [28:36]
Charlie Sykes
Well, okay, now, this is speculative, but it doesn't seem to be radically speculative to think that, you know, Vladimir Putin and President Xi are sitting around reading the Snapchat communications of people in the White House about what's going on here right now, given what we talked about, you know, given the level of security that's going on here. So give me the other. The other development. And I'm really having a hard time getting my head around this because originally, and I think, like a lot of people, I thought that the whole Greenland, Canada thing was kind of a troll. Like, okay, there's a distraction from a distraction. It's about something else. And now I'm starting to think, well, you tell me. He's. There's the. So Mike Walls, one of the guys responsible for this, and J.D. vance's wife are going to a visit in Greenland to see dog races or something. And the officials in Greenland are very unhappy about this. They see this as a very aggressive mood. And you have JD Vance giving interviews where he's saying, well, Denmark's not really that good an ally and everything. And you know, maybe we're gonna have to do something about it. I mean, seriously, I mean, on the level of 1 to 10, 10 being we are going to fucking invade Greenland, you know, zero being. This is just trolling. Where are we at on Trump wanting to take over Greenland?
- [29:56]
Olivia Troy
Yeah. I think he's been obsessed with this since the first Trump administration. So I.
- [30:01]
Charlie Sykes
Give me a number. Come on, give me a number. I mean, 1 to 10.
- [30:03]
Olivia Troy
I tend to take him at his word. I think there's that obsession there where he is not going to let this go. And so I think he'll say things. And I think, you know, we all think it's, like, facetious, but I actually think that, no, he, I mean, we were, what, in months, two, three, I can't even keep track anymore.
- [30:20]
Charlie Sykes
So we've got, like, 63 days, 64 days.
- [30:23]
Olivia Troy
You know, a lot can happen in the next couple of years. These people are in charge, and I wouldn't discount it. I, I think, I mean, I would probably rank Greenland before Canada, to be fair. I think. Canada.
- [30:34]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah.
- [30:35]
Olivia Troy
I mean, that's the order. But I, I mean, I think, first of all, it's ridiculous that there is actually, like, these people, high level delegation going there. And it's clearly. I mean, honestly, it's clearly just intimidation and bullying and just kind of like, you know, it's all optics. Right. Right now. But I also think that it's also optics to appease Trump because all of these people are probably in these meetings.
- [30:59]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah.
- [30:59]
Olivia Troy
Hearing him.
- [30:59]
Charlie Sykes
Right.
- [31:00]
Olivia Troy
And so there is sort of kind of that game that you need to play with Donald Trump where you're sort of entertaining it and you have to show that you're doing something. And so if they're doing that, there must be a reason, because that's how.
- [31:12]
Charlie Sykes
I know how it happened for him.
- [31:13]
Olivia Troy
Exactly. So there must be something going on where this is still being brought up. And so whether they're, whether they're into it is a different story. Right. We don't know. We don't know where their heads are on it, but it's clear that if they're doing this, it's because Donald Trump still bringing it up.
- [31:28]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, so come with me here. Let's go on a little journey. Because you get a sense that right now, in, in Trump's head, there are. And in his ear, there are people telling him, we can do this. You know, who's going to stop us? Who's going to stop us? If we, we can do this, we can do this. And they're getting Away with stuff, right? I mean, they're, they're, you can, you can tell that they are emboldened by all of this. And if somebody says, you know, Mr. President, we, we just land 600 troops in Greenland and we plant the flag and say Greenland's ours, who's going to stop us? What happens? What happened? Well, in, I think, I mean, somebody's gaming this out, right?
- [32:06]
Olivia Troy
I mean, probably, I mean, yeah.
- [32:11]
Charlie Sykes
Europe screams and there's lots of press conferences and there's lots of, there's lots of denunciations. But the reality is, you know, if, if you're sitting around there and Pete Hegseth is sitting, you know, having his six, you know, rum and Coke and going, you know, we, we could do it, we could just, we could just take it. No one's going to stop us. Is he wrong?
- [32:28]
Olivia Troy
I, you know, I worry about that because where they're taking their cues from Putin, right? And that's where, you know, I think.
- [32:39]
Charlie Sykes
You get Ukraine, we get Greenland. Right.
- [32:41]
Olivia Troy
I think that's kind of the type of Persona that he, he likes and the person to kind of person that he models himself after and channels. And so I think he's looking at the low hanging fruit and being like, okay, I want to expand, I want to be like him. What can I do? And so I think, I mean, we could very well be in a situation with Greenland. And it sounds insane to you and me, but the fact that this was actually of discussion during the first Trump administration in national security circles about how Trump was really actually thinking about this and it's back again, tells me that I don't think he's going to let this go very easily.
- [33:17]
Charlie Sykes
No, I mean, I could actually see him doing something like that and then trying to cut a deal with Denmark where you're right. At a check for, you know, some billions of dollars or something or what? I don't know. It's too dystopian. Okay, what was your reaction? Because I know you work with some of these people to the, the abrupt silencing, shutting down of Voice of America. Not just Voice of America, but Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty Radio. Marty, what, what was, I mean, how important were they in projecting American soft power ideas?
- [33:50]
Olivia Troy
Yeah, I think the way it was first of all was pretty shocking. But again, this is DOGE at its finest. And in terms of what it thinks it's doing as efficiency. And I think what was really upsetting to see was just a lot of these journalists, I mean, they could be facing their own retribution from these countries. That they've reported in and now they're out of jobs. And, like, I mean, it's put them in a really, really bad situation. And so I worry about their livelihoods and their safety and security on what happens to them, like. But also, I think. I think it's very clear that we don't actually care about soft power in this administration currently, that we don't care about actually doing the right thing when it comes to authoritarian regimes. And. Because that's what Voice of America does. Right. They report on facts. And sometimes along the way, they have been critical voices of actual facts and the truth on the ground of what's happening in a country where people could tune into it when their own leadership and regimes did not want them to hear the truth. Right. And so I think the other thing that worries me is who's filling the void when we do these things? It's China. It's people like China.
- [35:02]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah.
- [35:03]
Olivia Troy
And so they're broadcasting. They're going to expand into these spaces, and we are pulling away from it. And I know, you know, I know that there's sometimes a disconnect between Americans really understanding, you know, why Voice of America, why are we spending money to message in that way?
- [35:18]
Charlie Sykes
Right.
- [35:19]
Olivia Troy
But it really is about reaching hearts and minds and explaining things to people in a way that's not confrontational, forceful, or war. That's the role of soft power. Right. I mean, that's why it's so critical.
- [35:29]
Charlie Sykes
Were they just relics of the Cold War? Were they relics of the Cold War, or did they play a role going forward? I mean, how important were they in real time? I certainly grew up at a time when you. We beamed this information, you know, across the Iron Curtain. The Iron Curtain is gone.
- [35:48]
Olivia Troy
So, I mean, they were.
- [35:49]
Charlie Sykes
What was their. What was their relevance and role?
- [35:53]
Olivia Troy
I mean, I think that at any critical moment in some of these countries where the regimes want to, you know, lock down on media and they don't want to have these communications out, they played that role and filled it. They were able to broadcast and actually talk about what was really happening. And it's been in modern times. Right. You can look at China, you can look at Tyman Square. I mean, they played a role in that, where they were actively reporting. In fact, more recently, there was the anniversary, like a few years ago where they were still reporting, and China and others did not want anything to do with that, but they were still honoring the anniversary. And so I think these are important things that matter diplomatically in terms of foreign policy and how we are Reaching the war. And it's across regions. Right. Whether it's in Arab countries, whether it's Asian countries. It's just part of one of the tools in the toolkit that we use to reach people. And I think it's important. Right. I mean, we used it after 9, 11. We messaged on it. We explained what was happening. And so I think it's just, it's really a shame because we are really just kind of giving up one of the things that we should be caring about. And. But I think it also, to me, when I saw that, you know, I hate to say it, but it's just another, another, you know, check mark on the list of let's ally ourselves with our foreign adversaries. Let's make it easier for them. Let's make it easier.
- [37:17]
Charlie Sykes
Give them a gift.
- [37:18]
Olivia Troy
Let's make it easier. It seems like that's.
- [37:21]
Charlie Sykes
That's what we. Yeah. I mean, for decades, you can imagine that the Soviet Union and its successors and the Chinese would have loved to have gotten rid of Voice of America. And yet all it took was Donald Trump and Elon Musk. All right, one more. I saw that you wrote about one of the strangest stories, I think, speaking of Musk and Doge, what they're doing with the Social Security administration. And you wrote that they're dismantling it, but again, without a single vote, no one in Congress has voted for this. This is, has always been regarded, long been regarded as the third rail of American politics. And one of Donald Trump's reptilian instincts, which you got to give him credit for, was he ran for president. He said, I will not touch Medicare, I will not touch Social Security is a crucial part of, I think, his political appeal to that segment of the electorate. And yet you have, you know, now this assault on the way Social Security operates. They're not cutting benefits yet. But talk to me a little bit about what you meant when you're talking about dismantling Social Security sort of brick by brick.
- [38:30]
Olivia Troy
Yeah. I think, you know, they're not being overt about it because they know better, because they know that there would be public outrage if it was messaged that way or it came across that way. And I think Republican presidents in the past, like Reagan and others, have grappled with the this, and they have faced the public opposition and quickly retreated, backed away. Backed away and said, okay, maybe we do this in a different way, or this is a bad idea. And I think in this situation, I think what they're doing is they're very calculated. And so they are going about it in a different way. And so they're just going to make it very hard. They're going to make it hard for the verification.
- [39:04]
Charlie Sykes
You think it's calculated? I get a sense it's not calculated, that they really have no idea what they're doing. They're moving fast. They don't know where they're going. And they're breaking things, but they don't know what they're breaking.
- [39:13]
Olivia Troy
Well, so I think it's a mix. I think that the Doge people, like Big Balls and his crew don't have any idea what they're doing. But I do think that the authors of Project 2025 and the Heritage foundation and all the thought leaders that are part of those planning efforts who have really thought about this and are pushing a pretty more like, far right conservative agenda. I don't even call it conservatism, Charlie, because you and I would not identify. Identify with that.
- [39:37]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, this is. Right.
- [39:38]
Olivia Troy
No, this is a very different thing. And I think they use Reagan's name to cloak themselves as saying conservatism throughout the document, which is just. It's just not true. But I would say that, like, I think what they're doing here is. I think that they are. They're going about this and, like, making the verification of getting Social Security harder or renewals. What does that look like? And so they're now, what. They're. They're closing offices, right? They're. That they've announced that they're going to close down offices. So that's finish rank. And then now they're saying you have to go in person. You can no longer do whatever the verification process was or renewal is on the phone. So you're going to do it online, by the way. I mean, my mother is in her 80s. She has no idea how to navigate the Internet. That's what I kept thinking about is just, like, the opportunity for what these people are going to face if they don't have help, if they have, you know, the amount of scams they potentially could face. I mean, the amount of duplicative websites that could be out there that are going to be scamming people. I mean, it's a myriad of things that this opens up to, but also it's about access. Like, there are people with disability issues. I mean, mobility issues. And so now you have this whole population that's going to have to figure out, like, okay, if they can't do it online, you have to go in person. And they've shut down and they're closing offices. So what are the lines going to look like? Because the appointment process is already pretty cumbersome and long. And so that's why I was like, okay, I see what you're doing here. You're not, okay, you're not cutting Social Security, but you're going to make it really hard for people to navigate a system that's already challenging to navigate. You're going to make it even harder. And so I think that that is probably what's to come. I could see that, you know, happening with Medicaid and Medicare. Like that is kind of how they're sort of going about it. And in the end they'll be like, oh, you know, I mean, it's what, a two month wait now for an appointment? What's it gonna look like? Six months, a year? I mean, what does that look like?
- [41:35]
Charlie Sykes
What's the upside? So what is the end game for them? Do they honestly think that they're gonna weed out fraud as a result of all of this? That they're gonna save money?
- [41:44]
Olivia Troy
And I think there's been reporting where they've asked, you know, to show the fraud or produce all of this evidence. Yeah, haven't seen it yet. But under the guise of that, this.
- [41:55]
Charlie Sykes
Is how I mean look.
- [41:56]
Olivia Troy
And I'm sure there, you know, I'm sure there is, right?
- [41:58]
Charlie Sykes
I mean, especially in the disability area. I think there's probably some, some questionable, you know, questionable outlays, but I have no confidence in these folks. And then of course, you have the tone deafness of people like Howard Lutnick, who's a billionaire, who, who say people, you know, if, if people don't get their Social Security check, they shouldn't complain. My, my mother in law, remember, he's a billionaire, would not complain that she didn't get her Social Security check. And the people who would complain the loudest are the fraudsters. Like, what planet are you on to think that you could interrupt American Social Security checks and it would be only the fraudsters? I mean, this is one of those things how. I don't know if I'm saying dumb, but how completely totally out of touch do you have to be to say what? Howard Lennon?
- [42:47]
Olivia Troy
Yeah, completely absurd. Especially because I'm sure that a lot of people probably live paycheck to paycheck on their Social Security, right? I mean, we're not talking about the billionaire class here, Mr. Lutnick. I mean, and to think about the fact that these are the people that are orchestrating all of this and the strategies and the people that are in charge of policy, again, for supporters that do not understand actually the impacts until now, they're starting to see some of the ramifications of it. Right. But this is going to continue to play out, and that is why I felt the need. I mean, I just felt strongly about writing that I'm a national security person writing about Social Security, but it's because I care, because I think it's just important to be paying attention of how they're going, going about this and these changes so that people can, you know, either address it locally or really start to actually voice their concerns about it as they continue, you know, going down the chopping block on these different programs that are really going to have serious ramifications, actually for people, for individuals, for families and for our economy as well. Right. This is all going to have.
- [43:57]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah. I mean, if, and if Republicans are concerned about their town hall meetings and who is showing up and the kind of blowback they're getting, they haven't seen anything yet until you start messing with this sort of thing. So as we wrap up, so what are you looking at right now? What should we be paying attention to over the next few days? What are you looking at that you don't think that I'm looking at? What are you seeing that you think I'm missing?
- [44:25]
Olivia Troy
I think. Well, I mean, I don't know. There's so much to keep track of. I'm certainly.
- [44:30]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, I know, I know.
- [44:30]
Olivia Troy
I think we've all been alarmed, obviously, and I think we're all tracking this, but just what does it mean when we defy judges, orders and the rule of law? But one thing I think I'm also paying attention to in the vein of Social Security, is really interested in what's happening here where they're saying that they're going to start to track, like, immigrants and their contributions to Social Security. And I'm just wondering what effect that has because quite honestly, a lot of these immigrants are hardworking immigrants who actually pay their taxes and are contributing to, to our economy in that way. And I guess I'm just, you know, this is an administration who's been pushing the narrative that they're only, you know, they're really only going after criminals that are immigrants. Right. That's. And that's the guys for everything that they're doing, regardless of whether the fact that they're picking up American citizens along the way as part of these immigration raids and what they're doing with legal permanent residents along the way. But I think this is interesting because it's another layer again, that will impact the economy. So we're about to hit a tax deadline, right? April tax day is coming up. And so I am aware of this. Are we going to, so are these people going to be scared to file now? Are they? What, what happens? Is this like a shadow economy that's about to be delightful?
- [45:48]
Charlie Sykes
Well, this promise. Yeah, well, and the promise that IRS information would be kept confidential has been, you know, one of the rock solid promises the government has made to us. And they're apparently prepared to violate that. So, I mean, that's gonna be interesting to watch. Also, the deportation of violent gang members. Look, I mean, the reality is politically, Donald Trump knows that he's going to win politically that argument, even against the judges, that if you're a violent gang member, that's going to be an 80, 20 issue. But, and now we're getting reporting suggesting that many of these people who were just rounded up and deported and put in these, these El Salvadorian hellholes may not have had any criminal record whatsoever. That's an area of vulnerability. Now, again, Trump is having the argument that he wants to have, but this is what I think people need to keep their eye on. What does it turn out, what happens and how do the courts react and how does the public react if it turns out that we in fact have, you know, swept up people who are, you know, law abiding, maybe legal residents and are deporting them in this particular way? Will people care about this? And quite frankly, there's a question mark about this. You know, I wonder about that.
- [47:04]
Olivia Troy
And I think what's concerning to me is that I'm increasingly concerned about how the Trump administration is going to use things like labeling people as domestic terrorists going forward, labeling them as criminals as part of their deportation antics and what they're doing. And I think that there's a fine line here where we're really going to push it in terms of the rule of law and our policies and national security policy. And sometimes those policies can be abused. And that's something that is really bothering me right now. Charlie, is that what I'm thinking about it?
- [47:42]
Charlie Sykes
Well, I mean, you know, you mentioned domestic terror. I mean, they're using that term to describe people who are about to, who are protesting Teslas. And again, I'm certainly not, you know, providing any cover for anybody that engages in an act of violence. But it's interesting when the attorney General tells a sitting member of Congress, watch what you're saying when you criticize Musk and Tesla when you actually have that sort of thing, because they will weaponize that. And of course, we need to always remember the deep irony of the fact that Donald Trump pardoned all the people who violently attacked at the Capitol. They were patriots. But people who protest a Tesla dealership are domestic terrorists. Now, again, the acts of actual vandalism and terror, I think just play into maga's hands. I think they allow them to play the victim card, and I think it's very counterproductive. But on the other hand, it's really interesting the degree to which this administration makes no bones about the fact that we are now using the full force of the federal government to protect Elon Musk's car business.
- [48:47]
Olivia Troy
Unbelievable.
- [48:48]
Charlie Sykes
I mean. Olivia Troy, thank you so much for joining me. I appreciate it very, very much. As always.
- [48:55]
Olivia Troy
Thanks for having me, Charlie.
- [48:57]
Charlie Sykes
And make sure you check out Olivia's substack newsletter. I'm Charlie Sykes. Thank you for watching watching this episode of to the Contrary. We do this every week because it is now more important than ever to remind ourselves that we are not the crazy ones.