reSee.it - Related Video Feed

China and the United States have the potential to collaboratively address global issues. It's crucial for both nations to work together. I had a long-standing friendship with him, and we spent countless hours discussing various topics. He is truly remarkable. Have you had a chance to talk to him in private? The press often disapproves of my casual remarks, but I find him to be an extraordinary individual. Did you discuss the trailer from last week?

The speaker notes that people might be surprised that he has never interacted with Donald Trump face to face, though that is about to change. The speaker then references a statement made last month by Trump, who suggested that the speaker turned black recently for political purposes, questioning a core part of his identity. The speaker dismisses this as the same old tired playbook and declines to comment further. The speaker then expresses confusion as to why a shot wasn't taken. The speaker reiterates that people might be surprised that he has never interacted with Trump.

The discussion opens with Speaker 0 addressing Ki Adi, the president, noting that there is concern in Australia that it has taken nine months to arrange this meeting. The speaker asks whether the president has concerns with the administration’s stance on Palestine, climate change, or the Australian ambassador’s past statements about him. The president responds that he doesn’t know anything about the ambassador; if the ambassador said something bad, perhaps he would like an apology, but he doesn’t know. He asks, “Did an ambassador say something bad about him? Don’t tell me. Don’t Where is he? Is he still working for you?” The president confirms the ambassador is still working for the administration and appears to indicate the ambassador is nearby by saying, “Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He’s just right there. He’s right.” When asked again about any bad statements, the president or speaker responds with “Give up. Do you said bad?” The exchange culminates with a blunt admission: “Before I took this position, mister president I don’t like you either. Oh, yeah. I don’t. And I and I probably never will.”

The speaker claims Donald Trump was expected to receive a red carpet welcome, but instead, the Saudis rolled out a purple carpet for him. The speaker states that purple is the color of royalty. The speaker concludes that this symbolizes Trump is still winning.

I am friends with Trump and so is the speaker. They talk often and even golf together. They recently attended a UFC event with Dana White and the crowd. The speaker finds these experiences to be very American. The speaker emphasizes that aside from Trump's political image, they have become comfortable as friends and enjoy discussing various topics, including policy and sports. The speaker admires Trump's children and believes that a well-put-together family reflects positively on him. They express strong admiration for Trump, stating that they don't just like him, but they love him.

Glenn opened by noting the upcoming Trump-Xi meeting in Beijing and recalling Nixon’s 1972 visit as a historic opening, asking Chas Freeman for an assessment of why Trump is going, what’s on the agenda, and what to expect. Chas Freeman replied that Trump’s trip seems driven more by ego and the desire to feel honored in public pomp, rather than any clear strategic preparation. He contrasted the current visit with Nixon’s, which occurred amid a perceived Soviet expansion threat that made China a “protected state.” Nixon’s approach aimed to bind China to the West against a common threat, leveraging China’s sovereignty to counter Japanese expansion and Soviet influence. Freeman said the current moment lacks evidence of serious preparation or sherpa-style groundwork; there is a hurried, last-minute negotiation underway in South Korea between China’s trade negotiator and U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s administration. He suggested Trump is accompanied by senior American business figures seeking deals—likely Boeing sales, soybean trade, AI topics—and noted the China-U.S. contrast in AI strategies: the U.S. pursues general intelligence with heavy investment, while China applies AI to practical projects with open software. Freeman argued that beyond trade and tech issues, the broader context is muddled, with no obvious shared interests that would compel China to act concretely to help the U.S. in the Gulf or Hormuz, despite China’s interest in free trade and openness. He projected the question of how this meeting might affect West Asia: the war’s outcome signals a post-Iraq-Iran era emerging not favorable to the West, and he anticipated China’s strategic calculus would be to avoid being drawn into U.S. missteps while advancing its own interests in energy corridors and regional stability. Glenn speculated about wanting a grand power compromise (with Putin included) and suggested more is needed on Iran. He referenced Robert Kagan’s “The Jungle Grows Back,” noting that the West’s disregard for international law now clashes with a rising Sino-Russian-Iran axis. Freeman agreed with Kagan’s assessment of the war as a strategic debacle for the U.S., arguing that Iran’s retention of the Strait of Hormuz is likely and that international law is endangered in sea-navigational terms. He described a broader shift: Gulf Arabs may diversify away from the U.S., leaning toward Sino-Russian partnerships, and sea-power norms could be devalued. He emphasized that the conflict reduces the likelihood of a favorable new status quo and could push proliferation in the region; Iran may have or soon develop a nuclear capability, while others might follow. The war’s main strategic consequence, Freeman asserted, is a move toward a Sino-Russian axis and a transformed balance of power in the Middle East, with diversification away from U.S. security guarantees. Glenn added that the Nixon move was strategic, while Trump’s engagement seems tactical, and Freeman underscored the broader transformation in West Asia. They discussed the rule-of-law crisis in the West, the difference between “rule of law” and “rule by law,” and how domestic and international norms influence each other. Freeman argued that China has become a defender of the UN Charter and international law, in contrast to perceived Western unilateralism, and that the “jungle” is reconstituting a new order under Westphalian principles with many middle powers maneuvering. They debated whether China would want Iran to succeed to push the U.S. out of the region, and Freeman reiterated that the Chinese aim aligns with Westphalian sovereignty and peaceful coexistence, not ideological missionary diplomacy. They concluded that the Trump-Xi meeting could yield either a cautious pause or a dangerous misstep, given Trump’s temperament and Xi’s steadiness, and Freeman voiced cautious relief that nothing catastrophic occurs, while Glenn expressed a wish for a constructive outcome that could open space for rethinking Western hegemonic strategies.

I was excited for the interview with Trump, but not pressured. I focused on key topics and wanted to know about the JFK files, but he often diverted the conversation. I tried to steer him back respectfully. I was curious about his first day in office and the challenges he faced, but I don’t think he fully recalled those moments. Trump is a unique mix of entertainer and businessman, often using humor and nicknames. After three hours, I saw him as a deal-maker who doesn't easily get distracted, even during a lengthy podcast. I also expressed interest in speaking with Kamala Harris, wanting a genuine conversation rather than a focus on policies.

Following an invitation brokered by Kid Rock, the speaker had dinner with President Trump at the White House, despite having been the target of numerous insults by Trump in the past. The speaker brought a list of these insults for Trump to sign, which he did humorously. Trump gave the speaker hats but did not pressure him to wear them. The speaker found Trump to be self-aware, laughing and listening intently during their conversation. Trump solicited the speaker's opinions on topics like the Iran nuclear situation and Gaza. The speaker challenged Trump on various issues, including his rhetoric and policies, and found him receptive to the criticism. The speaker expressed support for some of Trump's policies, such as moving the embassy to Jerusalem and controlling the border. The speaker noted a stark contrast between the Trump he met and the public persona, questioning why the measured, gracious person he encountered couldn't be the public figure. The speaker concluded that Trump is not crazy but "plays a crazy person on TV a lot."

Speaker 0: Decision on whether to supply Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine or sell them to NATO and let them sell them to Ukraine. Speaker 1: Yeah. I've sort of made a decision pretty much if if if you consider. Yeah. I I think I wanna find out what they're doing with them. Yes. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 2: Donald Trump's recent statement to the press about mulling over sending Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine has elicited a response from the Kremlin today. Putin announced that the peace process with the Trump administration to end the Ukraine war is officially, quote, unquote, exhausted. Trump and Putin have had a very, you know, strange relationship, a little touch and go since Trump returned to the presidency. At first, to end the Ukraine war on his very first day in office, Trump has meandered a bit on the issue and is now apparently settling on the Biden administration's policy of arming Ukraine and NATO to the hilt. But can Tomahawk cruise missiles even make much of a difference given that the Russian military has achieved supremacy on the battlefield and maintained that dominance for at least the last year and a half, maybe even longer, if you will. We're now joined by, and we're so pleased he's with us, retired US Army colonel Douglas MacGregor. He's the author of I'm sorry. We also have Brandon Weichert with us, the author of Ukraine. Go cross wires there, a disaster of their own making, how the West lost to Ukraine. Thank you both for being with us. Speaker 3: Sure. Speaker 4: Thank you for having me. Speaker 2: Colonel McGregor, welcome to the show. We're so glad to especially have your perspective on this. And what we're gonna kinda do is a tour, if you will, around the globe because there's several, ongoing and pending conflicts. Right? So let's start with this breaking news out of Russia where Putin says that these talks, these negotiations are exhausted. Are they, as a matter of fact, exhausted, colonel? Speaker 3: Well, I think he was referring specifically to what happened in Alaska. And I think president Trump showed up, you know, in grandiose fashion with the goal of overwhelming, president Putin and his team with his charm and grace and power, and it all failed miserably. President Trump never really listened carefully to anything the Russians said to him. He didn't read any of the material that was pertinent to the discussion. He came completely unprepared, and that was the the message that came out after the meeting. So the Russians were very disappointed. If you don't read their proposals, you don't read what they're doing and what they're trying to accomplish, then you're not gonna get very far. So now, president Trump has completed his transformation into Joe Biden. He's become another version of Joe Biden. Speaker 2: What it is so unexpected. And, you know, it's hard for a lot of a lot of Trump voters to hear because specifically part of voting for him and the mandate that he had going into this term was in these conflicts. Right? Specifically, the one in Ukraine. He didn't start any new conflicts while in office in the first term. Why this version of Trump this term? I know you, like I, look into the hiring, the administration, the pressures from the outside on the president. What is influencing where he is now on Ukraine, colonel MacGregor? Speaker 3: Well, that's a that's a difficult question. I mean, first of all, he grossly underestimated the complexity of the of the war. If you don't understand the foundations for the conflict, how this conflict came about, I mean, I I was standing around listening to someone like Brzezinski in the nineteen nineties trying to tell president Clinton that it was critical to address Ukraine's borders because Eastern Ukraine was, quote, unquote, Russified and effectively not Ukrainian. Nobody would listen to Brzezinski, and so we walked away from that very problem. And in the run up to this thing back in 2014, I was on several different programs, and I pointed to the electoral map, And it showed you who voted for what where. It was very obvious that the East and the Northeast voted to stay with the Russian pro Russian candidate, and everybody else voted against the pro Russian candidate. So none of this should come as a surprise, but I don't think president Trump is aware of any of that. I don't think he studied any of that. And so he's got a lot of people around him pushing him in the direction of the status quo. He went through this during his first term, disappointed all of us because he could never quite escape from the Washington status quo. So he simply returned to it, and I don't see anything positive occurring in the near future. Speaker 2: That's sort of the same as well, with other agencies like the the DOJ, which I wanna get into a little bit later. Brandon, you've been writing about this as a national interest. So what what do you make of it? Speaker 4: Well, I think that right now, this is a lot of vamping from Trump. I think the colonel is a 100% correct when he says Trump really didn't come prepared to the Alaska meeting. I think ultimately Trump's default is to still try to get a deal with Putin on things like rare earth mineral development and trade. I think it's very important to note, I believe it was Friday or Thursday of last week, Putin was on a stage at an event and he reiterated his desire to reopen trade relations with The United States and he wants to do a deal with Trump on multiple other fronts. So that's a positive thing. But ultimately, I think that people need to realize that Trump says a lot of stuff in the moment. The follow through is the question. I am very skeptical that he's actually going to follow through on the Tomahawk transfer if only because logistically, it's not practical. Ukraine lacks the launchers. They lack the training. The the targeting data has to come exclusively and be approved exclusively by the Pentagon, which means that Trump will be on the hook even more for Joe Biden's war, which runs against what he says he wants to get done, which is peace. Regardless of whether it's been exhausted or not that process, Trump I think default wants peace. So I think this is a lot of bluster and I think ultimately it will not lead to the Tomahawk transfer. Last of all because we don't have enough of these Tomahawks. Right? I mean, that that is a a finite amount. I think we have about 3,500 left in our arsenal. We have 400 we're sending to the Japanese Navy, and we're gonna need these systems for any other potential contingency in South America or God forbid another Middle East contingency or certainly in the Indo Pacific. So I think that at some point, the reality will hit, you know, hit the cameras and Trump will not actually follow through on this. Speaker 2: So speaking of South America, let's head that way. Colonel McGregor, I I don't know if you know. I've been covering this pretty extensively what's been going on with the Trump administration's actions on Venezuela. So a bit of breaking news. Today, the US State Department claims that Venezuela is planning to attack their embassy, which has a small maintenance and security board other than, you know, diplomatic staff. Meanwhile, Maduro's regime argues they're just foiled a right wing terrorist plot that's that was planning to stage a false flag against the US embassy to give the US Navy fleet. There's a lot off in Venezuela's coast the impetus to attack Maduro. I've been getting some pushback, you know, on this reporting related to Venezuela, because, you know, Trump's base largely doesn't want any new conflicts. They're afraid this is sort of foreign influence wanting wanting him to go there. Are we justified in what Trump is doing as far as the buildup and what we are hearing is an impending invasion? Is it is the Trump administration justified in this action, colonel MacGregor, in Venezuela? Speaker 3: No. I I don't think there's any, pressing pressing need for us to invade or attack Venezuela at all. But we have to go back and look at his actions to this point. He's just suspended diplomatic relations with Venezuela, which is usually a signal of some sort of impending military action. I don't know what he's being told. I don't know what sort of briefing he's received, what sort of planning has been discussed, but we need to keep a few things in mind. First of all, the Venezuelan people, whether they love or do not love Maduro, are very proud of their country, and they have a long history of rebelling against foreign influence, particularly against Spain. And they're not likely to take, an invasion or an intervention of any kind from The United States lately. Secondly, they've got about 400,000 people in the militias, but they can expect, at least a 100,000 or more paramilitaries to come in from Brazil and Colombia and other Latin American states. It's why the whole thing could result in a Latin American crusade against The United States. And finally, we ought to keep in mind that the coastline is 1,700 miles long. That's almost as long as the border between The United States and Mexico. The border with Brazil and with Colombia is each of them are about 1,380 kilometers long. You start running the math and you're dealing with an area the size of Germany and and France combined. This is not something that one should sink one's teeth in without carefully considering the consequences. So I don't know what the underlying assumptions are, but my own experience is that they're usually a series of what we call rosy scenarios and assume things that just aren't true. So I I'm very concerned we'll get into it. We'll waste a lot of time and money. We'll poison the well down there. If we really want access to the oil and and gas, I think we can get it without invading the place. And they also have emerald mines and gold mines. So I think they'd be happy to do business with us. But this obsession with regime change is very dangerous, and I think it's unnecessary. Speaker 2: That is definitely what it seems they're going for. When I talk to my sources, ChromaGregor, and then I'll get your take on it, Brandon, they say it's a four pronged issue. Right? That it's the drug that, of course, the drugs that come through Venezuela into The United States, Trend Aragua, which we know the ODNI and Tulsi Gabbard, DNI, Tulsi Gabbard was briefed on specifically, that the right of trend in Aragua and how they were flooded into the country, counterintelligence issues, a Venezuelan influence in, you know, in some of our intelligence operations, and, just the narco terrorist state that it is. But you feel that given even if all of that is true and the Venezuela oh, excuse me, in the election fraud. Right? The election interference via the Smartmatic software. Given all that, you still feel it's not best to invade, colonel. You how do we handle it? How do we counter these threats coming from Venezuela? Speaker 3: Well, first of all, you secure your borders. You secure your coastal waters. You get control of the people who are inside The United States. We have an estimated 50,000,000 illegals. Somewhere between twenty five and thirty million of them poured into the country, thanks to president Biden's betrayal of the American people and his decision to open the borders with the help of mister Mayorkas that facilitated this massive invasion. I would start at home. The drug problem is not down in Venezuela. The drug problem is here in The United States. If you're serious, anybody who deals in drugs or is involved in human trafficking, particularly child trafficking, should face, the death penalty. Unless you do those kinds of things, you're not gonna fundamentally change the problem here. Now as the narco state title, I think, is a lot of nonsense. The drugs overwhelmingly come out of Colombia. They don't come out of Venezuela. A very small amount goes through Venezuela. I'm sure there are generals in the Venezuelan army that are skimming off the top and putting extra cash in their banks, but it's not a big it's not a big source from our standpoint. We have a much more serious problem in Mexico right now. Mexico is effectively an organized crime state, and I don't think, what Maduro is doing is is really, in that same category. On the other hand, I think Maduro is courting the Chinese and the Russians. And I think he's doing that because he feels threatened by us, and he's looking for whatever assistance or support he can get. And right now, given our behavior towards the Russians in Ukraine, it makes infinite sense for the Russians to cultivate a proxy against us in Central And South America. This is the way things are done, unfortunately. We there are consequences for our actions. I don't think we've thought any of them through. Speaker 2: Well, in in in talking about turning this into a broader conflict or a bigger problem, I I I I know, Brandon, you had heard that that Russia basically told Maduro, don't look to us. Don't come to us. But now this was a couple weeks ago. Yep. Yep. Like you just said, colonel MacGregor, things have changed a little bit. Right? Especially looking at what Putin said today. So will Russia now come to Venezuela's aid, to Maduro's aid? Speaker 3: I think it's distinctly possible, but it's not going to be overt. It'll be clandestine. It'll be behind the scenes. The Chinese are also gonna do business with Maduro. They have an interest in the largest known vindicated oil reserves in the world. The bottom line is and this you go back to this tomahawk thing, which I think Brandon talked about. It's very, very important. The tomahawk is a devastating weapon. Can they be shot down? Absolutely. The Serbs shot them down back in 1999 during this Kosovo air campaign. However, it carries a pretty substantial warhead, roughly a thousand pounds. It has a range of roughly a thousand miles. And I think president Trump has finally been briefed on that, and he has said, yeah. I I wanna know where they're going to fire them, whom they're going to target. Well, the Ukrainians have targeted almost exclusively whatever they could in terms of Russian civilian infrastructure and Russian civilians. They've killed them as often and as much as they could. So the notion if you're gonna give these things to these people or you're gonna shoot for them, you can expect the worst, and that would precipitate a terrible response from the Russians. I don't think we understand how seriously attacks on Russian cities is gonna be taken by the Russians. So I would say, they will provide the Venezuelans with enough to do damage to us if if it's required, but I don't think they expect the Venezuelans to overwhelm us or march into America. That's Mexico's job right now with organized crime. That's where I think we have a much more serious problem. Speaker 4: I I agree with the colonel on that. I think also there's an issue. Now I happen to think we we because of the election fraud that you talk a lot about, Emerald, I think there is a threat in Maduro, and I I do think that that there is a more serious threat than we realize coming out of that sort of left wing miasma in Latin America. And I I think the colonel's correct though in saying that we're we're making it worse with some of our actions. I will point out on the technical side. I broke this story last week. The Venezuelan government, the military Padrino, the the defense minister there, claimed that his radar systems actually detected a tranche of US Marine Corps f 35 b's using these Russian made radars that they have. This is not the first time, by the way, a Russian made radar system using these really and I'm not going get into the technical details here, but using really innovative ways of detecting American stealth planes. It's not the first time a Russian system has been able to do this. And so we are now deploying large relatively large number of f 35 b's into the region. Obviously, it's a build up for some kind of strike package. And there are other countermeasures that the f 35 b has in the event it's detected. But I will point out that this plane is supposed to be basically invisible, and we think the Venezuelans are so technologically inferior, we do need to be preparing our forces for the fact that the Venezuelans will be using innovative tactics, in order to stymie our advances over their territory. It's not to say we can't defeat them, but we are not prepared, I don't think, for for having these systems, seen on radar by the Venezuelans, and that is something the Russians have helped the Venezuelans do. Speaker 2: Very complex. Before we run out of time, do wanna get your thoughts, colonel MacGregor, on, the expectation that Israel will strike Iran again. Will we again come to their aid? And do you think we should? Speaker 3: Well, first of all, stealth can delay detection but cannot resist it. Yeah. I think the stealth is grossly exaggerated in terms of its value. It causes an enormous price tag Yeah. When you buy the damn plane. And the f 35, from a readiness standpoint, is a disaster anyway. So, you know, I I think we have to understand that, yes, mister Netanyahu has to fight Iran. Iran has to be balkanized and reduced to rubble the way the Israelis with help from us and the British have reduced Syria to chaos, broken up into different parts. This is an Israeli strategy for the region. It's always been there. If you can balkanize your neighbors, your neighbors don't threaten you. Now I don't subscribe to the Israeli view that Iran is this permanent existential threat that has to be destroyed, but it doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what they think. They think Iran is a permanent existential threat and therefore must be destroyed. Your question is, will they find a way to attack Iran? The answer is yes. Sooner rather than later. The longer they wait, the more robust and capable Iran becomes. And, I think that's in the near term that we'll see we'll see some trigger. Somehow, there'll be a trigger and Iran will strike. And will we support them? Absolutely. We're already moving assets into the region along with large quantities of missiles and ammunition, but our inventories, as I'm sure you're aware, are limited. We fired a lot of missiles. We don't have a surge capacity in the industrial base. We need one. Our factories are not operating twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. The Russian factories are. Their manufacturing base can keep up. And by the way, the Chinese are right there with them. They have the largest manufacturing base in the world. So if it comes down to who could produce and fire the most missiles, well, we're gonna lose that game, and Israel is gonna lose with us. But right now, I don't see any evidence that anyone's worried about that. Speaker 4: Yeah. Speaker 2: You know what? Colonel McGregor, I I I don't know if I feel any safer after you joined us today. It is very concerning. It's it's a concerning situation we find ourselves in, and I feel like so many people because they feel the election turned out the way they wanted to wanted it to, are not concerned anymore. Right? But we are in Speaker 1: a finite amount of time and there's still great pressures upon the president. There are many voices whispering in his ear. And so we constantly have to be calling out what we Speaker 2: see and explaining to people why it matters. Speaker 3: Remember, this president has said this. Everybody dealing with the administration has said this. It's a very transactional administration. Yep. Follow the money. Who has poured billions into his campaign and bought the White House and Congress for him? When you understand those facts in, you can explain the policy positions. Speaker 1: And I think that's also why we're, the leading conversation we're seeing on acts and social media. Right now, Colonel McGregor, thank you so much for joining us today. We hope you'll come back soon. Speaker 3: Sure. Thank you. Speaker 2: And, Brandon, as always, good to see you, my friend. Thank you. Speaker 4: See you again. Nice to meet you, colonel. Speaker 3: Very nice to see you. Bye bye.

The speaker was born in Brooklyn, the same place where Donald Trump's family comes from. The speaker says his grandfather and Trump's father were builders together in Brooklyn. The speaker knew Trump was going to go places even when Trump was younger. The speaker states that Senator Schumer and Trump are good friends. The speaker believes they both have a passion for life and that Trump cares about what he does.

President Xi Jinping invites President Trump to deliver opening remarks and welcomes him back to China after nine years, saying the whole world is watching. Xi describes the global environment as accelerating and turbulent, with the world at a crossroads, and frames key questions: whether China and the United States can overcome the “Thucydides trap” and create a new paradigm for major-country relations; whether they can meet global challenges together and provide stability; and whether, for the well-being of their peoples and humanity’s future, they can build a brighter future for bilateral relations. Xi says these questions are vital to history, the world, and the people, and must be answered by leaders of major countries. He notes this year marks the 250th anniversary of American independence and congratulates Trump and the American people. Xi says he believes the two countries have more common interests than differences, and that success in one is an opportunity for the other. He argues that a stable bilateral relationship benefits the world, and emphasizes that both countries gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation. He calls for the two countries to be partners, not rivals, and to help each other succeed and prosper together while finding the right way for major countries to get along in the new era. Xi expresses his look forward to discussions on major issues important to both countries and the world, and to working with Trump to set the course for and steer the “giant ship” of China–U.S. relations so that 2026 becomes a historic landmark year that opens a new chapter. Trump responds by thanking Xi, calling the experience an honor, and saying he was particularly impressed by the children, who he describes as happy and beautiful. He says the military presence “couldn’t be better,” but that the children were “amazing” and represent so much to Xi. Trump says he and Xi have known each other a long time and that it is the longest relationship between leaders of the two countries. He describes their relationship as fantastic, saying they have gotten along, worked through difficulties quickly by calling each other when problems arose, and will have a fantastic future together. He says he has respect for China and for Xi’s leadership. Trump also states that he leads a delegation of leading businessmen, including “the top 30 in the world,” all of whom said yes to be present with him to pay respects to Xi and China and to pursue trade and business, which he says will be totally reciprocal. He says people in the United States are not talking about anything else, calls the summit one of the biggest ever, and concludes that the China–U.S. relationship will be better than ever before.

- The discussion begins with concern about the quality of Speaker 1’s internet connection for recorded YouTube work. Speaker 1 explains that their neighborhood has a monopolist limiting updates to local software/hardware, and says their own Starlink setup is going up, with 20+ or ~30 satellites already online and deploying quickly. Speaker 1 then jokes about sponsoring revolutions abroad, noting France and the UK should be ready. - The conversation shifts to international developments, focusing on the “Iran war” and later Ukraine/Russia, and then on Trump’s visit to China. - Speaker 1 describes alleged details from Trump’s China visit: Tajikistan’s president was visiting the same day, and during Trump’s arrival only part of the route’s flags were reportedly changed from Tajik to US flags. Speaker 1 frames this as a “soft insult.” - On Xi Jinping meeting Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin at airports/tarmacs, Speaker 1 says some claims are not true and emphasizes protocol and past examples: in prior meetings (Xi and Putin; Trump arriving previously), Xi reportedly met Putin at the tarmac, sat down with the top down, and drove into the city. Speaker 1 also says that in Trump’s last China arrival, Trump reportedly had Xi waiting. - Speaker 1 assesses the Xi–Trump meeting as unprepared compared with highly structured US-style or adversarial-country meetings. They describe how security teams, working diplomats, document preparation, possible joint statements, and agenda negotiation are typically handled before leaders meet. Speaker 1 compares this to earlier dynamics seen in Anchorage (with Trump allegedly seeking speed for a PR/picture moment). - The thread links the China visit to energy leverage involving Iran and Venezuela. Speaker 1 says Venezuela’s capacity is limited (around 800,000 barrels/day) and that significantly expanding it takes time and large investment. Speaker 1 argues US refining limitations matter: US refineries were set up for heavier sour crude (described as “viscous” and “sour” due to sulfur) and the US has not built a new refinery in over 30 years, citing bureaucracy and environmental laws as reasons companies left. - Speaker 1 elaborates on why the US cannot easily expand refining quickly, citing high insurance costs for factory work and related regulatory burdens, leading factories to move elsewhere. - Speaker 0 asks whether Trump intended a different sequence: Speaker 1 says the initial idea was to seek earlier wins and use Venezuela and Iran concessions to gain leverage, but the meeting reportedly came with Trump facing weaker leverage and needing help on Iran. - Taiwan discussions: Speaker 1 says reunification preferences exist among the Taiwanese opposition party that met Xi in China, with Taiwan described as the “Republic of China” and some groups categorized as seeking reconquest/reunification. Speaker 1 discusses why supplying Taiwan for conflict is difficult across open water and notes past US War College war-game conclusions that China would win if the US fleet intervened between China and Taiwan, while US strategy (as described) aims to make invasion costly rather than “winning.” - Proxy-war framing: Speaker 1 describes Ukraine and Iran/Yemen conflict patterns as proxy dynamics, referencing Marco Rubio’s admission that one war is a proxy war. - Iran supply/blockade claims: Speaker 1 says Iran is supplied via multiple routes—ports on the Caspian connected through Russian ports, and a rail line through Pakistan to China—plus other smaller export/storage options. Speaker 1 argues Iran’s weakness has historically included refining and diesel shortages, comparing it to the US importing refined product because it cannot refine enough to meet demand. - Venezuela capacity and US-advantaged/refinery/infrastructure problems are revisited, including discussion of reserves being held in gold in the US, social spending reductions of reinvestment, and US confiscation/export restrictions on equipment replacement, leading to worn-out infrastructure and the lack of “quick fixes.” - Straits of Hormuz and alleged “fee” idea: Speaker 0 cites a White House statement that China agreed to buy American oil to diversify from Hormuz and that Iran should not charge a fee for the Straits of Hormuz. Speaker 1 responds that Iran does not charge China fees (as stated by Speaker 1), then argues China’s commitments would only be clear if China confirms them, and compares this to past statements where purchases were claimed without matching agreements. - Speaker 1 argues sanctions can be moved/bypassed by the US government, not lifted by it, and says only US Congress can remove sanctions. Speaker 1 also claims the US continues buying sanctioned Russian products, while Europeans are criticized for accepting costly resell markups. - Speaker 1 also argues Hormuz isn’t treated as international waters in their view, and that Oman involvement matters, including claims about Oman not installing tollbooths and Iran striking ships—contrasted with the idea that a long-term/perpetual fee would open global choke-point “can of worms.” - Broader geopolitical framing: Speaker 1 says the “global system” is effectively gone, arguing the US helped build it and then killed it when it no longer served US interest, citing examples like the WTO and the strategic focus on controlling key choke points. Speaker 1 contrasts sea routes with Eurasia land connectivity and high-speed rail, linking this to belt-and-road connectivity. - Back to Iran: Speaker 0 asks whether China is pressuring Iran to concede or offering Trump political support with words. Speaker 1 says China prefers status quo and would prefer an end to war without weakening American stockpiles; Speaker 1 also says Iran’s ceasefire is not a full ceasefire and that both sides continue actions. - US military capacity and escalation: Speaker 1 argues that if Trump restarts the war, missile production is “null and void” at scale, and US manufacturing/industrial ramp-up would take years, citing the “missile production is null and void” point and the difficulty of rapid industry re-shoring due to state regulations. Speaker 1 discusses rare earths as a limiting factor in a different way—refining/processing capacity rather than shortage of elements—then argues chemical/electrolysis processing is expensive, energy intensive, and environmentally complex, often causing multi-year delays similar to refineries. - Soft-power indicators from Xi’s alleged absence and flag changes are used to explain Chinese behavior toward Trump, contrasted with prior high-level airport greetings and seating/handshake optics. Speaker 1 compares seating arrangements and perceived humiliation in European/Serbia contexts as a recurring pattern of power display. - Iran-war outcome speculation: Speaker 0 proposes a 50/50 scenario: continuation of conflict with Israeli strikes (and Iran mirroring strikes in the Gulf) versus Trump walking away. Speaker 1 says Israelis are driving outcomes and that APAC donors and money make turning away difficult, arguing Trump wants out but is constrained. Speaker 1 also says Iran and even Saudis/Kuwaitis reportedly would prefer US withdrawal from the Persian Gulf. - US military withdrawal and logistics: Speaker 1 says the US fifth fleet has left, its forward headquarters is moving to Israel, and damage estimates/repair costs are discussed. Speaker 1 argues the US is drawn into a genocide-perception dynamic once bases/equipment and US involvement are present. - Historical Iraq/Kuwait/Persian Gulf narrative: Speaker 0 asks why the US wanted Saddam to invade Kuwait. Speaker 1 asserts the US wanted Iraq to enter the Persian Gulf and become positioned for broader US presence, describing US backing for conflicts involving Iran and chemical weapons channels, and claiming Kuwait engaged in slant drilling stealing Iraqi oil. Speaker 1 says the US/Soviet coalition dynamics allowed the Gulf buildup and entry point into the region. - Final escalation discussion and regional future: Speaker 0 asks whether Trump will walk away or get trapped into escalation for a “win.” Speaker 1 says Israel’s influence over the US is expected to decline, claims generational shifts among American Jews/Christians and anti-Israel demonstrations, and argues Iran and the Gulf could reshape into new blocks with improved Gulf-Iran relations if stability is prioritized. - The conversation ends with debate over perceived misconceptions about Iran’s treatment of minorities and religious/political representation, plus discussion contrasting Iran with Saudi Arabia in terms of women’s legal status and religious policing, followed by a plan to do a future live recording using appropriate software.

The speaker has been to Mar-a-Lago a fair amount since the election, spending maybe half their time there or in the surrounding area. They clarify they are not in the room for decision-making but are trying to help in as many ways as possible. The speaker acknowledges that Trump elicits strong feelings in people. They deliberately avoid weighing in on many political topics, such as foreign policy, abortion policy, or guns. Their focus is on tech policy, business, economics, the health of the country, and its success.

Following an invitation facilitated by Kid Rock, the speaker had dinner with President Trump, aiming to bridge divides. The speaker brought a list of 60 insults Trump had made about them, which Trump signed humorously. Trump showed the speaker the room off the Oval Office, formerly known as the "Blowjob Room," now a merch room, and gave hats without pressuring the speaker to wear them. The speaker found Trump self-aware, laughing and genuinely engaging in conversation, even seeking the speaker's opinion on Iran's nuclear situation. The speaker expressed support for some of Trump's policies, like moving the embassy to Jerusalem and border control, while disagreeing with others, such as his Gaza plan. Trump was receptive, not angered by the criticism. The speaker noted a contrast between the private Trump and his public persona, expressing confusion as to why the graciousness and measured behavior couldn't be consistent. The speaker concluded that Trump, in person, is not as "fucked up" as perceived, although the speaker anticipates future criticism and potential retaliation.

Ehud: I don’t disagree with anything you said, and I don’t know who he trusts on these kinds of… Who the president really trusts. McDonough? The young guy. But he doesn’t—there was a Samantha Power—Power. No. The difference between who he trusts and who he likes. Larry Turner? She’s an idiot. I noticed that Obama listens to her. His door telephone is always open for her. He listens to her. He believes her instincts about politics, about who is against him, who is for him, what’s going around, who is hooking what from Chicago to the world. Ehud: But it’s like, do you think Richard Nixon ultimately cared what he listened to, what B. D. Luloso thought? Ehud: Listen to this: B. B. Robozo—Robozo was some kind of business, semi-corrupt business guy who was Richard Nixon’s best friend. And whenever Nixon went to Key Biscayne or California, B. B. Robozo was there. Nixon would spend a lot of time on B. B. Robozo’s boat. If B. B. Robozo wanted something, Nixon would stay. But I don’t think when Nixon was deciding what to do about open war, he was talking to B. B. Robozo. Ehud: Valerie Jarrett. So—in this regard, he’s probably alone, but he feels, compared to other leaders I happened to meet in the last decades, Obama impressed me as an extremely autonomous person. He feels good with himself, even when he’s alone in the home. I didn’t see in him what we know in Clinton or in Our Palace. There is anxiety, a need for love, for explicit expressions of love, there’s deep within their personality. I didn’t see anything of this in him. Obama: I’ve never seen that. Ehud: There’s lots of things to say. Bob Reich told me a story—Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor—he said Clinton would look at him in a cabinet meeting, and if Clinton looked annoyed or looked away, Clinton would call within two days: “How’s it going, Bob? What’s up? Is there something on your mind?” Obama wouldn’t call. He had lunch alone half the days. He didn’t schedule time to be alone. If he did some event where he spoke to a thousand people, they would give him a little rest time afterwards. He’s human, too. It’s the same: he wants to be with the people. It’s a source of strength in tough moments in politics, probably not the most effective way to mobilize people. Ehud: Another thing: President of the United States and you like to play golf. It’s a big asset. The President likes to play golf with his buddies—three guys: photographer, campaign guy, three buddies from Chicago. Most presidents played with members of Congress or business leaders; Obama is cerebral, and they gave him the nickname Black Jesus during the campaign. He has a sense of himself as not me, but he’s not like Clinton in that sense. Ehud: On Iran, the discussion turned to the possibility of surgical operations vs. broader war. The Pentagon developed subtle scalpels, more effective than ours. The goal is to delay the Iranian program by years, but the regime’s strategy is to defend its continuity, to build immunity—regime immunity—against intervention. The Iranians are like Pakistan and North Korea in wanting to avoid being toppled; they want to reach a rational capability that deters intervention. Ehud: The concern is time: for Israel, time is running out because Iran is expanding centrifuges, improving radars, and even GPS mines in the Strait of Hormuz. The regime’s calculation: they don’t have a timetable; they wait until they can secure immunity against external attempts. An election in Iran matters because it can delay or accelerate compromise, especially if the U.S. and partners are seen to be negotiating during an election year. Ehud: There was also discussion of the Arab world: Egypt is practical, not purely ideological. The leaders are practical—engineers who understand the need to feed tens of millions, to maintain tourism, the Suez Canal, and the canal economy. The argument was that US leverage matters; Europe is seen as constrained. The topic of how to engage with the moderate Sunni world to isolate Iran and support a regional security framework with the U.S., Europe, moderate Arab states, and Israel was raised. The aim would be to block fundamentalist terror, improve missile defense, and coordinate on Iran. Ehud: On Israel’s future, there was concern about a two-state approach versus a one-state reality. The Druze, Christians, and other minorities in Israel should be included, and there was advocacy for breaking the Orthodox rabbinate monopoly on marriage and conversions to Judaism to create a more open, plural society. The idea was to advance a plan that acknowledges borders, security, and regional cooperation, potentially with American guarantees. Ehud: The discussion touched on the possibility of a regional security system, with the moderate Arab world, and Israel as a focal point to manage security and block threats, which would help moderate Arab leaders justify engagement with Israel. The hope was that including the Palestinians and moving toward a regional framework would ease tensions and gain broader recognition. Ehud: The speakers reflected on the European economy: the Euro, German leadership, and the risk of “Southern Europe” becoming like Southern Italy—stable but with high unemployment and less dynamism. Germany’s role would be crucial in stabilizing Europe, but there was skepticism about rapid reforms. There was also commentary on Japan’s economic stance, with long-term bonds and potential inflation concerns; the risk of deflation versus inflation, and investor behavior in safe assets like US Treasuries. Ehud: In the financial world, there was talk about the “wall of money” entering markets, with deals in mining and private equity accelerating as rates stay low. There was speculation about who might pay for advisory services and how much compensation one could demand as a trusted adviser. Potential clients included sovereign wealth funds, private equity, and wealthy individuals who would value access to connections with prominent financiers and policymakers. Ehud: The conversation then shifted to Ehud’s post-government plans: he’s considering private equity, hedge funds, board roles, and advisory work. He discussed working with high-profile firms like Lookout (a cybersecurity firm), Palantir (Peter Thiel’s company), and Andreessen Horowitz, and he weighed the value of joining boards or advisory roles for significant compensation. There was talk of opportunities with Tony Blair and Panetta’s Foundation, and about leveraging relationships with influential figures like Petraeus and Panetta for strategic advisory roles. Ehud: The two discussed a potential collaboration involving a security-focused venture in which they would assemble a leadership team and pitch to sovereign wealth funds. They debated whether to pursue exclusive arrangements and how to structure compensation—whether high upfront fees or performance-based bonuses would be appropriate, given the urgency of opportunities and Ehud’s age. Ehud: There was talk of a German SPV structure to unlock value in suppressed German DACs, with a plan to acquire large German companies by taking minority stakes and reorganizing boards to bypass unions and passive shareholders. They described a Luxembourg or British Virgin Islands wrapper to enable financing and governance changes, and the goal of creating a management-driven, high-return vehicle akin to Berkshire Hathaway, with operational control over large assets. Ehud: They discussed approaching sovereign funds (Singapore, UAE, China) and state-owned investors to back restructured German companies, leveraging relationships within the German business world and the French/European regulatory environment. They explored the possibility of static, long-term advisory roles with leaders in global finance and industry, and using those platforms to drive value. Ehud: They also explored private-equity opportunities in other sectors—cybersecurity, infrastructure, mining, and even defense. They discussed the possibility of working with individuals like Klaus Kleinfeld (former Siemens exec, Alcoa head) and others to place Ehud into advisory or board roles, and whether to pursue roles that could yield immediate money while also enabling longer-term influence. Ehud: The conversation closed with practical steps: define concrete opportunities, gather numbers and returns, determine what the partners want (exclusivity, timeframe), and set a deadline for offers. They agreed to pursue a formal offer by March 14-20, with a final decision by April 1. They emphasized the need for crisp, precise positioning due to Ehud’s age, and to avoid overpromising. They planned to meet again, compare offers, and decide which path to take—whether with a security-focused outfit, a financial advisory role, or a combination of both. Ehud: The sense was that there are many opportunities for people with connections and credibility, and that the next few years could see rapid development in advisory services, sovereign wealth–backed deals, and strategic investments across defense, cybersecurity, and regional security. The overarching theme was leveraging decades of experience to match high-potential opportunities with the right partners, while navigating regulatory, geopolitical, and reputational considerations.

The speaker questions the resemblance between the Chairman of the Obama Foundation and the speaker's oldest daughter, as well as the resemblance between the Chairman's wife, who delivered the speaker's babies, and the speaker's youngest daughter. The speaker believes that these connections should be explained or that the Obama family should distance themselves from these individuals. The speaker also mentions the previous distancing from Reverend Wright. The speaker expresses confusion and seeks understanding regarding these relationships.

A speaker was born in Brooklyn, the same place where Donald Trump's family comes from. The speaker claims his grandfather and Trump's father were builders together in Brooklyn. The speaker knew Trump was going to go places even when Trump was younger. Senator Schumer and Trump are reportedly good friends who both have a passion for life and care about what they do.

The speaker states their team contacted Vice President Harris' and President Trump's teams to discuss ideas. The speaker emphasizes the importance of personal life over politics. They are in Trump Tower and have just interviewed President Trump, calling it a great interview that will be posted next week.

I have met with Xi Jinping more than any other world leader, spending over 68 hours in private meetings. We started as simultaneous interpreters when I was vice president, as it wasn't appropriate for the president to meet with the vice president. I traveled 17,000 miles for these meetings. In addition to the 68 hours, I've had around 12 to 15 hours of discussions with him.

Speaker 0: Happy memories are the ones where protocol didn't matter, like Cuba watching faster. Speaker 1: He's in power because of his incredible charisma.

The speaker was born in Brooklyn, the same place where Donald Trump's family comes from. The speaker says his grandfather and Trump's father were builders together in Brooklyn. The speaker knew Trump was going to go places even when Trump was younger. The speaker states that Senator Schumer and Trump are good friends. The speaker believes they both have a passion for life and that Trump cares about what he does.