0:02

Hello there from Washington and the

0:04

DMV as we like to call it

0:07

which is not the division of motor

0:09

vehicles. When we say DMV and DC

0:11

we actually need district Maryland and Virginia

0:13

but I'll admit every time I hear

0:15

the words DMV even I for a

0:18

second wonder if I'm talking about the

0:20

Department of Motor Vehicles but I am

0:22

coming to you from inside the beltway

0:24

and coming up I have a fascinating

0:26

conversation with Don Bacon. He's a Republican

0:29

congressman from Nebraska. He's from that congressional

0:31

district that is very swinging. Nebraska is

0:33

one of the few states that allows

0:35

congressional districts to be split. I have

0:37

a feeling the state of Nebraska is

0:39

likely to get rid of that rule

0:42

coming up and if they do Maine

0:44

will likely do the same but we

0:46

shall see. But that Omaha district has

0:48

gone blue I think the last few

0:50

times so we've had these split decisions

0:52

out of there but they have voted

0:54

simultaneously for president and they've elected Don

0:57

Bacon or Republican to Congress and I

0:59

really think it does sort of tell

1:01

you a lot about Omaha in general

1:03

and sort of where there's different wings

1:05

if you will. of the Republican Party

1:08

these days because I think when you

1:10

see a guy like Don Bacon get

1:12

elected and you see Democrats carried in

1:14

a presidential, I think it tells

1:16

you what type of Republicanism they

1:19

don't like because this is a

1:21

Republican leaning area in general. This

1:23

is certainly Omaha itself is a 50-50

1:25

place. This city for years, they've gone

1:28

back and forth Democratic mayors, Republican mayors,

1:30

you know, it's always been a swing

1:32

area of the state, but generally... it

1:35

leans pretty Republican. But I think what

1:37

you see here is what I find

1:39

interesting here is something that I think

1:42

you know this this fight that we're

1:44

going to see inside the Republican Party

1:46

over tariffs and this fight that I

1:49

think we're now which may end up

1:51

accelerating a larger fight about

1:53

national security because in many

1:55

ways Donald Trump I think whether

1:58

he means to or not certainly is

2:00

the leader of a new version

2:02

of the Republican Party, or arguably

2:04

an older version of a Republican

2:06

Party, that dates itself back to

2:08

the late 19th century, early 20th

2:10

century. And back then, the Republican

2:12

Party was a very protectionist party.

2:14

Of course, being the party of

2:16

business, it actually was very logical

2:19

why back then, business wanted protection.

2:21

because back then we didn't have

2:23

air cargo travel back then we

2:25

had you know so American businesses

2:27

wanted be one of their businesses

2:29

protected if you would from outside

2:31

influence outside exports and so it

2:33

made a lot of sense that

2:35

the Republican Party being the party

2:37

of business back then would be

2:39

in favor of tariffs back then.

2:42

Ironically I think today's business, while

2:44

they want to align with the

2:46

Republican Party that was sort of

2:48

from the Eisenhower to Romney era,

2:50

one for low regulation and low

2:52

taxes, is not advocating these tariffs.

2:54

There's a couple of industries that

2:56

are, but not many. And I

2:58

think there's a real question now,

3:00

and this is something I've been

3:02

thinking about quite a bit and

3:05

about our polarization, right? We've been

3:07

in the middle of a political

3:09

realignment now, arguably, for 20 years.

3:11

I mean, in some ways, it's

3:13

ever since the end of the

3:15

Cold War, we've begun this sort

3:17

of what I would call this

3:19

realignment and this splintering of coalitions

3:21

that were very steady during the

3:23

Cold War. But if you think

3:25

about the sort of calendar of

3:28

events, right, the wall falls in

3:30

89, and the first evidence of

3:32

the Trump era shows up in

3:34

1992 in the form of Pat

3:36

B. Cannon, a pundit, conservative pundit

3:38

back in the day, worked for

3:40

Richard Nixon, was a speechwriter. He

3:42

challenged the sitting president back then,

3:44

a Republican George, H.W. Bush, and

3:46

challenged him for the nomination. He

3:48

didn't get very close, but he...

3:51

found a following he had a

3:53

and it was a very when

3:55

you hear if you go back

3:57

and listen to a Pat Buchanan

3:59

stump speech in Manchester New Hampshire

4:01

in 1991 and 1992. It'll sound

4:03

very familiar. It's tough on immigration.

4:05

It is definitely... articulating beliefs and

4:07

a bit of retreat. Buchanan for

4:09

years was seen as anti-Israel because

4:11

he was really anti-foreign aid to

4:14

anybody, including Israel, back in the

4:16

day. He was certainly thought, he

4:18

was one of the early conservatives

4:20

speaking against free trade agreements, he

4:22

was violently anti- NAFTA. And so

4:24

when you now look back at

4:26

the time, he was considered kind

4:28

of a gadfly, kind of a

4:30

loud mouth. Yes, there's always been

4:32

this. sort of constituency available to

4:34

Republicans back then, but it was

4:37

a small, you know, it wasn't

4:39

a majority constituency. Certainly it wasn't

4:41

where the donor community was, and

4:43

it really wasn't where sort of,

4:45

you know, if you think about,

4:47

I always think about most of

4:49

the American people are somewhere between

4:51

the 30 yard lines if you

4:53

want to lay us out on

4:55

a football field, right? There really

4:57

is only about 15% of the

5:00

entire country is further to the

5:02

left or further to the right

5:04

than those sort of... invisible lines

5:06

that I've drawn there at the

5:08

30-yard line. And if you want

5:10

more detail on that, just go

5:12

down a Pew Research rabbit hole

5:14

and you'll sort of see how

5:16

the progressive left and the magga

5:18

right collectively is not even 20%

5:20

of the population. But right now

5:23

you could argue that they're having

5:25

more than their fair share of

5:27

influence on the two parties. And

5:29

it's made me think at this

5:31

point, especially, you know, this really...

5:33

clicked into my head in 2016

5:35

where we really could have easily

5:37

been a, if we had been

5:39

a sort of European democracy, think

5:41

France, which has four major parties,

5:43

maybe four people on a general

5:46

election, top two would meet in

5:48

a runoff. Well if we were

5:50

a four party system in 2016,

5:52

you'd have had Bernie Sanders, sort

5:54

of the Green Party nominee, or

5:56

the progressive party nominee, you'd had

5:58

Hillary Clinton as sort of the...

6:00

the Lib Dem, if you will,

6:02

to compare it to the UK

6:04

or sort of the center-left party.

6:06

Yet I had a Jeb Bush

6:09

or Marco Rubio is the nominee

6:11

for the center-right party, and yet

6:13

I had Donald Trump as sort

6:15

of the nationalist, right, the nominee,

6:17

the nationalist party. And perhaps if

6:19

there's a runoff, it would have

6:21

been Trump Sanders. Or perhaps it

6:23

would have been, you know... Rubio

6:25

Clinton, you know, could have gone

6:27

in any different direction, depending on

6:30

what the top two were. And

6:32

perhaps, you know, look, this isn't

6:34

what we are. We have a

6:36

duopoly in this country. I think

6:38

it's a, I think it's a

6:40

duopoly that's doing a lot of

6:42

damage now. I think it's a

6:44

duopoly that is making the democracy

6:46

a bit weaker than it ever

6:48

has. I think in some ways,

6:50

we do have... arguably four robust

6:53

political movements that might be deserving

6:55

of its own political party rather

6:57

than trying to stuff two of

6:59

them into these larger coalitions and

7:01

you know I have this thesis

7:03

that if we could if you

7:05

had to create a coalition to

7:07

attain power like many parliamentary systems

7:09

work or even these sort of

7:11

hybrid sort of multi-party democracies work

7:13

then you would be more comfortable

7:16

building a coalition to enact power,

7:18

right? If it would only arguably

7:20

empower more folks, number one, at

7:22

the negotiating table, and number two,

7:24

I think you would have, yes,

7:26

it would be more incremental movements,

7:28

but it would be incremental movements

7:30

that were more likely to stick,

7:32

rather than to sort of whiplash

7:34

that we are getting in public

7:36

policy that is arguably created or

7:39

accelerated the instability that we have.

7:41

The reason I bring this up

7:43

is because you're going to hear

7:45

this, you're going to hear from

7:47

Don Bacon and he really is.

7:49

Here's a guy that is filing

7:51

a bill to try to take

7:53

tariff power away from the Republican

7:55

President Donald Trump. Here's a guy

7:57

that just wrote an op-ed, very

7:59

critical of some of the movements

8:02

the Trump administration's making when it...

8:04

comes to a reproachment to Russia.

8:06

He's been very supportive of Ukraine

8:08

in the war in that aggressive

8:10

action that the Russians took to

8:12

invade their country. And he's very

8:14

concerned. And look, in that sense,

8:16

he is being a representative of

8:18

his area. Omaha and Nebraska in

8:20

general will get hit hard by

8:22

these tariffs. Very hard. All of

8:25

the ag states are going to

8:27

get hit. hard by these tariffs.

8:29

It's not an accident that Chuck

8:31

Grassley, the Republican Senator from Iowa,

8:33

Don Bacon, a Republican Congress from

8:35

Nebraska, are two of the leading

8:37

sponsors of sort of companion bills

8:39

that would essentially try to take

8:41

this emergency tariff power away from

8:43

the president. He really shouldn't have

8:45

this power. There's really no emergency

8:48

out there. He's manufactured this emergency.

8:50

And if Congress has the authority

8:52

to take it away from him.

8:54

The question of course is when

8:56

is there going to be the

8:58

political will, particularly in the House,

9:01

to do that. I don't want

9:03

to prejudge the conversation you're about

9:05

to hear with him, but I

9:07

think it is something you'll hear

9:09

that there's a bit of a

9:11

strategy here. A lot of it

9:13

will depend on the impact these

9:15

tariffs have over the economy. I

9:17

think the jobs report is a

9:19

lagging indicator of the health of

9:21

the economy. But I understand if

9:23

I were in the Trump administration

9:25

over the weekend, I'd be trying

9:27

to use the jobs report as

9:29

proof. Hey, you know, playing Kevin

9:31

Bacon in Animal House. Remain calm

9:33

all as well. Look, the jobs

9:35

report. Guess what? Jobs report literally

9:37

is when you think about it,

9:39

we always report it first Friday

9:42

of the month, but it really

9:44

is signifying the health of the

9:46

jobs market as of the 15th

9:48

of the prior month, right? That's

9:50

really what it tells you. So

9:52

this is an indicator of... what

9:54

the job market was pre-liberation day.

9:56

So this is just the beginning,

9:58

obviously what the markets do. all

10:00

day on Monday is going to

10:02

be impactful of some of the

10:04

political reaction here. But look, politically,

10:06

I do think, as I said,

10:08

in our little emergency, our first

10:10

of what maybe many emergency pods

10:12

that we start putting up here

10:14

at the Czech podcast, I do

10:16

think that this is his Afghanistan

10:18

withdrawal. You know, this is something

10:21

that's just like, you know, it's

10:23

funny. Donald Trump is convinced that

10:25

fair trade is something that's popular, right?

10:27

And when you pull fair trade, everybody's

10:29

for fair trade, it sounds good. Reciprocal

10:32

tariffs, making the case, yeah, you should,

10:34

you should, you know, whatever a country's

10:36

taxing us, we should tax back, right?

10:39

I think fairness is something that's very

10:41

easy sell. But then the impact of

10:43

it suddenly becomes very difficult to sell

10:46

because the impact is uneven, the impact

10:48

isn't what... necessarily the rhetoric

10:50

President Trump is saying is on that

10:52

front. And the reason I compare to

10:55

the Afghanistan withdrawal is like very, you

10:57

know, getting out of Afghanistan was very

10:59

popular. In fact, the Biden administration assumed

11:01

that they were, you know, as long

11:03

as getting, they got out of Afghanistan,

11:05

how they got out wasn't going to

11:07

be a big deal. But it really

11:10

sort of, he never recovered from it

11:12

because it, it, how he got out created

11:14

a competence question. about the

11:16

administration. And when you have competency

11:18

suddenly becoming a sort of front

11:21

of mind of voters, that is

11:23

very, it's almost impossible to recover

11:25

from. You can. You know, Barack

11:27

Obama recovered from the arguably the

11:29

incompetency of not being able to get

11:32

the website up for health care. They

11:34

paid a steep price, but he went

11:36

out there and sort of owned it.

11:39

And they made a very public attempt

11:41

to bring in the best and the

11:43

brightest to try to fix it. They

11:45

sort of leaned into the problem to

11:47

try to fix the problem. Donald Trump,

11:49

instead of trying to sell the

11:52

country on tariffs and explaining his

11:54

policies, left Washington early to golf.

11:56

I mean, if you were the

11:58

Democratic Party looking for a... visual

12:00

to use to attack Donald Trump

12:02

sort of the let them eat

12:04

cake moment if you will you

12:06

couldn't come up with a better

12:08

visual than him rushing down to

12:10

his golf course rushing to play

12:13

he apparently is there's some senior

12:15

championship which of course he will

12:17

be the winner of because it's

12:19

his own golf club you know

12:21

we used to laugh at the

12:23

North Korean leaders who would talk

12:25

about their golf exploits and now

12:27

we have our own leader he

12:29

likes to talk about his golf

12:31

exploits. But he's not even attempting

12:33

to sell or fix this problem.

12:35

And then you have the issue

12:37

where economists are looking at the

12:39

math, if you will, that the

12:42

Trump administration put out and how

12:44

they came up with the various

12:46

reciprocal tariffs that they came up

12:48

with. And apparently, you know, they'd

12:50

be laughed out of economics 101

12:52

classes. So this really gets at

12:54

a, it's how they did this.

12:56

feels a bit haphazard, and I

12:58

think it creates a competency question.

13:00

And again, George W. Bush, Katrina,

13:02

and Iraq, the combination of those

13:04

created a competency crisis, excuse me.

13:06

for Bush that he never recovered

13:09

from and his party started to

13:11

pay a steep price in 06

13:13

and then paid another price in

13:15

2008. This wasn't something that went

13:17

away after one cycle. I think

13:19

it's pretty clear that Democrats paid

13:21

a competency price Joe Biden did

13:23

from the Afghanistan withdrawal a little

13:25

bit in 2022, although Donald Trump

13:27

and his bad Senate recruits made

13:29

it seem as if Democrats survived

13:31

the worst. But of course, then

13:33

came 2024 and there just was

13:35

a... They just couldn't get out

13:38

of that shadow. And that thing

13:40

just sort of, if you recall,

13:42

his approval rating drop below 45,

13:44

and he never got above it.

13:46

He never got above it. And

13:48

I'm pretty confident that Donald Trump's

13:50

never going to get above 45,

13:52

because this economy, again, either he

13:54

gets rid of all these tariffs,

13:56

and because he negotiates all these

13:58

side deals, and he doesn't re-industrialize

14:00

the country. and business doesn't sort

14:02

of bounce back right away because

14:04

they're not sure if if Donald

14:07

Trump's gonna change his mind again

14:09

right or he sticks to his

14:11

guns because if he does believe

14:13

in his policy you are going

14:15

to need to stick to this

14:17

for years not months not weeks

14:19

but years and there's this horrendous

14:21

sort of you know it essentially

14:23

you have to and there are

14:25

some people that believe this you

14:27

have to knock down the house

14:29

and rebuild it. Right? And when

14:31

you knock down, you're going to

14:34

create a lot of destruction. So

14:36

in some ways, you have to

14:38

destroy the global economy in order

14:40

to rebuild this sort of singular

14:42

industrial economy that perhaps Peter Navarro

14:44

and some of his other trade

14:46

advisors are dreaming of. But neither

14:48

scenario encourages investment in the United

14:50

States. So it is, you know...

14:52

how he did it. I think

14:54

he's made his tax cut, put

14:56

his tax cut in jeopardy. Obviously

14:58

at this point, I think if

15:00

he missed, he should have ordered

15:03

this differently if he really believed

15:05

in this tariff regime. But now

15:07

he's made it where even if

15:09

he passes a tax cut, it's

15:11

going to have zero impact. on

15:13

improving people's live. Zero impact on

15:15

getting money into their hands. And

15:17

if anything, all they're going to

15:19

see is the cost of everything

15:21

else go up. So whatever cut

15:23

he may be producing. And the

15:25

last time he cut taxes, it

15:27

didn't cut everybody's taxes. He seemed

15:29

to, he cut corporate taxes more

15:32

than he cut individual taxes. In

15:34

fact, for some people, taxes went

15:36

up particularly if you lived in...

15:38

in a suburb in a light

15:40

blue, in a state that had

15:42

a state income tax. So I

15:44

think he has put his entire

15:46

presidency in jeopardy of being an

15:48

effective presidency, but as always he's

15:50

put himself at the center of

15:52

the story and the center of

15:54

the debate. But this is going

15:56

to be a pretty rough ride

15:58

and we may be, I think

16:01

the turbulence. The one thing I

16:03

wonder about is the turbulence so

16:05

great that this is what actually

16:07

fractures the Republican Party into something

16:09

that we haven't found. You know,

16:11

is this the beginning of turning

16:13

the Republican Party into two and

16:15

you end up having essentially two

16:17

parties on the right? One that

16:19

is... a business-centric sort of belief

16:21

in a global order and one

16:23

that is an isolationist nationalist party

16:25

on that front. And of course,

16:28

I think once one splinters, the

16:30

other one could splinter just behind

16:32

it. Look, this is just a

16:34

way to watch this in a

16:36

macro sense, but in the micro

16:38

sense, I think watching to see

16:40

how Congress reacts to the markets

16:42

over the next week or two

16:44

is still going to be the

16:46

best way to understand the political

16:48

impact of all of this. So

16:50

with that, I will sneak in

16:52

a break when we come back

16:54

my conversation with one of the

16:57

few Republicans willing to speak out

16:59

against Donald Trump's policies both on

17:01

national security and the economy. And

17:09

joining me for a conversation here

17:11

about sort of the tumultuous week

17:13

that we've had on the economy

17:15

is Republican Congressman Don Bacon who

17:17

is from Omaha and many people

17:19

who follow the presidential election know

17:21

his district well because Nebraska is

17:23

one of two states that splits

17:25

their electoral votes so the Omaha

17:27

Congressional District has been one of

17:29

those swingiest, probably the swingiest district

17:31

as far in America when it

17:33

comes to ad spending, but the

17:35

congressman there is Don Bacon and

17:37

he has, while he has tough

17:39

races, he makes it through, Congressman,

17:41

it's good to see you. Thanks,

17:43

good to be back at all

17:45

with you, it's good to see

17:47

you again. I appreciate that. Well,

17:49

let's start with, you know, because

17:51

I have a little bit of

17:53

time and we can do context

17:55

to our answers, just for people

17:57

that aren't as familiar with the

17:59

Omaha. and why it's been a

18:01

good economy for the last generation.

18:03

If you look at it from

18:05

that big 30-year picture, it's more

18:07

of a diverse economy than it

18:09

was 30 years ago. Give the

18:11

elevator pitch. Be my Chamber of

18:13

Commerce guy here, but what's been

18:15

happening with the Omaha economy and

18:18

why it's been a good economy

18:20

for the last generation. Well, that's

18:22

why I advised our mayor candidate.

18:24

She's been the mayor for 12

18:26

years. It's the mayor. All you

18:28

got to say is this. Forbes,

18:30

racist, the number one city in

18:32

America to live in, too, were

18:34

the fastest growing economy in America

18:36

at 9%, 9% GDP growth right

18:38

here, and one of the few

18:40

big cities where crime has gone

18:42

down. It's a great place to

18:44

love. So the economy is very

18:46

diverse. It's got an ag business

18:48

component to it. We have Weston

18:50

Foods. We have 85% of the

18:52

world's irrigation sales come out of

18:54

here. I can go on and

18:56

on it. So it's an agribus.

18:58

Haven. Haven. But we're also a

19:00

transportation hub. You have Union Pacific,

19:02

you have Burlington Northern, has weather

19:04

division headquarters here, we have a

19:06

lot of the largest trucking companies

19:08

in Omaha, but third, it's the

19:10

third largest financial sector in America.

19:12

Insurance is the big, big driver

19:14

of that. We also have the

19:16

largest private bank in Omaha, right?

19:18

But you have Aflack, mutual of

19:20

Omaha, Pacific life, New York life.

19:22

I just go on and on.

19:24

So the insurance financial industries is

19:26

taking off in Omaha and you

19:28

put all that together with a

19:30

dynamic economy and low unemployment and

19:33

the standard of living here or

19:35

the cost of living is very

19:37

competitive. No, it's actually, you know,

19:39

you can get a good job

19:41

there and pay a little bit

19:43

less to live there than you

19:45

are in some of some bigger

19:47

cities. So tell me your great

19:49

fear right now about this tariff

19:51

regime that's been placed on... essentially

19:53

every country in the world. What

19:55

that could mean for Omaha's economy?

19:57

Well we are an export state.

19:59

We're the world, we're the American.

20:01

America's largest beef exporter for starters.

20:03

And we're top five when it comes

20:05

to pork, corn, soybeans, popcorn, ethanol.

20:07

So we're an export state, export

20:10

city, and I don't have a crystal

20:12

ball. I mean, I hope it turns out, sure,

20:14

well, so I have no idea, but I see

20:16

a lot of risk. When you lose $6

20:19

trillion in the stock market in two

20:21

days, that says a lot. We've already

20:23

seen a loss in customers when it

20:25

comes to beef and popcorn. I've talked

20:27

to the big exporters and

20:29

saw these European markets have

20:31

already shut themselves down. I don't

20:34

think anybody wins in the trade war.

20:36

And I don't know why we want to

20:38

take on the entire world at once.

20:40

You know, I would have done this

20:42

for surgically. I would have probably

20:44

focused on China, up front, maybe

20:46

Russia, with their behavior. I would

20:48

have negotiated with Europe. Now Europe doesn't

20:50

have high tariffs, but they have a

20:52

lot of rules, but they have a

20:54

lot of rules. They have a lot

20:56

of rules. very hard to get in

20:58

so we should have these negotiations if

21:00

I don't where our allies are and who

21:03

our adversaries are and so taking

21:05

out the whole world it seems very risky

21:07

right that's not wise to me I

21:09

like if somebody's got a tariff on

21:11

us I think we should have a

21:13

level playing field but I think we've

21:16

done enough analysis a lot of

21:18

the numbers that the White House used

21:20

for not actual tariff numbers they were

21:22

fudged in a lot of ways and

21:24

so therefore you can't just

21:26

say it's reciprocal terrorists or

21:28

not? If I were working in the

21:30

congressional liaison office at the White

21:33

House, you'd be one of the people I'd

21:35

have on speed dial, given your sort

21:37

of the fact that you're in

21:39

a swing district, the fact that

21:41

you're in this diverse economy, that

21:43

you're a representative of. Did

21:45

you get a heads up? Did they call?

21:47

I mean, does somebody from the White House

21:49

going, you know, hey, we're thinking about this,

21:51

what do you think? Any of that

21:53

kind of conversation? They have some

21:56

pretty good legislative lives on there. There's

21:58

three that I know of that we could. we could

22:00

call. I don't think they give us

22:02

a heads up a whole lot, but

22:05

the president himself told me when I

22:07

was in the Oval Office and we

22:09

had two others of us in there.

22:12

They want to do reciprocal tariffs. They

22:14

have somebody's putting a 5% tariff on

22:16

us. We should do 5% back. I

22:19

really, that's a hard one to attack

22:21

because I think we like having a

22:23

level playing field. But I think we

22:26

went way beyond that. I don't think

22:28

we're doing, well, for example, Israel took

22:30

off all their tariffs, terrorists, two weeks

22:32

on them. After the fact, this is

22:35

one example, why are we doing tariffs

22:37

on Canada when we have a trade

22:39

deal with them and they're abiding by

22:42

the trade deal? He's the kind of

22:44

questions that I have. And I don't

22:46

think they're really reciprocal tariffs. If they

22:49

were, they would look a lot different.

22:51

I guess that's what, which, and I

22:53

guess, do you understand, what is, what

22:56

is the goal? And I'm going to

22:58

sketch it out because of the goal.

23:00

is to essentially re-industrialize the United States,

23:03

then in theory there should be no

23:05

negotiations on these tariffs. But if the

23:07

goal is to lower trade barriers, essentially,

23:10

create a more level playing field, then

23:12

you're not really going to change the

23:14

industrial base of the United States. So

23:17

do you have a good sense of

23:19

what the real goal is here of

23:21

the Trump administration? one of the talks

23:23

goes in the morning and he made

23:26

it clear his goal is to bring

23:28

back industry back to our country so

23:30

he'd be lighted out pretty clearly but

23:33

I've talked to the president and hear

23:35

him talk he often talks about level

23:37

playing field these guys are blocking our

23:40

products and so we don't have a

23:42

fair deal so I hear a little

23:44

bit of both depending who you're talking

23:47

to I'm I believe I'll give you

23:49

any staff already mentioned that Europe has

23:51

lots of rules that block our exports

23:54

We should try to knock those down

23:56

and talk to them about it. And

23:58

I wouldn't go to terrorists right away,

24:01

but I would, you know, form some

24:03

meetings and say, hey, it's not fair.

24:05

that you get to sell anything you

24:08

want in our country and we can't

24:10

get corn and beef and pork into

24:12

your guys's countries and we should have

24:14

we should have that dialogue but well

24:17

look at the Treasury Secretary today it's

24:19

just out of like their goals to

24:21

bring back manufacturing and there was a

24:24

lot of questions my mind on that

24:26

we had two workers forever retiree now

24:28

it's not like we were 30 years

24:31

ago where we had 10 workers for

24:33

every retiree. I'm not sure we have

24:35

that kind of workforce anymore, but I

24:38

think it's a high-risk move what they're

24:40

doing here. Right. Let me just go

24:42

to exports. If it's not as if,

24:45

I would assume Nebraska is making more

24:47

food, if you will, then it needs

24:49

to feed Nebraska. Right, so if it

24:52

wasn't for exports, the ag industry in

24:54

Nebraska wouldn't make any money. You know,

24:56

if you can't sell your beef overseas,

24:59

where would it go? Yeah, we would

25:01

be, you'd see a depression in the

25:03

beef market here, the beef industry. And

25:05

we have a great market, because people

25:08

like Nebraska beef, that's all, it's for

25:10

all renowned. That is one area that

25:12

you do find some buyers in Europe.

25:15

If you say Nebraska Beef, they'll buy

25:17

it and they put it on their

25:19

menu as such. Omaha Stakes. I mean,

25:22

you know, many a holiday. We've all

25:24

got our Omaha Stakes box, right? So

25:26

we would probably still have some markets

25:29

in Asia, but even then we're putting

25:31

terrorists on them and they're going to

25:33

reciprocate that. And so it's it's gonna.

25:36

The ag industry suffers in a

25:38

trade war, because this is the

25:40

low-hanging fruit for other countries to

25:42

go after when it comes to

25:44

America. Nobody can produce beef, pork,

25:47

corn, soybeans, our price that we

25:49

can in the Midwest, because we

25:51

do it at a scale that

25:53

nobody else can do it at.

25:55

Now we have one rancher here

25:57

in Nebraska that has 200,000 head

25:59

of cattle. born, it takes 1,500

26:01

to the market. When we do

26:03

it at a scale that most

26:05

people can't think of, which gives

26:07

us a great price, and it

26:09

makes us very competitive, but if

26:11

we don't have trade, it will,

26:13

it would really hurt, you know,

26:15

the Midwest economy. It's not just

26:17

Nebraska, Iowa as well. Right, well

26:19

it's not lost on me that

26:21

Chuck Grassley, Iowa Senator, Don Bacon,

26:24

Nebraska, Nebraska, you guys, two of

26:26

the co-sponsors here of essentially. make

26:28

Congress do its job again act.

26:30

I don't know what else it's

26:32

called but it's like the tariffs

26:34

are your job not the president's

26:36

job and you know this look

26:38

we have 30 years of this

26:40

this is bipartisan atrophy if you

26:42

will when it comes to congressional

26:44

action on this stuff but you

26:46

know you and I both know

26:48

House Republicans are gonna stick by

26:50

this president for the most of

26:52

your colleagues are gonna stick by

26:54

him for a while but Obviously,

26:56

you introduce it here, it sits

26:58

here, is this something that a

27:01

discharge petition, some sort of bipartisan

27:03

majority forces this vote, or do

27:05

you think more time is needed

27:07

for you to make the case

27:09

to some of your Republican colleagues?

27:11

You know, it's a good question.

27:13

First of all, I love the

27:15

history of, I'm a history guy.

27:17

So, you know, the Republicans are

27:19

very protectionist, particularly in the late

27:21

1800s. I can't think of the

27:23

last name, Holly. Yeah, Smood Holly,

27:25

not Josh Holly, no relation. Spood

27:27

Holly, they were both Republicans, they

27:29

passed this high terrorist in 1930,

27:31

and that really put us in

27:33

a deep depression. And the Republicans

27:35

have ever said, you know, we've

27:38

learned our last free trade is

27:40

the right way to go. In

27:42

fact, that's how you provide the

27:44

best merchandise, you know, the best

27:46

product, if you will, at the

27:48

lowest cost in the lowest cost

27:50

in the most efficient manner. and

27:52

it keeps our manufacturers sharp because

27:54

you've got to compete. We've bought

27:56

into this. Now we're going back

27:58

to our roots. It's funny, the

28:00

Democrats were more cautious, you know,

28:02

19... companies and 80s. Congress when

28:04

I was growing up, that was

28:06

right, it was the Democrats were

28:08

the protectionist party. I have all

28:10

these, you see, I have this

28:12

little paraphernalia, you know, it was

28:15

the Democrats putting out buttons, you

28:17

know, Japan with a cross in

28:19

it and all this stuff. But

28:21

there was a young man in

28:23

the 1980s who took out a

28:25

full-page ad trashing America's trade policies

28:27

with Japan. Was that a young

28:29

man? Was Donald, Pat Buchanan. the

28:31

beginning of the magga movement actually

28:33

started in 1992 right right that

28:35

was the beginning of this movement

28:37

inside your party and now you

28:39

went from being a majority view

28:41

in your party free traders you're

28:43

in the minority this has been

28:45

a huge switch at the moment

28:47

I think you're right because we're

28:50

following the president's lead but you

28:52

know I'm philosophically a Milton Friedman

28:54

guy I read I read else

28:56

the Smith on free trade in

28:58

the invisible hand All the kind

29:00

of stuff that I buy into

29:02

it. But it's funny, the Democrats

29:04

felt like Republicans. They were Republicans,

29:06

not like Democrats. Yeah, that's sort

29:08

of like Ukraine and Russia. Same

29:10

thing. So I call a lot

29:12

of my peers, or so-called right-wing

29:14

Republicans. I call them their George

29:16

McGovern Republicans. And they go, who's

29:18

that? Well, I got ran for

29:20

president in 1972. Yeah. But this

29:22

is what I see that's happening.

29:24

We're going to submit this bill

29:27

from Monday. And already Sir Grassley

29:29

and his Democrat colleague, they've already

29:31

submitted the Senate, they've got Southern

29:33

Republicans, already our co-sponsors. You could

29:35

see a pathway to 60 here,

29:37

depending on how the market goes,

29:39

inflation, unemployment, based off what happens

29:41

with these tariffs. I think it's

29:43

going to be a lot longer

29:45

for the House to get there.

29:47

But if the Senate ends up

29:49

passing it. And we're not seeing

29:51

good traction in the economy. You're

29:53

going to see... people say okay

29:55

this is a work and and

29:57

we got to restore our authorities

29:59

in the Constitution it says Congress

30:01

has the authority for terrorist attacks

30:04

and by the way some Republicans

30:06

are denial terrorist our attacks on

30:08

consumers wait just no other way

30:10

around it that's what it is

30:12

we have that power but we

30:14

gave it away approximately a century

30:16

ago an emergency if this emergency

30:18

then the president could do it

30:20

kind of sees okay this is

30:22

being abused this found emergency this

30:24

is the sole policy being written

30:26

or it is possible the courts

30:28

will intervene here say I was

30:30

just gonna ask you about the

30:32

courts the courts may take a

30:34

look at it too they look

30:36

this this judiciary seems a little

30:38

at least on the Supreme Court

30:41

a little hesitant what I've noticed

30:43

about the Supreme Court they're hesitant

30:45

to get involved in these fights

30:47

but they do when they do

30:49

rule they seem to say hey

30:51

Congress has the upper hand here

30:53

if they choose to use to

30:55

use it They're interpreting the Constitution

30:57

the way I read it. And

30:59

so I think our courts did

31:01

a great job despite all the

31:03

criticism that you hear from time

31:05

to time. But this is how

31:07

I see this bill. This bill

31:09

will probably take a little longer

31:11

in the House. And I think

31:13

if we don't see traction in

31:15

the economy and we continue to

31:18

see a slide in the market,

31:20

we may see some inflation about

31:22

this when people have to raise

31:24

prices, people may say, you know

31:26

what, this is the Congress role.

31:28

So I have this down as

31:30

something that it's something that it.

31:32

I believe it, okay, it's very

31:34

possible that they can pick up

31:36

steam in a couple months and

31:38

we'll have it ready to go.

31:40

Let's talk about, you know, when

31:42

I first booked you, it was

31:44

before Wednesday, liberation day, we can

31:46

make all the liberating ourselves from

31:48

our savings jokes all we want,

31:50

but you would, earlier in the

31:53

week, had written this, a pretty,

31:55

important op-ed about Russia, Ukraine, and

31:57

here again. you are expressing what

31:59

I you know what what you

32:01

and I grew up with as

32:03

a majority view of what mainstream

32:05

Republican points of view were, and

32:07

suddenly now you're in the minority

32:09

again. Explain your concerns right now

32:11

about where things stand with the

32:13

war between Russia and Ukraine. I

32:15

welcome the president trying to bring

32:17

peace and a ceasefire. There was

32:19

going to be a just peace.

32:21

It's got to be one that

32:23

respects Ukraine's sovereignty. And also their

32:25

ability to align themselves with the

32:27

West. have old trees. I mean,

32:30

these are kind of things that

32:32

are, I would say, red lines

32:34

to my world for Ukraine. I

32:36

believe it's our national security interests

32:38

that Ukraine remain independent. If they

32:40

don't, and they fall under the

32:42

Russian sunlight, Moldova will be next.

32:44

Likely, Georgia, some other countries on

32:46

the periphery. Worst case scenario, maybe

32:48

the Baltics are part of NATO,

32:50

and they're very vulnerable. I just

32:52

think we should have moral clarity.

32:54

Russia is the invader. He's killed

32:56

all of his opponents, all of

32:58

his opponents, political opponents. Ukraine is

33:00

the democracy. Saluski was elected by

33:02

a free election. And the president

33:04

at times has muddled those waters

33:07

and he's have, I would just

33:09

call it moral ambiguity on how

33:11

this force started and who's the

33:13

bad guy, who's the good guy.

33:15

And I think it's American, but

33:17

I think this has made me

33:19

a traditional Republican. I believe in

33:21

peace through strength. We've been standing

33:23

up for freedom. free market, rule

33:25

of law, as a movie we

33:27

have to fight every war, don't

33:29

want to fight every war, but

33:31

we help out countries for trying

33:33

to do this in their own

33:35

borders and push and defend themselves

33:37

against an invader, I can't think

33:39

of a more righteous fight than

33:41

Ukraine right now. It's like, beyond

33:44

me, how some of our party

33:46

does not see this with moral

33:48

clarity. Putin's the bad guy, Zoluski's

33:50

the good guy, Russia's the invader.

33:52

Ukraine's the defender and I just

33:54

find that moral clarity and I

33:56

want us to provide the weapons

33:58

and economic support to Ukraine and

34:00

also the economic punishment to Russia.

34:02

We should try to choke them

34:04

of every punning. Well they were

34:06

spared tariffs. How do you feel

34:08

about that? That's a little ridiculous.

34:10

I don't understand it and it's

34:12

indefensible. When it comes to the

34:14

issue of Russia and sort of

34:16

you you talk about moral clarity,

34:19

I don't think I mean, I

34:21

think the president's made it pretty

34:23

clear that he's a transactional guy,

34:25

that he sees this as fears

34:27

of influence. And then in some

34:29

ways, well, Putin's got nuclear weapons,

34:31

Ukraine doesn't. They're the big dog,

34:33

Ukraine isn't. You know, that feels

34:35

like sort of a mob mentality

34:37

view of things. Well, that guy's

34:39

got more control of the turf

34:41

and it's just not worth the

34:43

fight. I'm maybe I'm being too

34:45

cynical but is is that how

34:47

you think he thinks about this

34:49

stuff? It's hard to judge motives

34:51

have been careful my life to

34:53

be. Very fair. It's very fair.

34:56

I think it's a bigger. It's

34:58

the biggest problem we do in

35:00

media sometimes is assuming motive and

35:02

I hear you on that so

35:04

I appreciate you saying it. There's

35:06

two or three possibilities and I

35:08

think one I've read to like

35:10

you say he sees G. Putin

35:12

in Hill is the three big

35:14

fears of influence. people will fall

35:16

within one or the other. I

35:18

think he sees those as North

35:20

America, which is a shame if

35:22

you're European and you want to

35:24

be under the fear of Putin.

35:26

But I don't know that that's

35:28

really true. That's some people think

35:30

that other people stay strictly as

35:33

transactionalists like you already mentioned. It's

35:35

clearly a total realist in that

35:37

he doesn't have an idealism. DNA

35:39

in there. Which could be a

35:41

good thing in politics. Real politics,

35:43

I mean, there's part of me

35:45

that's like, look, you got to

35:47

have realism. You sort of have

35:49

to do diplomacy with the leaders

35:51

you have, not the leaders you

35:53

want. So a little bit of

35:55

that is good. I think 100%

35:57

realism is not good, though, I

35:59

don't think. that you have rules

36:01

on because you have to defend

36:03

your country, know your interests. But

36:05

I also want to make ends

36:08

for good. You know, the pre-market,

36:10

democracy, freedom, rule of

36:12

law, those are things that we believe

36:14

in and we have been the

36:17

largest proponents of in the

36:19

world after World War II.

36:21

We've built, you know, roughly 80

36:23

years of this international

36:25

rules and they've worked. And

36:27

it's what we like. You know, combining

36:30

the issue with Russia and Ukraine and

36:32

tariffs to me is a larger narrative

36:34

is in what you just described, which

36:37

is there seems to be this belief

36:39

that the last 80 years have been

36:41

a failure. When I look at the last

36:43

80 years and you compare it

36:45

to any other 80-year period in

36:48

sort of modern civilization, and it

36:50

may be the greatest 80-year

36:52

period of lifting... people out

36:54

of poverty. The greatest 80-year period

36:56

of helping the United States become

36:59

a power, okay, without, you know,

37:01

the greatest 80-year period when it

37:03

comes to secure, both economic and

37:05

personal security, the efforts we've made

37:07

in health, you just name it.

37:09

It's been an incredible 80 years,

37:11

and it's amazing to me how

37:14

much, frankly, you get some partisans

37:16

on both sides that just trash

37:18

out awful the last 80 years

37:20

have been. You know, if these are

37:22

terrible, I can't wait for the

37:24

good years. This is Chuck. It's

37:26

been America's century. It's been

37:28

our century. And we should not feel

37:31

ashamed at all about it. I mean,

37:33

God's been good to us. And so I

37:35

totally agree with what you're

37:37

saying. Even this balance of

37:39

trade, I mean, you can dig into

37:41

that. The fact is we're the

37:43

wealthiest nation in the world. We

37:46

have the ability to buy things we

37:48

want. We like Scotch, we like Bordeaux

37:50

wine, we like, we like, we like,

37:52

we like such American cigars. Let me

37:54

just start with a basic cup of

37:56

coffee. You talked about cigars and Scotch,

37:58

and that's one thing. A lot of

38:00

people drink coffee, whether they're working

38:02

class or upper class, and everybody's

38:05

going to get a price hike.

38:07

Probably a 15% of them increased

38:09

the cost of coffee, which is

38:11

a shame. But you know, back's

38:13

your point. This is their focus

38:15

country. And I don't want to

38:17

walk away from it. I'd like

38:19

to see America remain the leader

38:21

of the free world, a humble

38:23

leader of the free world, where

38:26

we work with NATO, Japan, Australia,

38:28

Australia, to counter. Russia and China

38:30

Iran. We can't do it by

38:32

ourselves, but if you do it

38:34

with Japan and NATO, and I

38:36

see as right now sort of

38:38

walking away from that, that we're

38:40

going to be isolationists, we're just

38:42

going to worry about ourselves, and

38:45

it's going to be us against

38:47

the world when it comes to

38:49

the economy and tariffs, that's a

38:51

more dangerous world. And I don't

38:53

see that as a positive direction

38:55

at all. Look, we've been talking

38:57

mostly about Russia and tariffs, and

38:59

it's been... consuming us, but there's

39:01

a real troubling development in Turkey.

39:04

And what's been most troubling to

39:06

me is how little the United

39:08

States is officially spoken out against

39:10

what Erdogan has done to his

39:12

chief opponent. This is, and I,

39:14

look, Turkey diplomacy is very tricky,

39:16

and it's, and I look, you

39:18

know, Obama overlook some things with

39:20

him, Trump, you know, again, real

39:22

politics, it happens, but... I've been

39:25

really disappointed in the lack of

39:27

official response on what's happening in

39:29

Turkey. What about yourself? Well, it's

39:31

increasingly more and more that Turkey

39:33

can't call themselves a democracy. We,

39:35

we, Erdogan has become the big

39:37

man. Just like, you know, Putin

39:39

and G's done, but they never

39:41

had a democracy. You know, it's

39:44

Putin or G, but you see

39:46

Turkey walking away from its democracy

39:48

roots that, uh, that allows to

39:50

become a NATO ally. And we

39:52

should rethink the future of Turkey

39:54

when it comes to NATO. And

39:56

we've had these issues with the

39:58

F-35 and things, but Turkey has

40:00

also been a not a good

40:03

friend of Israel and been very

40:05

assertive in that area. They were

40:07

a bit of a malign influence

40:09

in Syria when we were there

40:11

too. So it's, it's, Turkey's an

40:13

off and on friend and very

40:15

unpredictable. Friend's a tough word to

40:17

use there, but okay. I would

40:19

say though they've been. a little

40:21

more bold in support of Ukraine

40:24

against Russia. So I would say

40:26

it's hard to, they're not always

40:28

on the wrong side. So it's,

40:30

like I say, they're, they're a

40:32

little bit on and off again

40:34

on the stop, but I appreciate

40:36

how they spoke, when it comes

40:38

to Ukraine's sovereignty and push them

40:40

back on our president as some

40:43

of the peace or through the

40:45

negotiations where Turkey feared that. Trump

40:47

was forcing Ukraine to make too

40:49

many concessions. It was turkey that

40:51

spoke up. Very fair point. They've

40:53

been good on that. Not so

40:55

good to our Kurdish allies in

40:57

the Middle East. I mean, that's

40:59

even another issue. But ultimately, look,

41:01

it's not about their policies. It's

41:04

about, are they a democracy or

41:06

not? And if you're not a

41:08

democracy, you shouldn't be in NATO.

41:10

Don't you agree with that? I

41:12

would agree. Absolutely. I think we're

41:14

an alliance of free... democracies that

41:16

have a value system that we

41:18

don't always have to, you know,

41:20

you can have a parliament or

41:23

a Congress or it could be

41:25

different, different sorts of democracy, but

41:27

it should be where the governments

41:29

reflect the will of the people.

41:31

Hey, before I let you go,

41:33

there's two things that I'm fascinated

41:35

with about Omaha. One is the

41:37

College World Series. I grew up

41:39

in Miami, University of Miami's second

41:42

home was Omaha for the College

41:44

World Series. So I love the

41:46

College World Series. But the other

41:48

is you have... Perhaps one of

41:50

the most famous constituents in America.

41:52

The Oracle of Omaha, Mr. Warren

41:54

Buffett, I assume that's an asset

41:56

to you. How often do you

41:58

use him as a sounding board,

42:00

vice versa, what's that like, when

42:03

you've got somebody with that kind

42:05

of influence, that kind of wealth,

42:07

and that kind of mind as

42:09

a constituent? You know, I bet

42:11

with him early on, and I

42:13

was stood with him in a

42:15

privately in his office. It reminds

42:17

me of my uncle, very kind,

42:19

warm-hearted, gregarious. His dad was the

42:22

congressman from Olah in the 1940s.

42:24

He was a very conservative, anti-ruzaval

42:26

Republican. So I did ask him,

42:28

I said, hey war? What happened?

42:30

He gave a free trader, right?

42:32

No. It was fun to talk

42:34

to him about his dad. His

42:36

dad started the Nebraska Breakfast, which

42:38

we do every Wednesday in Washington,

42:41

D.C. We took about 200 Nebraskaans

42:43

every Wednesday, and all the delegation

42:45

gets about 12 minutes to see

42:47

what they're working on. And it's

42:49

a tradition going back to 1943,

42:51

which is incredible. I, you know,

42:53

Warren has helped bring a good

42:55

economy into Omaha, so we've got

42:57

to give him credit for that.

42:59

But truth for me, he doesn't

43:02

get too involved politically. He's pretty

43:04

non-political, apolitical. He was a verbal

43:06

supporter of Hillary Clinton, but beyond

43:08

that, he hasn't got too involved.

43:10

His son, Howard, is, I've developed

43:12

a pre- Well, a great relationship

43:14

with him. He, him and I

43:16

share concerns about Ukraine. I visited

43:18

a military unit on the front

43:21

line. Boy, he's done a whole

43:23

bunch of stuff on his own

43:25

with Ukraine. So I mean, just

43:27

amazing. A business one unit in

43:29

Harkiv last September, I was on

43:31

the front lines. First American kiversman,

43:33

I was with two others to

43:35

really get that close on the

43:37

front lines. It was the unit

43:40

that he's held closed and give

43:42

weapons to. So he reached out

43:44

to me and we talked about

43:46

every week now. And so I

43:48

have a good report on this.

43:50

Warren's is a little more on

43:52

the Democrat side, but we still

43:54

have a good relationship. I have

43:56

kids, I got two kids, they're,

43:58

they may be going in different

44:01

directions, you just, you never know.

44:03

I have more of a rapport

44:05

with Susie and Howard, and that's

44:07

why I talked to you more.

44:09

I really talked to Howard about

44:11

every week, and that's, I enjoy

44:13

it. You know, the guy has

44:15

invested in Ukraine significantly, and I

44:17

appreciate, you know, he puts his

44:20

money where his heart's at, and

44:22

his mouth, he's, he's, he's walking

44:24

the talk. You are you're

44:26

you spent a lengthy you had a

44:28

lengthy career in the military you are

44:31

very familiar with sort of I think

44:33

you ended in Nebraska at off it

44:35

if I'm not mistaken correct me if

44:38

I'm wrong if I'm getting that wrong

44:40

but I'm curious what you make of

44:42

the the various cut potential cuts that

44:44

are coming in the military what what

44:47

concern What are the cuts you think

44:49

are smart and what are the cuts

44:51

are you concerned about particularly regionally? I

44:54

think we'll actually be growing the military.

44:56

We're going to have a significant plus

44:58

up in the military spending. I don't

45:01

mind cutting some. We should review an

45:03

audit. No, but we're going to actually

45:05

grow our budget and we're going to

45:07

try to get our small trees spending

45:10

up to 4% GDP. So I don't

45:12

think we're going backwards on that. What

45:14

I'm a little more worried about is

45:17

the... rapid firing of some of our

45:19

top generals without an explanation and those

45:21

to what's our right to cyber these

45:23

cyber these cyber these cyber firings that

45:26

apparently are linked to look I'm not

45:28

going to make you comment on her

45:30

this lower lumer but sometimes I look

45:33

at her and think she's like a

45:35

character in some movie like she doesn't

45:37

even seem like a real but she's

45:40

somebody like this have this kind of

45:42

influence of our cyber command she's right

45:44

off the movie pulter guys since they

45:46

know but you said it there you

45:49

said it there you And she, no,

45:51

the president denies that she had a,

45:53

you know, a part of this firing,

45:56

but the fact that she was there

45:58

that day, or the day prior, and

46:00

recommended that you draw a hawk and

46:03

four or five others. get fired and

46:05

they did get fired. And there's no

46:07

other explanation for it. I know Johawk.

46:09

Johawk, he was the colonel when I

46:12

was a one star. He spent 34

46:14

years in the Air Force and every

46:16

assignment other than schools, he served either

46:19

in signals intelligence or cyber operations. There

46:21

was nobody more prepared to run cyber

46:23

command and national security agency than him.

46:25

He was the best that we had

46:28

in our military and he got fired.

46:30

for no apparent reason. The other they

46:32

said he was, they said treasonous, which

46:35

is baloney, total baloney, this guy was

46:37

the American patriot, and it set us

46:39

back. It set us back in cyber

46:42

operations and our signals intelligence. We're not

46:44

as good a day as we were

46:46

last week. Can we, can we, people

46:48

are fired? Do you trust, the way

46:51

Congress is being run right now, do

46:53

you trust that we're going to get

46:55

genuine oversight over these decisions? Well we're

46:58

going to in this because I'm the

47:00

chairman of the cyber subcommittee so I

47:02

have a say. And we're going to

47:05

ask and you know we're going to

47:07

bring in the leaders and the Democrats

47:09

can ask whatever they want and I

47:11

get to ask whatever I want you're

47:14

going to have some of our party

47:16

may not go down this path but

47:18

you're going to bring in the secretary

47:21

of the oversight of this. But here's

47:23

my point, and I made it today

47:25

publicly. Yeah, the person that has the

47:27

constitutional authority to do this doesn't make

47:30

it right. And that, okay, I was

47:32

going to cost if I won't cost.

47:34

It hurt us. This move hurt America.

47:37

We're not as good today. And I

47:39

guarantee a Russia and China are like,

47:41

ha ha, laughing at us because we

47:44

did something so stupid. And this, this,

47:46

this, you know, it's funny you say

47:48

this and look, you know. I'm not

47:50

going to put my conspiracy hat on,

47:53

but whether it's the tariffs, whether it's

47:55

the reproachment to Russia, or whether it's

47:57

these firings, the only beneficial... seem to

48:00

be she and Putin. Yeah I just

48:02

think there's a conspiracy or I don't

48:04

know what's our cause the populism there's probably

48:06

a very we said the no-nothing party

48:08

you know back in the 1840s. Yeah

48:11

the no-nothing that was a very dangerous

48:13

movement I don't think people realize it.

48:15

So there is this element that believes

48:18

the stuff that anybody that's an

48:20

incumbent is bad all these generals

48:22

were bad Russia not so bad Ukraine

48:24

they're they're they're taking our money

48:26

there's the whole ecosystem about here

48:28

that our living on certain social media

48:30

and cable and that's what they hear

48:32

and and I see I got like folks with two million

48:35

followers that don't like me because I believe I

48:37

believe in there but they all feed off each

48:39

other and they believe that General Hawk was

48:41

bad for no reason it's just a what

48:43

they had a reason because General Millie was

48:45

the chairman when he became the commander of

48:48

cyber command so guilt by association in

48:50

the right because General Millie was not

48:52

liked even though. Of course General Millie was

48:54

appointed by Donald Trump yeah that never

48:56

seems to matter to matter to matter

48:58

to people. And I would say, think they're

49:00

Gerald Brown, the chair with the joint

49:02

chief, he got fired for no reason. They

49:05

did offer a reason. I don't know of a

49:07

reason to fire him. And all that does is

49:09

hurt us. It puts us on our heels and

49:11

creates a lack of trust at the very top.

49:13

I know this with these generals. And

49:15

they're like, Don, I could be next. And

49:17

you know, I don't like getting fired if I

49:20

did something wrong. But in this case, these

49:22

are just guys who are getting fired for

49:24

the whims for the whims of the whims of

49:26

whoever. Before I let you go, one

49:28

of my theses these days is that we have

49:31

two political parties that are trying

49:33

to take the place of four political

49:35

movements, meaning both parties are arguably

49:38

too big for their coalitions. Can

49:40

you imagine a day where the

49:42

Republican Party just split in two? So

49:44

how we got the Republican Party to

49:47

begin with? They broke off with the

49:49

wigs. And we have Fremada's our first

49:51

nominee, then Abraham Lincoln. So, uh... Not

49:53

a bad run. Yeah. It was a

49:55

pretty good run. But you're

49:58

right, we have the. We

50:00

have the populist wing, we have the

50:02

Reagan wing, and I am clearly on

50:04

the Reagan wing of this party. The

50:07

Democrat Party, I would say, too, has

50:09

their populist, you know, you have AOC

50:11

gun on after Schumer right now, because

50:14

he dared to keep the government open.

50:16

And so it's, and I do think,

50:18

I used to think of politics as

50:20

a linear, a linear thing, but it

50:23

really is a horseshoe that closes at

50:25

the top. And you have our populist

50:27

wing. They're now voting with AOC on

50:29

a whole variety of. National Security Measures,

50:32

Ukraine, FISA, the defense budget, you name

50:34

it, they've gone all the way over

50:36

and they're together. And I think we

50:39

started off our show this way. When

50:41

I talked to Democrats today, the traditional

50:43

ones, they sound like Ronald Reagan. I

50:45

thought there are populists, they sound like

50:48

George McGovern. Well, we're in the middle

50:50

of a political realignment. There's no doubt

50:52

about it. And I think that maybe

50:55

it'll all look more obvious in 50

50:57

years when you and I are gone

50:59

and some historians are figuring it out.

51:01

But it is a tough place to

51:04

be in the middle of. Yeah, my

51:06

main goal is to be on the

51:08

right side and try to make a

51:10

case to try to pull people over.

51:13

With that attitude, you can't get hurt.

51:15

And because it's got some door shuts,

51:17

another door is going to open. Right,

51:20

that's how I look at it. God's

51:22

a charge. And... The thing that is

51:24

remarkable to me about you is you

51:26

keep coming back for more every two

51:29

years. I, you know, some people in

51:31

your position, go find a six-year or

51:33

four-year term to run for something else.

51:36

What keeps you coming back every two

51:38

years for what is always a multi-million

51:40

dollar race? You know, fingernail biting, etc.

51:42

etc. What brings you coming back every

51:45

two years? Well, up until now it's

51:47

been love of country. I really believe

51:49

my mission, serve God, serve my country,

51:51

being a Republican is not, you know,

51:54

I mean, because that's what I believe,

51:56

but it's more about my beliefs than

51:58

being part of a team. I want,

52:01

that's my compass. I'm working. She must

52:03

be exhausted. But it's about to serve

52:05

in our country. I love Abraham Lincoln.

52:07

I love Ike Eisenhower. I love Ronald

52:10

Reagan. I love people who, I love

52:12

Winston Churchill. I love people who've made

52:14

a difference and stood. You know, if

52:17

I think about my favorite leaders, they

52:19

were unpopular at a time, but then

52:21

rural events show that they were the

52:23

ones that were right. I mean, Churchill

52:26

was very unpopular in the 1930s. Suddenly

52:28

by 1940. And he really became unpopular

52:30

again, by the way, by the late

52:32

40s, but... But those are the people

52:35

I admire that they follow a compass.

52:37

Yeah. And I want to get these

52:39

things. You know, on the good side,

52:42

I mean, the one 18th Congress, of

52:44

all 435 congressmen, I got the most

52:46

bills passed and signed in the law,

52:48

nine laws. In the one 17th Congress,

52:51

I was number two of four thirty

52:53

five. I've been able to repair two

52:55

military bases. in my district, we're going

52:58

to have an international airport because of

53:00

some of the work, myself, a dub

53:02

Fisher. I feel like I'm having an

53:04

impact and that's probably back. Now, two

53:07

years ago I had a debate about

53:09

running again and I couldn't let, there's

53:11

a, one of my Democrat opponents was

53:14

going to get back in the ring

53:16

and I felt like I didn't reflect

53:18

the majority of the people. So I

53:20

felt like if I came back this

53:23

last election, One, I'm getting results, but

53:25

two, I felt like I couldn't let

53:27

the far left or the far right

53:29

chase me out. I needed to show

53:32

them I can win and defeat both

53:34

of them. And that's what we did

53:36

this last, this last election. You know,

53:39

I was still debating about the upcoming

53:41

election. My wife has a vote. I

53:43

have eight grandkids. And I do think

53:45

this is not the healthiest lifestyle. No.

53:48

So there's some soul searching and praying

53:50

going on for... What are you doing

53:52

in the future? But I do know

53:55

this, God has a plan. And I'm

53:57

just going to do the best I

53:59

can. Well Congressman you've been very generous

54:01

with your time this Sunday afternoon and

54:04

this is what I've you know I

54:06

think I've interviewed you probably a dozen

54:08

times but there were always five to

54:10

ten minute interviews there's something about this

54:13

is what I've been most enthusiastic about

54:15

about moving to here it's like letting

54:17

it breathe letting people get to know

54:20

who you are what makes you tick

54:22

I hope you enjoyed it as well.

54:24

Thank you and I always I've been

54:26

back in June I thought like you

54:29

were fair you asked tough questions. But

54:31

they were fair. I've had a few

54:33

interviews where, let's talk about Ukraine. And

54:36

also they tell you, I spend 95%

54:38

of my time talking about the Georgia

54:40

Senate race. I go, I'm from Nebraska.

54:42

I'm going to get, why do you

54:45

ask for this? I thought I was

54:47

talking about Ukraine. I always feel like

54:49

you're a fair. Good questions. Well, we

54:51

want to get a got-you-moment to put

54:54

you to make you go viral. Right?

54:56

All right, enjoy and I'll tell you,

54:58

Miami's not going this year to the

55:01

College World Series, but the next time

55:03

they do, I'm getting up there and

55:05

I'm gonna force you to buy me

55:07

a hot talk. Well, we try to

55:10

do one or two games a year

55:12

at the World Series. It's fun. Yeah.

55:14

It's a great event. I actually did

55:17

get to go once. It's unbelievable. Yeah,

55:19

it's a great event. Forbes rated Omaha,

55:21

the number one city in America for

55:23

a reason. We're good. There you go.

55:26

We've done the Chamber of Commerce duty.

55:28

They always both thank you cards on

55:30

this one. Congressman this is great. Appreciate

55:33

it. Well as you saw I ended

55:35

our conversation sort of where I wanted

55:37

to begin this podcast which is you

55:39

know is this the start of a

55:42

larger of a larger breakup or a

55:44

larger realignment inside the Republican Party. as

55:46

you saw Don Bacon very much a

55:48

student of history bringing up the no-nothing's

55:51

there. Look, I think it's going to

55:53

be a lot easier to see in

55:55

50 years, as I said. during our

55:58

interview when I'm long gone. I can't,

56:00

you know, I can't wait for the,

56:02

for, to see, to date, you know,

56:04

to be a political scientist 30 years

56:07

from now and dig in sort of

56:09

to what was really happening here, right,

56:11

and being able to sort of correctly

56:14

observe. I don't think people understood what

56:16

was happening in the 1920s and 30s

56:18

in the moment. Now, we now know,

56:20

wow, all of those terrible economic decisions.

56:23

actually led to the rise of Hitler.

56:25

So sometimes, though, you need space in

56:27

order to see what's happening there. Obviously,

56:29

part of me wishes people would learn

56:32

the history of, learn a little, we

56:34

could learn more with history since so

56:36

many times, decisions while they don't repeat

56:39

themselves, they often rhyme with where things

56:41

are. But anyway, I thought, I think

56:43

it's very clear. that Congressman Bacon comes

56:45

from sort of as he said he

56:48

he is calling it the Reagan wing

56:50

I think there's plenty of magga who

56:52

want to you know Reagan is one

56:55

of those they fight over who gets

56:57

to have him but I really think

56:59

he really gave gave away it to

57:01

me who he is but Eisenhower you

57:04

know that that's you know the Eisenhower

57:06

and sort of where I think Reagan

57:08

came from those sort of nationalist grassroots

57:10

in the Barry Goldwater era, but he

57:13

sort of evolved into somebody that was

57:15

a bit more of an internationalist at

57:17

the end of the day than... He

57:20

certainly put it this way, 1980 Reagan

57:22

was a lot different I would argue

57:24

than 1976 Reagan on that ideological front.

57:26

So I hope you enjoyed the conversation.

57:29

I do think to understanding the dynamics

57:31

of the Republican Party today, that's as

57:33

good of a conversation as you can

57:36

have with somebody who's in the middle

57:38

of these fights. Keep an eye on

57:40

him. He didn't sound like a guy

57:42

that might not be, that's going to

57:45

be seeking re-election for what it's worth,

57:47

but I'll let him make his decision.

57:49

I'm not going to overread those tea

57:52

leaves. But I do think if he

57:54

isn't seeking re-election, my guess is he'll

57:56

even be more comfortable speaking truth to

57:58

power on where he thinks that direction

58:01

of the Republican Party ought to go. And

58:03

here we go with an asked Chuck

58:05

question. This one is from Tyler Steffy.

58:07

He's a current student at GW, so

58:09

he said it was great to hear.

58:11

Jake and I discussed the basketball program

58:14

for GW. I'm glad to see he

58:16

listened all the way to the end

58:18

and to get some attention for GW

58:20

revolutionary basketball. But here's his question. Do

58:22

you think the latest data for progress

58:24

poll showing Okazio Cortez, AOC, with a

58:27

19-point lead over Schumer and a potential

58:29

2028 primary, will have any impact on

58:31

his and the rest of the Senate

58:33

leaderships. current makeup or strategy. Thank

58:35

you much. Keep up the inspiring

58:37

work on independent journalism. Tyler, I

58:39

appreciate the question. Look, I'm going

58:42

to be honest. I'm a tad

58:44

skeptical of the poll. I'm not

58:46

skeptical of the direction that I

58:48

do. I think there's more animation

58:50

right now in the Democratic Party

58:52

that's sort of that I view

58:54

the poll more as anti-shumor than

58:57

pro-AOC. I would be careful assuming

58:59

that that is exactly how it

59:01

would play out because I think,

59:03

you know. Chuck Schumer's ability

59:05

to connect with Western New Yorkers,

59:08

upstate New Yorkers, it's why

59:10

he became a senator in

59:12

the first place. He is

59:14

not somebody that's been stuck

59:16

just worrying about the five

59:18

boroughs of New York City. I

59:20

think it is so, but to me, I

59:22

do think the poll should serve

59:24

as a bit of a warning

59:26

shot to Democratic leadership that there

59:28

is... that the status quo is not

59:31

something people want. That they may

59:33

be willing to go with somebody

59:35

that they may be politically to

59:37

their left, politically they're a little

59:39

less comfortable with, simply because it's

59:41

time for a new generation of

59:43

leadership. The question I have, though, is

59:45

whether AOC really wants to be just

59:47

another senator, or does she want to

59:50

use her political influence to shape a

59:52

presidential race, even if she doesn't win

59:54

it? Many ways running and losing a

59:57

presidential race, see Bernie Sanders. can

59:59

actually give you more leverage in

1:00:01

the party than winning a US

1:00:04

Senate seat and being sort of

1:00:06

you know one of say 47

1:00:08

to 52 depending on how many

1:00:10

seats your party has at any

1:00:12

given time and and how much

1:00:15

influence you have there. So I

1:00:17

think the significance of Schumer's performance

1:00:19

in the poll is what I

1:00:21

am most focused on less her

1:00:23

number right to me it was

1:00:26

really about about the message to

1:00:28

humor there. So, you know, again,

1:00:30

I think what's going to be

1:00:32

more interesting is to see which way

1:00:34

she goes. And look, as I said

1:00:37

at the beginning in my opener on

1:00:39

this podcast, is there, you know, I

1:00:41

think the ingredients are there, if we

1:00:43

had a, if we had the, an

1:00:45

infrastructure that allowed for essentially four major

1:00:48

parties rather than two, well, AOC would

1:00:50

be the error parent. to Sanders and

1:00:52

running that one fourth major party, right,

1:00:54

on that wall. So I think what

1:00:57

I'm going to be intrigued about is

1:00:59

where, you know, right now there's a

1:01:01

lot of, there's a lot of anger

1:01:03

at Trump. But not every progressive Democrat

1:01:06

thinks tariffs are a bad thing. So,

1:01:08

how the opposition on the left formulates

1:01:10

itself, is it going to be, are

1:01:12

they going to set aside their own

1:01:14

differences, or is this going to be

1:01:17

a moment where you start to see

1:01:19

Democratic primaries that are actually very high

1:01:21

profile and have sort of high profile

1:01:23

ideological clashes, like we've seen on the

1:01:26

Republican side, and many a Democrat thought

1:01:28

that was... you know the more they

1:01:30

saw that on the Republican side the

1:01:32

weaker that made the Republican Party ironically

1:01:35

and ended up strengthening the Republican Party

1:01:37

and strengthening Donald Trump. So I might

1:01:39

argue and I've said it before that

1:01:41

I think the Democrats would benefit of

1:01:43

having a lot of primaries that were

1:01:46

similar to an AOC versus Schumer. have

1:01:48

them all over the country and sort

1:01:50

of get a better sense, get back

1:01:52

in touch with the grassroots of their

1:01:55

party and make sure there is representative

1:01:57

of where the party wants to go

1:01:59

more so than perhaps where the donors

1:02:01

want the party to want to go.

1:02:04

So I certainly think as we, as

1:02:06

I focus on the fracture that I

1:02:08

think is taking place on the right

1:02:10

side of the political spectrum in this

1:02:12

country, a fracture on the left side

1:02:15

of this country is almost just as

1:02:17

possible. So with that, I will wrap

1:02:19

up. I do want to, I was

1:02:21

going to say, I was going to

1:02:24

use the expression, not to sound like

1:02:26

a humble brag, but that's not a

1:02:28

humble brag. I'm very excited. I have,

1:02:30

I have, I have, I have Houston

1:02:33

winning the whole thing, and I have

1:02:35

Yukon winning the whole thing. I've never

1:02:37

done this before, and of course, by

1:02:39

uttering it now, I am proving number

1:02:42

one that I'm taping this just before

1:02:44

the end of the end of the

1:02:46

Yukon South Carolina game on Sunday. and

1:02:48

I'm doing this before obviously the Florida

1:02:50

Houston game but I am really excited

1:02:53

that I might do something I've never

1:02:55

done which is pick both national champs

1:02:57

right now of course I can't win

1:02:59

any of my I think I have

1:03:02

one family pool I can win if

1:03:04

Houston wins but even if Yukon wins

1:03:06

I'm not the highest point total because

1:03:08

you'll be shocked to know this I

1:03:11

wasn't the only one in in a

1:03:13

couple of the pools that I was

1:03:15

in that thought Yukon would win the

1:03:17

whole thing but hey I just wanted

1:03:19

to get on the record with saying

1:03:22

I think I'm on the verge of

1:03:24

getting as close that I've ever had

1:03:26

of having a men's women's basketball suite.

1:03:28

So I'm going to pull a muscle

1:03:31

to pat myself on the back. And

1:03:33

with that, until we upload again.