0:05

Hello and welcome to the Reason

0:07

Roundtable, the podcast of free minds,

0:09

free markets, and free takes. On

0:11

today's episode, we're going to talk

0:13

about Donald Trump versus the rule

0:15

of law, the new Congressional Budget

0:18

Plan, same as the old Congressional

0:20

Budget Plan, J.D. Vance goes to

0:22

Europe, and so much more. I'm

0:24

your host, Peter Souterman, and today

0:26

I am joined by my illustrious

0:28

colleagues, Catherine Manggi Ward, and Nick

0:30

Gillespie, as well as a very

0:32

special guest. Former Congressman Justin Amash,

0:34

welcome to the show. Everybody say

0:36

hello. Howdy. Hey everyone. Happy Tuesday

0:38

to everybody except America's Presidents. You

0:40

got your day. Sadly for this

0:43

country, but happily for this podcast,

0:45

the ranks of America's Presidents do

0:47

not include Justin Amash. Justin, thank

0:49

you so much for joining us.

0:51

Welcome to the show. I wanted

0:53

to introduce you briefly to the

0:56

reason roundtable audience, and I realize

0:58

there's actually too much to say

1:00

I didn't know where to start.

1:02

So I actually asked JetGBT to

1:04

write an introduction for you. And

1:07

here's what it said. I just

1:09

want to run this by you. Justin

1:11

Amash, I can't do a robot

1:13

voice. Justin Amash is a prominent

1:15

advocate for limited government, individual liberty,

1:18

and strict constitutionalism. He's known for

1:20

his principled independence in American politics.

1:22

Serving in Congress from 2011 to

1:25

2021, he consistently challenged government overreach,

1:27

opposed warrantless surveillance, and fought against

1:29

excessive spending, often breaking with both

1:32

major parties. His departure from the

1:34

GOP in 2019 over concerns about

1:36

executive power and due process cemented

1:39

his reputation as a rare politician

1:41

willing to put principle over party

1:43

and since living office he has

1:45

continued to champion libertarian ideas criticizing

1:48

authoritarian tendencies in both political parties.

1:50

Does that sound about right to you? Well

1:52

I have a confession I am chat GPT.

1:54

That's what he's been doing since he left

1:56

office. What do you think I've been doing?

1:58

So he's been really hired me

2:00

to just answer all the questions

2:03

that people ask. So I assume

2:05

that's an endorsement of everything Chachibiti

2:07

said about you. And everything Chachibiti

2:09

says. I think it, I mean

2:11

it sounded pretty good. Is there

2:13

anything else you want to tell

2:15

us about what you've been doing

2:17

recently? Well I've been lifting weights.

2:20

Sure. Me too. Also same. I

2:22

just moved from the bulking phase

2:24

to the cutting phase and so...

2:26

Oh no, so he's going to

2:28

be grumpy on this podcast. I've

2:30

been hungry for the past couple

2:32

weeks. Why are you cutting? Why

2:34

do you need to get shredded,

2:36

Justin? Well, I think if you

2:39

want to succeed in politics, you'd

2:41

better get shredded. That's the way

2:43

I look at it. Sure. It

2:45

doesn't hurt to look good while

2:47

you're working at this job. If

2:49

I understand what Doge is doing

2:51

correctly, the American government has also

2:53

moved recently from the bulking to

2:56

the cutting phase, and that's what

2:58

we're going to talk about here.

3:00

After we get a word from

3:02

a sponsor, Hey Reason Roundtable Listeners.

3:04

Peter Suderman here, are you a

3:06

student looking for a transformative opportunity

3:08

that supports the foundations of a

3:10

free society? Reliance College invites students

3:13

aged 16 to 24 to the

3:15

2025 Great Connection Seminar in Chicago

3:17

from July 26th to August 2nd.

3:19

This year's theme, Reason and Free

3:21

Will, dives into timeless ideas from

3:23

writers such as Thomas Jefferson, Enrand,

3:25

and Aristotle. Students sharpen critical thinking

3:27

in small dynamic groups developing the

3:29

intellectual tools needed to thrive in

3:32

a free society. Outside the classroom,

3:34

they'll explore Chicago's vibrant culture, touring

3:36

museums, trying improv, building lifelong connections.

3:38

Parents, this program equips students to

3:40

think, reason, and act independently. is

3:42

just $400 before March 1st. That

3:44

includes room and board with scholarships

3:46

available. Don't miss out. Visit Reliance

3:49

college.org/reason to learn more. apply. That's

3:51

Reliance to college.org/reason. So the question

3:53

of the week is, is President

3:55

Donald Trump saving the country or

3:57

is he undermining the rule of

3:59

law? On last week's episode we

4:01

talked about the legal challenges facing

4:03

Doge, Elon Musk's Department of Government

4:06

efficiency. Musk says Doge's mission is

4:08

to cut wasteful spending and reduce

4:10

the power of the bureaucracy. It's

4:12

a mission that I think it's

4:14

fair to say Just about everybody

4:16

on this podcast supports, at least

4:18

in broad strokes, but under the

4:20

Constitution, only Congress has the power

4:22

of the purse. And there are

4:25

real questions about the constitutionality of

4:27

some of what Doge is doing.

4:29

It seems pretty clear, however, that

4:31

some people just don't care. In

4:33

the comment section of this podcast,

4:35

for example, I encountered people saying,

4:37

why are you guys so negative?

4:39

We got letters asking, can't we

4:42

just take the win? One of

4:44

the people who seems nuts care

4:46

is President Donald Trump himself. Over

4:48

the weekend, he posted on X,

4:50

he who saves his country, does

4:52

not violate any law. Justin Amash.

4:54

You, according to chatGPT, are a

4:56

critic of both parties and a

4:59

defender of kind of core constitutional

5:01

ideas. Trump seems to be arguing

5:03

here that the ends justify the

5:05

means, the president is above the

5:07

law, at least till long as

5:09

what he's doing is good. How

5:11

do you respond to that? I

5:13

think everyone knows I don't agree

5:15

with that. I don't agree that

5:18

the president is above the law.

5:20

I've heard a lot of the

5:22

defenders of this quote, and he's

5:24

attempting to quote Napoleon, I think,

5:26

and it's a kind of thing

5:28

that... I saw that movie. Yeah,

5:30

I think, yeah. This kind of

5:32

thing that Trump likes to do.

5:35

And I heard a lot of

5:37

his defenders saying, well, of course,

5:39

you shouldn't comply with unjust laws

5:41

and all that kind of thing.

5:43

And if a law is unjust,

5:45

then it's not a real law.

5:47

That's not what the quote is

5:49

really saying. The quote is saying

5:52

that you don't violate a law.

5:54

Nobody is, for those who say

5:56

you should protest unjust, unjust, unjust.

5:58

You should accept the consequence. to

6:00

send a message, to get things

6:02

changed. He's saying here that essentially

6:04

he's above the law. It's a

6:06

very different thing. And so, yeah,

6:08

I mean, I pointed out that

6:10

this was basically the neoconservative mindset.

6:12

It's been the mindset of a

6:14

lot of different groups over the

6:16

years, but the neoconservative mindset that

6:19

I heard throughout Congress was, well,

6:21

we have to pass this to

6:23

save the country. We have to...

6:25

surveil everyone. We have to go

6:27

to war in every country. It

6:29

doesn't matter what the Constitution says.

6:31

It doesn't matter what the limits

6:33

are. And so that's just one

6:35

example, you know, the neo-conservative mindset,

6:37

but it's been the mindset of

6:39

people throughout history who have wanted

6:41

to abuse the system and take

6:43

advantage for their own gain. And

6:45

that's not to say that it

6:47

can't, that something can't be used

6:50

for good, but in the long

6:52

run. you're out for despotism if

6:54

you have this kind of system.

6:56

I thought your invocation of neoconservatism

6:58

was really interesting when you were

7:00

responding to this on Twitter or

7:02

X or whatever we're supposed to

7:04

call it now because, you know,

7:06

your argument was this is what

7:08

brought us the Patriot Act, the

7:10

forever war, endless surveillance, you know,

7:12

sort of warrantless surveillance that is

7:14

possibly unconstitutional. All of these kind

7:16

of specific programs and, you know,

7:18

government actions that a lot of

7:21

people in the magga world, a

7:23

lot of Trump supporters do not

7:25

like. And Trump has really defined

7:27

himself as, yes, he's a repos,

7:29

he's a repos, and some people

7:31

will say he is a conservative,

7:33

I don't even know if Trump

7:35

uses that word himself, but he's

7:37

defined himself against Bush-era Neo- Conservatism,

7:39

you are arguing that there is

7:41

a link here. Can you just

7:43

draw that out for me a

7:45

little bit? Because that is not

7:47

a criticism that I see made

7:49

of Trump very much. Yeah, that's

7:52

why I used those examples. I

7:54

mean, I used it intentionally, and

7:56

I got a lot of people

7:58

in the comments and the replies

8:00

saying, oh, this is not a...

8:02

an apt comparison, what are you

8:04

doing here? But it was used

8:06

on purpose because I know that

8:08

mega world is against neo- conservatism,

8:10

at least rhetorically. So I wanted

8:12

to use it to show that

8:14

the same principle that the president

8:16

is espousing here, that he's essentially

8:18

above the law, the law doesn't

8:20

apply to if he's saving the

8:23

country, is what neo- conservatives used

8:25

in the past and what people

8:27

throughout history have used to abuse

8:29

power and to harm lots of

8:31

people and violate people's rights. So

8:33

I just wanted to make that

8:35

comparison. And let's not forget, by

8:37

the way. This is another thing

8:39

that is important to note. In

8:41

Trump's first term, he... reauthorized the

8:43

Patriot Act. He reauthorized FISA 702.

8:45

He continued the forever war. No

8:47

war was ended, though the bombings

8:49

in the Middle East and throughout

8:51

the world continued, and he continued

8:54

indefinite detention of Americans without charge

8:56

or trial. All these policies remained

8:58

while President Trump was in office

9:00

in his first term. So for

9:02

those who say like, oh, well,

9:04

don't blame President Trump for this

9:06

stuff. It's, you know, Neocons of

9:08

the past. I worry, again, as

9:10

I pointed out, that the same

9:12

kind of philosophy can apply to

9:14

people who brand themselves in different

9:16

ways, and you can get the

9:18

same kinds of results. Yeah, those

9:20

aren't neo-conservative policies anymore to the

9:22

extent that they exist in a

9:25

Republican administration Those are now Trumpian

9:27

magga policies Nick, I want to

9:29

ask you just generally here You've

9:31

been away for a couple of

9:33

weeks. So nice to have you

9:35

back Before you left you said

9:37

that you were cautiously optimistic about

9:39

Donald Trump's presidency about his second

9:41

term. How is your cautious optimism

9:43

holding up now? Well, you know

9:45

the drugs have worn off so

9:47

everything's a little more muted But

9:49

no, I'm still, you know, that

9:51

tweet in particular was, you know,

9:53

classic Trump rage bait. And it

9:56

is offensive and disturbing for all

9:58

sorts of reasons. You know, I

10:00

was looking up other, you know,

10:02

it's odd, like if whenever an

10:04

American leader, you know, was quoting

10:06

Napoleon Bonaparte, something has gone wrong.

10:08

to begin with, but another Bonaparte

10:10

quote, which is worth thinking about

10:12

is that the greatest danger occurs

10:14

at the moment of victory. And

10:16

what we might, you know, what

10:18

I think all of us should

10:20

be worried about, particularly Maga people,

10:22

is whether or not Trump and

10:24

Elon and the whole operation is

10:27

going to start going down weird

10:29

rabbit holes where they destroy the

10:31

base that they have for certain

10:33

broad missions. You know, that I

10:35

think everybody is getting behind. And

10:37

before we talk about, I know

10:39

we're gonna talk about the GOP

10:41

budget plan, which is a great

10:43

example of how shitty things are

10:45

likely to become. We should also

10:47

recognize directionally things are going. in

10:49

a better direction than they would

10:51

be if Kamala Harris had won.

10:53

And I find many of the

10:55

things that the Trump administration is

10:58

doing to be pointless and stupid

11:00

and really like these are minor

11:02

things of you know like taking

11:04

off you know an extra cherry

11:06

on top of a Sunday or

11:08

something as opposed to going for

11:10

the real problems that are at

11:12

core. You know, you asked me,

11:14

am I cautiously optimistic? Yeah, I

11:16

still am. For all of the

11:18

rotten things that might be going

11:20

on, we're having a vastly different

11:22

conversation than we were even six

11:24

months ago. And that conversation is

11:26

about cutting the size scope and

11:29

spending of government. And this is

11:31

where I think libertarians really can

11:33

make a difference because MAGA people

11:35

are going to follow Trump, you

11:37

know, the state, that's him. Whatever

11:39

he does, they will define themselves

11:41

as such. I think it's up

11:43

to principle of the principle of

11:45

libertarians. start talking about, that isn't

11:47

cutting government spending, it is not

11:49

cutting government regulation, it is not

11:51

cutting the ability of one group

11:53

of people to tell other people

11:55

how to live. So still cautiously

11:57

optimistic. So many of these 50

12:00

million dollar programs that Trump is

12:02

discovering, I mean you compared them

12:04

to cherries on a Sunday, I

12:06

think of them more like peanuts,

12:08

like a single peanut in a

12:10

peanut buster. parfait, like it's still

12:12

a peanut buster parfait. Catherine, you

12:14

edit a libertarian magazine that has

12:16

long advocated for cuts to government

12:18

spending. for reducing the power of

12:20

the federal bureaucracy. You also love

12:22

rockets, and you've praised Elon Musk

12:24

repeatedly on this podcast for his

12:26

accomplishments with SpaceX. There's that old

12:28

saying, be careful what you wish

12:31

for, right? Like you wish that

12:33

you find a genie, and you're

12:35

like, oh, I'm gonna wish for

12:37

the thing I want most in

12:39

the world, and then you get

12:41

it, and it's not exactly what

12:43

you thought. Do you sometimes feel

12:45

these days, like maybe you told

12:47

a genie, like, you told a

12:49

genie, like, evil and devious? Yes,

12:51

absolutely. I feel like, like in

12:53

my, in my like, ariest daydreams

12:55

at some point, I had the

12:57

thought like, what if, what if

12:59

Elon Musk was in charge? And

13:02

then, and then I like fell

13:04

asleep and forgot about it and

13:06

like, yes, a genie heard me

13:08

and now I am cursed with

13:10

the fulfillment of my wishes. Musk

13:12

tweeted in response to the, to

13:14

the rule of law tweet from

13:16

Trump, like 10 American flags. And

13:18

that is not, that's not. what

13:20

I was hoping for, to be

13:22

quite honest, in my fondest dreams.

13:24

I am struggling with the fact

13:26

that like, this is a little

13:28

fun. It's pretty fun. It's pretty

13:30

fun to just watch Elon Musk

13:33

running around being like, all your

13:35

database are belong to us. Like

13:37

he's just out here doing stuff

13:39

that people did not previously dare

13:41

to do. the fact that there's

13:43

like low-key ongoing baby mama drama

13:45

just like happening under as like

13:47

a bare undercurrent to all of

13:49

this is outstanding it really is

13:51

like you personally are scripting all

13:53

of this it's delightful however the

13:55

thing that I want even more

13:57

than a sort of chaotic and

13:59

entertaining political scene is for this

14:01

to work I would like it

14:04

to work I would like for

14:06

government to be smaller at the

14:08

end of this process. And as

14:10

of right now, I just don't

14:12

have a lot of faith that

14:14

that's what's going to happen. I

14:16

think that, and I've said this

14:18

before, we end up with a

14:20

scenario that's similar to the first

14:22

Trump term, which is to say,

14:24

a lot of, there's like a

14:26

very high unseen element to this.

14:28

Like a lot of new regulations

14:30

are not going to be promulgated.

14:32

A lot of new spending probably

14:35

will not happen that would have

14:37

happened under Harris or even under

14:39

a mainstream Republican. And that is

14:41

good, and I like that. But

14:43

in the mean time. Like rule

14:45

of law is like, it's like

14:47

Tinkerbell, like you have to clap

14:49

if you believe, like you just,

14:51

the way that we have rule

14:53

of law is if everyone believes

14:55

we have rule of law. It's

14:57

not like, you know, it's something

14:59

that's subject only to enforcement actions

15:01

by the courts or by the

15:03

cooperation of law enforcement or by

15:06

the cooperation of elected officials. It

15:08

has to be an ethos in

15:10

the country. And, and I do.

15:12

think that you know it's it's

15:14

in reason foundation's mission statement is

15:16

that we like the rule of

15:18

law and as much as that

15:20

sometimes can hurt my little anarchist

15:22

heart until we get to my

15:24

utopia we do need to take

15:26

that seriously. Do you think though

15:28

that any of these cuts could

15:30

happen and you know and I

15:32

mean this for everybody but especially

15:34

Justin because you worked at the

15:37

place that supposedly is you know,

15:39

writing the laws and then, you

15:41

know, and whatnot. But like, can

15:43

you get cuts if you say,

15:45

okay, we're going to go through

15:47

the rule of law and we're

15:49

not going to use any executive

15:51

actions to start slicing away parts

15:53

of the budget that are under

15:55

the White House's control? I think

15:57

you can, but you have to

15:59

do it in the way that

16:01

the House and Senator is supposed

16:03

to work, and they don't work

16:05

that way right now. So... I

16:08

understand why Trump is taking this

16:10

approach. I don't agree with the

16:12

general approach of just ignoring Congress.

16:14

I understand. why he's doing it

16:16

because it's the easy way, but

16:18

it's not robust. It's not sustainable.

16:20

It doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

16:22

You're going to have all sorts

16:24

of court cases, legal challenges. A

16:26

lot of this stuff is going

16:28

to get reversed. At the end

16:30

of the day, who knows how

16:32

much of this actually ends up

16:34

happening in reality? What you have

16:36

to do if you want to

16:39

change the system is you have

16:41

to persuade Congress. There's no getting

16:43

around that. Congress decides the spending,

16:45

Congress decides the spending, it's not

16:47

decided by Elon Musk as much

16:49

as many of us might like

16:51

him to decide spending decisions. I

16:53

mean we know that he can

16:55

cut bloated organizations, we understand that.

16:57

I like the energy he has,

16:59

I like that he's tackling this

17:01

and that Doj is going after

17:03

this aggressively, but unless they follow

17:05

through and persuade Congress. And that's

17:07

on the president in large part,

17:10

that he has to be willing

17:12

to veto things. He has to

17:14

be willing to say, no, I'm

17:16

not going to raise the debt

17:18

ceiling. Unless the president is willing

17:20

to put the pressure on Congress,

17:22

none of this will last. And

17:24

at the end of the day,

17:26

will you end up with is

17:28

an erosion of the rule of

17:30

law. And the next administration, which

17:32

could be Democrats again, who knows?

17:34

You could end up with a

17:36

Democratic administration. You could end up

17:38

with a very left-wing administration even.

17:41

You just don't know how these

17:43

things keep swinging back and forth

17:45

from, you know, Obama to Trump

17:47

to Biden to Trump and who

17:49

knows what the next person's going

17:51

to be. So if you create

17:53

a precedent that all this stuff

17:55

is whatever the president wants to

17:57

do, the president can do, then

17:59

you're setting of... your settings up

18:01

for a very dangerous future and

18:03

for those of us who care

18:05

about liberty for those of us

18:07

who are libertarians this is not

18:09

the way to do it we're

18:12

never going to win in an

18:14

anything goes system Honestly, like if

18:16

you say the person in charge

18:18

can do whatever they want, that

18:20

is not a win for libertarian.

18:22

They're not going to do what

18:24

we want. They're not doing what

18:26

the libertarians want. I can assure

18:28

you of that. Populism is going

18:30

to win 10 out of 10

18:32

times in a system where you've

18:34

got the person at the top.

18:36

A lot of the people in

18:38

these kinds of dictatorships, they end

18:40

up there. through populism. It starts

18:43

with this kind of rhetoric. You're

18:45

doing what the people want. People

18:47

think that these dictators just rose

18:49

to power. No, they did what

18:51

the people want. And so I'm

18:53

not suggesting that the current administration

18:55

is dictatorial. I'm just saying that

18:57

you are setting us up for

18:59

potentially a future where you have

19:01

a more authoritarian type of system.

19:03

And that is very bad for

19:05

Americans. And there are two different

19:07

bills, right, that are out there

19:09

right now that could move power.

19:11

quite significantly on this token, right?

19:14

So we have, I guess it's

19:16

Mike Lee's bill, who would grant

19:18

general statutory authority to reorganize the

19:20

executive branch to the president. And

19:22

that would make some of what

19:24

Doj is doing more legitimate. It

19:26

would still be subject to like

19:28

a fast-track type vote, I think,

19:30

so Congress retains. you know, a

19:32

final veto power on that. The

19:34

other option is the Ran Paul

19:36

version, right, which is the legislative

19:38

could reclaim its authority over the

19:40

bureaucracy, and that would work too.

19:42

But both of these paths still

19:45

require Congress to do something, to

19:47

do anything, to like give a

19:49

shit in a way that I

19:51

just am not sure Congress is

19:53

willing to do right now. Or

19:55

they require the executive to simply

19:57

ask Congress. Hey. We want to

19:59

do this, we want to cut

20:01

this spending, or I should say,

20:03

we want to not spend this

20:05

money. And instead of just doing

20:07

it entirely through executive power, through

20:09

impoundment, you just create a rescission

20:11

bill, you send it back to

20:13

Congress, there are people out there

20:16

suggesting that this can be done

20:18

through a privileged vote, so it

20:20

just requires a simple majority. are

20:22

a majority in both houses of

20:24

Congress, this is a possibility. But

20:26

let's actually, let's transition just a

20:28

little bit here and talk about

20:30

Congress, because a lot of the

20:32

concern about Doge and Trump amounts

20:34

to, as we've been talking about,

20:36

look, these things that they are

20:38

doing might be good. They might.

20:40

But they need to do it

20:42

through Congress. They need to pass

20:44

legislation if they are going to

20:47

cut government in a robust way.

20:49

Well, Congress is in fact working

20:51

on passing some legislation right now.

20:53

That's right. There's another big budget

20:55

bill in the works, and it

20:57

would increase the debt by three

20:59

to four trillion dollars. Justin Amash,

21:01

when you were in Congress, you

21:03

were, as I think ChetchebeatT told

21:05

us, you were an outspoken critic

21:07

of the budget process. Can you...

21:09

Talk us through some of the

21:11

criticisms of the process. Explain how

21:13

they apply to what's going on

21:15

in Congress right now. Well, my

21:18

overall criticism is that it's smoke

21:20

and mirrors. Okay, they're going to

21:22

tell you that they are cutting

21:24

spending by $2 trillion. And they

21:26

love to talk about that. And

21:28

it's all just on paper. It

21:30

doesn't actually mean anything. Because what

21:32

matters is what Congress does this

21:34

year. It doesn't matter that Congress

21:36

promised you that seven years down

21:38

the road, some other president and

21:40

some other Congress is going to

21:42

follow this plan that we set

21:44

up today. That doesn't mean anything.

21:46

That other president and other Congress

21:49

is not going to follow your

21:51

plan. So what matters is what

21:53

can you do today to reform

21:55

government? If you're talking about the

21:57

biggest drivers of spending in government,

21:59

you're talking about the biggest programs,

22:01

of course. Social security, Medicare. Medicaid

22:03

and defense spending. And if you

22:05

don't address those in any sort

22:07

of way, you're not going to

22:09

actually address the budget problem. So

22:11

my issue is they are talking

22:13

about this stuff like it's a

22:15

real thing. It's imaginary. What matters

22:17

is what do they do this

22:20

year? And I don't think they

22:22

really have the appetite. and like

22:24

looking at the posts of my

22:26

friend Thomas Massey and he's been

22:28

saying look I don't think these

22:30

people have the appetite to do

22:32

this he's there I talked to

22:34

another colleague recently on the phone

22:36

who's over there and says hey

22:38

I'm thinking about just getting out

22:40

of here because this is such

22:42

a mess they're not they're not

22:44

going to follow through on what's

22:46

going on you know that Trump

22:48

And Musk are saying, let's cut

22:51

this, let's cut that, especially Musk,

22:53

I think, is the driver behind

22:55

this more than Trump. And the

22:57

members of Congress aren't really going

22:59

to take advantage of that moment.

23:01

And if they're not going to

23:03

press forward, then what's the point

23:05

of any of it? Yeah, I

23:07

think that's right. So Nick, put

23:09

the current House budget process mess

23:11

in the context of what Doge

23:13

is trying to do. Elon Musk

23:15

is out there tweeting a hundred

23:17

times a day about all of

23:19

this waste and fraud that he

23:22

has, that he is saying that

23:24

he has found for the very

23:26

first time in the budget. And

23:28

so many of these numbers seem

23:30

really big. $50 million for condom

23:32

bombs in Gaza, except wait, it's

23:34

actually a program for a different

23:36

country and it's Gaza, Michigan. Gaza,

23:38

Michigan or something like that, right?

23:40

That's the point. So let's, like,

23:42

help me think about it. It

23:44

was not the Gaza in the

23:46

Middle East. Let's put it. Yes.

23:48

That's the point. So let's, like,

23:50

help me think through, like, on

23:53

the one hand. Elon Musk is

23:55

making a real effort to at

23:57

least redirect the conversation to government

23:59

waste, fraud, abuse, overstaffing in the

24:01

agencies, the incredible power of the

24:03

regulatory agencies. On the other hand,

24:05

Republicans in Congress look like they

24:07

are about to expand the federal

24:09

budget, the debt, the deficit by

24:11

trillions more. said at a recent

24:13

Tesla investors meeting he went through

24:15

a not fully accurate reading of

24:17

Milton Friedman's you know axiom that

24:19

the burden of government is what

24:21

it spends not what it taxes

24:24

or regulates or anything and he

24:26

said we have to cut government

24:28

spending that there's no way around

24:30

it he's actually sharpening that for

24:32

you know not long ago in

24:34

front of Donald Trump he said

24:36

you know we can cut a

24:38

trillion dollars in spending and that'll

24:40

really net out to like $2

24:42

trillion in savings because of blah,

24:44

blah, blah. He's now just saying

24:46

we need to cut government spending.

24:48

I think this is where you're

24:50

going to start to see a

24:52

separation between Trump and Musk, partly

24:55

because in the end, the way

24:57

the Republican Party maintains power and

24:59

gets into power is by spending

25:01

more unfavored constituencies. And when you

25:03

look at the GOP budget blueprint,

25:05

you know, it. promises a lot

25:07

of cuts over the long haul

25:09

in things like Medicaid, student loans,

25:11

snap benefits, food stamps, and adding

25:13

more money in order to increase

25:15

defense spending and immigration, you know,

25:17

deportations. You know, what is it

25:19

gonna be next year? And that's

25:21

the real question because it's easy

25:23

to say we're gonna cut a

25:26

bunch of things that we think

25:28

our voters don't care about. Our

25:30

voters are not getting student loans.

25:32

are not getting food stamps, they're

25:34

flinching already and Donald Trump was

25:36

never a small budget guy. He

25:38

never wanted to spend less money.

25:40

I think this is where Musk,

25:42

I think you know this is

25:44

what he is doing that is

25:46

vitally good, which is that when

25:48

he calls out often in error

25:50

the amount of mispayments that are

25:52

being made, he is at least

25:54

you know, facilitating a conversation on

25:57

Twitter at the very least about,

25:59

my God, there is so much

26:01

stuff out there. People no longer

26:03

in the government have no idea

26:05

what they're talking about. about when

26:07

I've been thinking about this story

26:09

I remember reading in the 1980s

26:11

about the Vatican when they did

26:13

an audit and it turned out

26:15

that at some point in the

26:17

1980s the Vatican actually owned condom

26:19

factories to bring everything's about condoms

26:21

but the point was Did they

26:23

cut the spending on that? Well,

26:25

they sold it off, you know,

26:28

but it was so vast and,

26:30

you know, complicated that the Vatican

26:32

really did not know what it

26:34

was doing. It had so many

26:36

holdings and so many different things.

26:38

The federal government is like that.

26:40

And so... It's good that we're

26:42

learning about the specifics of what

26:44

USAID did, even if many of

26:46

the particular claims are wrong. And

26:48

it would be better to be

26:50

correct than not incorrect, you know,

26:52

about Social Security payments, things like

26:54

that. But I don't, you know,

26:56

I think what you're seeing is

26:59

the beginning of the end of

27:01

the alliance between Musk and Trump,

27:03

because the Republican Party, including Donald

27:05

Trump, want to spend more money.

27:07

And that is not what Doj

27:09

is kind of pushing at this

27:11

moment in time. I do wonder,

27:13

like, the counterfactual to think about

27:15

here, and we have some tools

27:17

to answer this question, is what

27:19

does the Second Trump administration without

27:21

Elon Musk look like? Right. I

27:23

mean, he's still pardoning your, or

27:25

like calling off the DOJ on

27:27

Adams. He's still, you know. out

27:30

just like whatever is happening in

27:32

Europe right now, which I think

27:34

we might talk about later. He's

27:36

still doing a bunch of the

27:38

more signature Trumpian things that he

27:40

said he would do. But A,

27:42

I think people would be focused

27:44

more on those things in a

27:46

way that maybe would be helpful

27:48

or maybe would not be. Instead,

27:51

so much of the energy of

27:53

coverage around Trump and so much

27:55

of the energy of kind of

27:57

assessing Trump has to do with

27:59

a flurry that Musk has caused.

28:01

And I think that- It's not

28:03

a flurry. It's a peanut buster

28:05

parfait. I don't know what it's.

28:07

Always. Amash is cutting. Don't be

28:09

so mean. Stop saying the words

28:11

peanut butter parfait. This protein. Peanuts.

28:13

My middle age lady internet tells

28:16

me that I can't eat peanut

28:18

butter to get my protein, that

28:20

it's a lot of sugar. And

28:22

I'm really mad about that. I

28:24

was ready to go out at

28:26

all peanut butter diet. That's maha,

28:28

right, which is another thing we

28:30

haven't talked about. That's true. And

28:32

which is a frightening apparition on

28:34

the horizon. For sure, there is

28:36

a vision of the second Trump

28:38

administration that is like minus Musk

28:40

and maybe minus Kennedy that is

28:42

like a profoundly different, less weird,

28:44

less good, question mark administration. I

28:47

don't know. So one possibility is

28:49

that there would still be some

28:51

emphasis on reducing federal employment and

28:53

cutting spending through the executive, but

28:55

instead of going through Doge and

28:57

Elon Musk, it would go through

28:59

the White House Budget Office and

29:01

OMB Director Russ Vote. And so

29:03

that brings us to our next

29:05

topic. Speaking of budget messages and

29:07

constitutional blunders, I want to talk

29:09

about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,

29:11

which is the agency created... via

29:13

the inspiration of Elizabeth Warren, sort

29:15

of by her, sort of not,

29:17

under Barack Obama, White House Budget

29:20

Chief Ross Vaut announced last week

29:22

that he was effectively defunding the

29:24

agency by seeking zero, that is

29:26

a big old goose egg, zero

29:28

dollars to fund it. And in

29:30

this case, there are no serious

29:32

constitutional or procedural concerns whatsoever. Catherine,

29:34

I actually want to start with

29:36

you here, why is that? Just

29:38

give us the, like, explain... why

29:40

it is that this is not

29:42

a problem in any way from

29:44

a constitutional perspective. Listen, I want

29:46

to start by saying I love

29:48

everything that reason publishes and produces

29:50

equally. I love all my children

29:53

the same. I sense a but

29:55

coming. But my favorite article that

29:57

we published last week is Eric

29:59

Bame. writing about the CFPB, the

30:01

headline is Elizabeth Warren's hubris allowed

30:03

Trump to defund the CFP and

30:05

the entire piece is structured around

30:07

the metaphor of when Achilles' mother

30:09

dips him in the river sticks

30:11

in order to make him invulnerable

30:13

to harm but of course she's

30:15

holding him by his heel thus

30:17

the famous Achilles heel is born

30:19

and he says Like Elizabeth Warren

30:21

is the latest. Elizabeth Warren is

30:24

Achilles' mother. She in the birthing

30:26

and building of this of the

30:28

CFPB left this tragic flaw, this

30:30

weakness, which is that it has

30:32

to be funded in this somewhat

30:34

unusual way by the executive and

30:36

the executive can simply put in

30:38

a funding request of zero as

30:40

Trump has done. This is Elizabeth

30:42

Warren's hubris, like a Greek word

30:44

for chosen on purpose has led

30:46

us to this place. all reason

30:48

articles should actually be structured on

30:50

like mythic archetypes and that is

30:52

what we will be doing going

30:54

forward but it is very very

30:57

on point here and like she's

30:59

she is experiencing the same thing

31:01

that I am like she wished

31:03

for you know she made all

31:05

of her wishes and now she's

31:07

getting what she wished for and

31:09

it sucks wait you and Elizabeth

31:11

Warren go to the same genea

31:13

I mean honestly Elizabeth Warren and

31:15

I have a lot more in

31:17

common temperantally than I would like

31:19

to admit like we're doing different

31:21

we're different goals but like are

31:23

we not the same gal on

31:25

something to the level constantly talking

31:28

about your Indian heritage I am

31:30

I will not shut up about

31:32

my about my one four hundred

31:34

and seventy six Cherokee or whatever

31:36

she is Justin you were in

31:38

Congress while there were a lot

31:40

of debates about the CFPB and

31:42

while it was doing a lot

31:44

of the work that it was

31:46

doing what did you learn about

31:48

that agency during your time in

31:50

Congress? Well I learned that it's

31:52

not necessary it's harmful like a

31:54

lot of things in government And

31:56

this goes to another point about

31:58

what Trump and Musk are doing.

32:01

I really wish the that Trump

32:03

would make the case and I

32:05

you know he's got to have

32:07

people prep him on this and

32:09

explain it to him and and

32:11

because I don't think this is

32:13

you know where he's at his

32:15

strongest but I wish that they

32:17

would make the case that a

32:19

lot of the things that they

32:21

want to eliminate are unconstitutional and

32:23

if you make the case that

32:25

things are unconstitutional I do think

32:27

that the executive can make the

32:29

strong argument I'm not going to

32:31

execute these programs. They are not

32:34

authorized under our constitution. Now you'll

32:36

still get legal challenges, but I

32:38

believe you're on much stronger ground

32:40

in these legal challenges if you

32:42

make a constitutional case for why

32:44

a program or an entire department

32:46

is not constitutional. Let it go

32:48

to the Supreme Court and let's

32:50

have this real debate. Instead, what

32:52

they seem to be doing too

32:54

often is... Oh, we just don't

32:56

like this thing. It's bad on

32:58

policy grounds. That's why I'm against

33:00

it. We just want to impose

33:02

our own policy vision on the

33:05

country. And when you're talking about

33:07

imposing your own policy vision, you're

33:09

on much weaker ground. You have

33:11

much worse standing. You have to

33:13

go and make the constitutional case

33:15

against these things. And I do

33:17

wish they would do that. So

33:19

the CFPB was challenged as unconstitutional.

33:21

This did go to the Supreme

33:23

Court, and the Supreme Court, it's

33:25

a little bit complicated, but they

33:27

basically signed off on it. They

33:29

said this agency in this structure

33:31

where the funding comes through the

33:33

Treasury, that in fact, in this

33:35

case, Congress kind of can give

33:38

up its power of the purse.

33:40

Do you think that President Trump

33:42

or any Republican, any president who

33:44

wanted to get rid of the

33:46

CFPB could still kind of make

33:48

that constitutional arguments even after the

33:50

Supreme Court has weighed it. Yeah,

33:52

I think you have to, you

33:54

have to go there, you have

33:56

to make another argument, you're presenting

33:58

it to the court again, they

34:00

can change their mind, precedent can

34:02

be overturned. We've seen this already

34:04

with this court where they're willing

34:06

to overturn something like Roe v.

34:08

Waite and say, okay, that's no

34:11

longer the law. And so I

34:13

would make the case again. I

34:15

would get the best legal minds

34:17

together to make the best constitutional

34:19

argument against the CFPB and other

34:21

executive departments. You know

34:23

if I can I just want

34:25

to say I think the attack

34:27

on CFPB is great You know

34:29

there are procedural issues that you

34:31

know need to be attended to

34:33

and all of that kind of

34:35

stuff But one of the things

34:37

and this is the power of

34:39

You know of the current Trump

34:42

administration's kind of offensive which is

34:44

that it's forcing people to justify

34:46

what they do. CFPB has not

34:48

been around that long. How did

34:50

we get by without it? You

34:52

can say something similar about the

34:54

Department of Education, which would require

34:56

more legislation and things like that,

34:58

but it's like, you know, somehow

35:00

we managed to get through. you

35:02

know, United States history without a

35:04

Department of Education until 1979, you

35:06

know, etc. And like, this is,

35:08

this is where we know we're

35:11

in a major shift, a major,

35:13

you know, vibe shift or whatever

35:15

you want to. call it, when

35:17

you start talking to people and

35:19

say, okay, we're getting rid of

35:21

that, defend it. And if your

35:23

first answer is, well, it's always

35:25

been this way or it's been

35:27

this way for a long time,

35:29

where it's like, I get my

35:31

paycheck from this, this is what

35:33

happened with the, you know, the

35:35

attacks on gay marriage. You know,

35:37

ultimately people who are trying to

35:39

defend, you know, a legal marriage

35:42

as it's always been, one man

35:44

and one woman, it turned out

35:46

to be a pretty weak argument.

35:48

And I think that's what we're

35:50

witnessing here now. And I think

35:52

it's good. You know, and I'm

35:54

happy to see it, even as

35:56

I worry about some of the

35:58

outcomes and things like that. And

36:00

again, I think what's missing from

36:02

the current moment is. this libertarian

36:04

underpinning, which is about principles, not

36:06

outcomes. And, you know, this is

36:08

the rule of law. Like, we

36:11

need to live in a society

36:13

where people will accept to live

36:15

by an outcome that might not

36:17

go their way. We know Trump

36:19

won't do that. He's a terrible

36:21

messenger for that, but he's giving

36:23

us an opening to kind of

36:25

really peel back a lot of

36:27

useless government actions and spending and

36:29

things like that, because the people

36:31

defending them are only saying, look,

36:33

it's always been this way. Yeah,

36:35

so I mean, I think you're

36:37

just absolutely right to point to

36:39

the rule of law as what

36:42

matters here. And there's a real

36:44

irony in looking at the CFPB

36:46

story happening right now in the

36:48

context of Doge and all of

36:50

the complaints about kind of procedural

36:52

screwiness and lack of concern for

36:54

the kind of core constitutional issues,

36:56

because the Achilles heel, the big

36:58

flaw with the CFPB, was that

37:00

Elizabeth Warren wanted to make sure

37:02

that it was invulnerable that it

37:04

was invulnerable. that people couldn't defund

37:06

it or get rid of it.

37:08

And so she created a mechanism

37:11

for funding it that was at

37:13

least constitutionally dubious. I mean, it

37:15

was tied up in court for

37:17

a decade or so and there

37:19

were real concerns to the point

37:21

where, like I said, it went

37:23

to the Supreme Court. And by

37:25

going around the Constitution and by

37:27

not following it to the letter,

37:29

she made her own agency, her

37:31

own project, her own baby in

37:33

government, she made it vulnerable to

37:35

attack from the other side. And

37:37

this goes to the point that

37:39

Justin was making was making earlier.

37:42

do this stuff is because you

37:44

want to be robust and enduring,

37:46

you follow the law, you follow

37:48

the Constitution, because that's how you

37:50

make change happen. Should we have

37:52

a question here? No, go ahead.

37:54

Now I just want to add,

37:56

this is the arrogance of politicians

37:58

that is at work. They always

38:00

assume that they will be the

38:02

ones in power. So when you

38:04

see Trump doing the things he's

38:06

doing, there's this weird assumption that

38:08

he's going to be in power

38:11

forever. And maybe some people think

38:13

that he will. But there's this

38:15

weird assumption. that he's going to

38:17

be there forever, and he's going

38:19

to be able to control the

38:21

executive branch, or Republicans at the

38:23

very least will continue to control

38:25

the executive branch. And they never

38:27

think about the other side being

38:29

in control. Whenever you're working on

38:31

anything in government, you should always

38:33

think about your other side being

38:35

in control. Whenever you're working on

38:37

anything in government, you should always

38:39

think about your enemies. You need

38:42

to think about those things. And

38:44

I don't think members of Congress

38:46

think about that stuff because they're

38:48

too arrogant or aloof or just

38:50

don't care enough about the. the

38:52

system. All right, speaking of the

38:54

system and what presidents are doing

38:56

and allowed to do, we have

38:58

a listener question. It comes from

39:00

James, who writes, watching Trump deploy

39:02

tariffs against Canada, Mexico, Colombia, etc.

39:04

as a way of applying pressure,

39:06

incentivizing them to act in his

39:08

interest on non-economic topics, for example,

39:11

immigration, border security, has got me

39:13

wondering whether Trump actually views tariffs

39:15

as a negotiating tool rather than

39:17

an economic lever. I know people

39:19

in his camp have been saying

39:21

he'll use them to tax cuts,

39:23

but the evidence as I see

39:25

it suggests that Trump cares very

39:27

little about balancing the budget and

39:29

cares a great deal about negotiating

39:31

and deal making. Is that the

39:33

real reason he's so passionate about

39:35

tariffs? I'd love to hear the

39:37

panel discuss. Nick, let's start with

39:39

you. Is Trump using tariffs primarily

39:42

as a negotiating tool? Or is

39:44

there something more going on? No,

39:46

I think he is not using

39:48

it as a negotiating tool. He

39:50

loves tariffs. He has said publicly

39:52

multiple times. I think that tariff

39:54

is the most beautiful. word in

39:56

the in the dictionary he has

39:58

called himself an unabashed tariff man

40:00

whatever that is that's like the

40:02

shittiest marvel superhero of all time

40:04

I would suspect there's not a

40:06

multiverse that would make that a

40:08

good policy and in two you

40:11

know in his first term in

40:13

2018 and 2019 he levied major

40:15

terror that almost $400 billion worth

40:17

of goods, which among other things

40:19

inspired retaliation by the Chinese against

40:21

American soybeans. They have been the

40:23

biggest consumer of American soybeans. We

40:25

have not recovered or U.S. soybean

40:27

producers have not recovered from losing

40:29

that market share in China, which

40:31

then went elsewhere. I did a

40:33

long interview with Doug Erwin, the

40:35

trade economist about all of this

40:37

kind of stuff. Trump is, you

40:39

know, he likes to negotiate, he

40:42

likes to deal, but he loves

40:44

tariffs and he is going to

40:46

impose them. This is not merely

40:48

a negotiating tactic. Justin, Trump did

40:50

say he was imposing tariffs on

40:52

Canada and Mexico and then pulled

40:54

back pretty quickly, although some of

40:56

that has gone back into effect

40:58

with steel. How do you understand

41:00

Trump's, the appeal of tariffs to

41:02

President Trump? Well, I don't understand

41:04

the appeal. But I also have

41:06

been baffled over the years. I've

41:08

really tried to figure out whether

41:11

he doesn't understand the economic impact

41:13

of tariffs or he doesn't care

41:15

or he's pretending not to understand.

41:17

I really don't know. And to

41:19

this day, his actions don't help

41:21

me get a good grasp as

41:23

to whether he does understand or

41:25

doesn't understand. For example, he's threatened

41:27

a lot of tariffs, but he

41:29

continues to suspend things, you know,

41:31

he was going to put tariffs

41:33

on Canada and Mexico, and he's

41:35

like, no, we'll suspend them. And

41:37

then he talks about these reciprocal

41:40

tariffs, and he says, oh, but

41:42

we're going to do a study.

41:44

And to me, any time someone

41:46

says they're doing a study, it

41:48

means they don't really want to

41:50

do the thing. They're trying to

41:52

push it back. they don't really

41:54

want to do the thing so

41:56

uh... it's not clear to me

41:58

what he thinks about them from

42:00

a economic standpoint, whether he believes

42:02

in them and then he has

42:04

advisors who are pushing back and

42:06

getting them to question them. And

42:08

then as for the negotiating tool,

42:11

I would say, okay, using them

42:13

as a negotiating tool might be

42:15

what he's trying to do. But

42:17

then again, if you're using them

42:19

as a negotiating tool, then you

42:21

can't do this thing where you

42:23

put them on and then you

42:25

take them off the next day

42:27

and say, oh, we're going to

42:29

pause them for a month. Because

42:31

then people start to call your

42:33

bluff on it. You have to

42:35

actually do it. So it's not

42:37

really a very good negotiating tool

42:40

if everyone thinks you're just going

42:42

to wait and suspend and stop

42:44

and pause and do studies. You

42:46

got to do it or not

42:48

do it. So I really don't

42:50

know where he's at on tariffs.

42:52

I know that he loves tariffs

42:54

in the sense that he loves

42:56

talking about them. He says they're

42:58

the greatest things. He says he's

43:00

a tariff man, all the rest.

43:02

I really don't know what his

43:04

whole game is with them. Catherine,

43:06

what do you, how do you

43:08

answer this question and you cannot

43:11

respond? I'm just going to do

43:13

a study. I think that I'm

43:15

going to respond with another peanut

43:17

butter themed answer. I think it's

43:19

like peanut butter and chocolate. It's

43:21

two great tastes that go great

43:23

together. It can both be a

43:25

negotiating tactic and a good unto

43:27

itself in Trump's eyes, I think.

43:29

With Trump's tariffs or Reese or

43:31

Reese. Objectively the worst Halloween candy,

43:33

by the way, fight me, fight

43:35

me. Wow, wow, it's objectively the

43:37

best Halloween candy. Here's the thing.

43:40

I do think, I agree, like,

43:42

there's a fundamental mystery at the

43:44

heart of Trump's relationship to terrorists,

43:46

which is, I think he has

43:48

said many times that words that

43:50

indicate that he does not understand

43:52

that what a trade deficit is.

43:54

And I think that's the heart

43:56

of it. He does not understand

43:58

the distinction between. Like budget deficit

44:00

and trade deficit as to Just

44:02

like just almost unrelated concepts frankly

44:04

say that he has a conceptual

44:06

deficit. But is it really is

44:08

it really possible that he doesn't

44:11

understand? I don't know. I think

44:13

so. I think you I think

44:15

the human mind is a marvel

44:17

of choosing not to know inconvenient

44:19

things and I think that he

44:21

has chosen not to know that.

44:23

But he works in business he

44:25

works in business and must experience

44:27

trade deficits of some sort all

44:29

the time like when you go

44:31

to the grocery store. He does

44:33

not perceive them in that way.

44:35

I don't think Donald Trump goes

44:37

to the grocery store. Okay. I

44:40

shop for the grocery store. They're

44:42

not shopping at my house. I

44:44

have a trade deficit with them.

44:46

I mean, this is the whole

44:48

the whole way the world works.

44:50

And you think that someone in

44:52

business would understand that that's why

44:54

I'm still, I still give him

44:56

the benefit of the doubt that.

44:58

Maybe he does understand it and

45:00

is just playing a game. I

45:02

don't know. I don't know what's

45:04

going on here. I thought you

45:06

were giving him the benefit of

45:08

the doubt that he's just not

45:11

very smart. So I think his

45:13

administration... I think he is bright.

45:15

I think he is bright. I

45:17

think he doesn't have a lot

45:19

of knowledge about a lot of

45:21

what goes on in government, for

45:23

example. But I think he's actually,

45:25

in terms of intelligence, I think

45:27

he's bright. sort of things that

45:29

I would bring to bear to

45:31

answer this question. One is that

45:33

Donald Trump has been incredibly inconsistent

45:35

on policy for decades. But the

45:37

one thing that he has been

45:40

most consistent about is that he

45:42

loves tariffs and he thinks they

45:44

are good. That tells you something.

45:46

Number two, even if Donald Trump

45:48

doesn't fully understand the costs of

45:50

tariffs, his administration has to understand

45:52

them because they paid farmers. There

45:54

was a bailout last time because

45:56

farmers were hurting under Donald Trump's

45:58

tariff and trade policies. There was

46:00

a real cost. I think Donald

46:02

Trump and his head probably just

46:04

thinks, well, that's sort of a

46:06

minor cost of doing business, of

46:08

doing tariffs, which I love because

46:11

I love tariffs. I just love

46:13

tariffs. He loves negotiating. I think

46:15

our listener question is correct in

46:17

some ways. He clearly thinks of

46:19

him as a deal maker. He

46:21

has this self-image that he has

46:23

projected and then sort of like

46:25

turned back on himself. He just

46:27

views himself as a deal maker

46:29

and thinks that using tariffs is

46:31

a good way to go ahead

46:33

and make deals. I think the

46:35

big thing that he doesn't understand,

46:37

yes, that he doesn't get trade

46:40

deficits. But he doesn't understand economic

46:42

uncertainty. And this is the thing

46:44

that really worries me about Donald

46:46

Trump's threatened tariffs, is that even

46:48

if they don't go into effect,

46:50

or they go into effect for

46:52

just a little while, and then

46:54

he reverses them. There is going

46:56

to be so much uncertainty in

46:58

the economy in a world where

47:00

tariffs could be going on and

47:02

off at any time, where you

47:04

can't even figure out, OK, this

47:06

is going to be the cost

47:08

of importing goods or moving stuff

47:11

back and forth over the border

47:13

between the United States and Canada

47:15

several times. that's your production process.

47:17

When you have that uncertainty, it

47:19

is incredibly destructive to making plans

47:21

and to economic activity, and that's

47:23

the thing that I think Donald

47:25

Trump is underrating here. Anyway, good

47:27

question. Thank you so much for

47:29

that. A reminder, we love to

47:31

answer your questions. Please submit yours.

47:33

Send your short succinct pithy and

47:35

otherwise not very long questions to

47:37

podcasts at Reason. Okay, let's stop

47:40

talking about Donald Trump for just

47:42

a little bit, and instead we're

47:44

going to talk about J.D. Vance.

47:46

Over the weekend, Vice President J.D.

47:48

Vance went to the Munich Security

47:50

Conference in Germany, and he gave

47:52

a speech, the key line of

47:54

which I want to read you.

47:56

The threat that I worry the

47:58

most about vis-a-vis Europe is not

48:00

Russia. It's not China, it's not

48:02

any other external actor. What I

48:04

worry about is the threat from

48:06

within, the retreat of Europe from

48:08

some of its most fundamental values,

48:11

values shared with the United States.

48:13

So this that generated a whole

48:15

lot of discussion and discourse about

48:17

Europe's bureaucratic economy, about how Europe

48:19

is sort of falling behind the

48:21

United States economy, about lack of

48:23

free speech, especially in Germany, but

48:25

also folks saying, wait a minute,

48:27

what about Russia, which just invaded

48:29

a European country, you know, like,

48:31

with tanks. So, Justice Abash, what

48:33

did you think of J.D. Vance's

48:35

speech and his claim that the

48:37

biggest threat to Europe isn't Russia.

48:40

but European over regulation and different

48:42

cultural values. Well, I think he's

48:44

right in a certain sense, right?

48:46

Okay, we can talk about wars

48:48

and wars present some kind of

48:50

immediate threat, of course, but in

48:52

terms of how your country is

48:54

going to operate, you know, in

48:56

the long run, whether it's the

48:58

United States or any other country,

49:00

the internal threats are really the

49:02

biggest. It's how do you handle

49:04

yourselves? as a people. And the

49:06

thing where I would disagree with

49:08

him is I don't think Europe

49:11

has ever been really good on

49:13

free speech. You know the United

49:15

States has a very unique history

49:17

in terms of the way we

49:19

protect people's rights. And the strength

49:21

of our First Amendment is incredible

49:23

and there's nothing like it anywhere

49:25

in the world. And I would

49:27

say the same thing about the

49:29

Second Amendment and other aspects of...

49:31

our constitution and the way we

49:33

govern. There are a lot of

49:35

people who, especially on the libertarian

49:37

side, who will criticize the US

49:40

as being, you know, authoritarian and

49:42

it's, you know, it's gone completely

49:44

astray and our constitution is not

49:46

worth anything, they'll say. But the

49:48

truth is, whether our constitution has

49:50

worked perfectly or not, and it

49:52

certainly has not worked perfectly to

49:54

restrain government. I mean, in many

49:56

respects, it has let government grow

49:58

completely out of control. But on

50:00

the other hand, I think it

50:02

has protected our... country in ways

50:04

that are almost inconceivable. I mean,

50:06

we take it for granted that

50:08

we have such a robust First

50:11

Amendment protection here. And Europe has

50:13

never been very good at this.

50:15

And I think that he's right

50:17

that the threat to Europe in

50:19

the long run is this sort

50:21

of illiberalism in the sense of

50:23

the people being controlled by the

50:25

government. being told what they can

50:27

say, what they can think, that

50:29

leads to a significant deterioration over

50:31

time, and there's no recovering from

50:33

that, and that's on top of

50:35

the social welfare state that they

50:37

have there and all the other

50:40

problems. I do think that Europe

50:42

is in a lot of trouble,

50:44

and it's internal trouble. It's not

50:46

so much external trouble. There's

50:48

that meme that you always see,

50:50

whenever this sort of thing happens,

50:52

like the European mind cannot comprehend,

50:54

and then it's always like a

50:56

washer and dryer, like if it

50:59

works, you know, something like that,

51:01

but this is also true about

51:03

free speech. I mean, and I

51:05

think anybody who has had any

51:07

kind of experience talking to people

51:09

who grew up in Europe, they

51:11

just cannot grock the concept of

51:13

free speech as it exists in

51:15

the United States, and this is

51:17

a divide that I think... gets

51:20

remarked upon every now and then,

51:22

but people need to understand, like,

51:24

they don't have it. It's not

51:26

just that they don't have it,

51:28

it's that they don't understand it.

51:30

But I think that's a secondary,

51:32

I mean, if not tertiary, reason

51:34

for the EU's malaise. is because

51:36

of economic regulation and you know

51:38

and that filters into other things

51:41

but we've talked about this in

51:43

the past if you go back

51:45

to 1995 or even 2000 the

51:47

EU's economic output and the US

51:49

economic output was about the same

51:51

now it's less than half of

51:53

what the US produces on an

51:55

annual basis that is fundamentally and

51:57

almost completely because of terrible economic

52:00

regulation where you know they They

52:02

are constantly looking at the worst

52:04

case scenarios. They're getting out in

52:06

front of every. new technology and

52:08

every new business innovation in order

52:10

to kind of throttle and strangle

52:12

their economy. I think you take

52:14

that away and things change very

52:16

differently. As Justin was saying, Europe

52:18

has always been terrible on free

52:21

speech and free expression, certainly relative

52:23

to the US. It's probably worse

52:25

now than it was 25 years

52:27

ago, but I think the main

52:29

problem is that the EU thinks

52:31

that it can maintain everything the

52:33

same way. social welfare benefits, they

52:35

shovel money at people to have

52:37

kids. France is a great place

52:40

to have kids. You get all

52:42

kind of freebies, people aren't doing

52:44

it, and the reason for that

52:46

is because the economic output and

52:48

the economic, you know, prospects in

52:50

Europe are terrible. But they can't

52:52

absorb. immigrants and they've never been

52:54

good at immigration, but they need

52:56

newcomers, but they can't, you know,

52:58

they'll let them in and then

53:01

they give them money and don't

53:03

let them work and don't let

53:05

them assimilate. That's a spiral. Having

53:07

said that, I do want to

53:09

point out that like, you know,

53:11

Vance is like kind of waving

53:13

away the idea that, you know,

53:15

Russia invading a sovereign nation is

53:17

like, you know, BFD. That's problematic

53:19

in a different way, not that

53:22

the U.S. should be involved. And

53:24

it's actually good, like that he,

53:26

you know, what Trump did the

53:28

first time around and is doing

53:30

again, is saying to Europe, like,

53:32

you've got your corner of the

53:34

world, make sure you, you know,

53:36

keep it neat and clean. You're

53:38

not going to get a blind

53:41

check from the U.S., which is

53:43

also, I think, a positive sign.

53:45

is connected to free speech and

53:47

it's connected to the culture in

53:49

the sense that in America we

53:51

believe in risk-taking. We believe that

53:53

people can fail and get up

53:55

from that failure and try again.

53:57

We believe that people should be

53:59

criticized, that they should feel pressure

54:02

from the outside. They should take

54:04

on challenges, and a lot of

54:06

what happens in Europe is protecting

54:08

the people from themselves. Oh, we

54:10

don't want someone to hurt your

54:12

feelings. Oh, we don't want you

54:14

to feel like a failure. Oh,

54:16

we don't want you to... You

54:18

know, and it's one thing after

54:21

another, and that leads to economic

54:23

mail is, where you don't really

54:25

have... a vibrant economy because it's

54:27

not diverse, people aren't trying new

54:29

things, they're afraid to fail, they're

54:31

afraid of being insulted, they're afraid

54:33

of having their feelings hurt, it's

54:35

all connected. Vance, we

54:38

should also remember, is a guy

54:40

with a beard and a blog,

54:42

right? He came up like online.

54:44

He's a poster and he was

54:46

trolling to some extent. And that

54:48

was a kind of masterful international

54:51

trolling. I agree with some of

54:53

it, not all of it. But

54:55

Vance also gave another speech or

54:57

some other remarks when he was

54:59

in Europe that I want to

55:01

ask you about Catherine because it

55:03

goes to a concern that a

55:06

lot of guys with beards and

55:08

blogs have, which is artificial intelligence.

55:10

And he said. That excessive regulation

55:12

of AI would kill a transformative

55:14

industry just as it's taking off.

55:16

And he positioned the United States

55:19

as the place where pro-growth AI

55:21

policies are going to enable this

55:23

technology to become a potent tool

55:25

for job creation. Right? He's like,

55:27

the United States gets AI, you

55:29

don't. We have all the AI

55:31

companies and technology. It's working here.

55:34

Catherine, what did you think of

55:36

what JD Vance had to say

55:38

about AI and how? relates back

55:40

to his sort of more general

55:42

criticisms of Europe and what's going

55:44

on there. Yeah, I feel like

55:47

I'm an honorary guy with a

55:49

beard and a blog and so

55:51

I do identify with him in

55:53

this way. So the thing is,

55:55

Europe is not content actually to

55:57

stay in its own corner and

56:00

keep itself tidy. They want to

56:02

regulate the world and so that's

56:04

what's happening with AI. That's what

56:06

has happened with big tech for

56:08

the last 15 years. That's what's

56:10

happened with the charging cables on

56:12

our phones and computers. The EU

56:15

is trying to use the size

56:17

of its market, or Europe more

56:19

broadly is trying to use the

56:21

size of its market, to tell

56:23

companies that would like to operate

56:25

in that market how they can

56:28

behave everywhere in the world. I'm

56:30

sympathetic to the like, you are

56:32

not the boss of me, like

56:34

you are not my real dad,

56:36

Europe, like I don't have to

56:38

listen to you. And you know,

56:40

we fought a war for that,

56:43

God damn it. And I think

56:45

that that's healthy and that's useful

56:47

for the United States to remember

56:49

that we are. economically dominant for

56:51

the reasons that we just discussed

56:53

here and that we should not

56:56

make the compromise that Europe has

56:58

made I think greatly to its

57:00

detriment to say like maybe maybe

57:02

this is enough growth maybe we

57:04

have enough that is that is

57:06

wrong-headed in 14 different ways and

57:09

we should not go along to

57:11

get along we should fight them

57:13

on that stuff. Truly it is

57:15

a brave new world and that

57:17

is a preview of my cultural

57:19

recommendation. which we'll get to it

57:21

a little bit. Nick, I want

57:24

to start with you on our

57:26

final segment here. What have you

57:28

been watching, reading, listening to, otherwise

57:30

consuming? I watched Winner, which is

57:32

a doctor drama about reality winner,

57:34

the millennial whistleblower who was an

57:37

NSA contractor. gave a document from

57:39

the NSA or from her agency

57:41

to to the Intercept, which did

57:43

an incredibly bad job of masking

57:45

it, and so she was rounded

57:47

up even more quickly than she

57:50

would have been other ways. But

57:52

it's directed by Susanna Fogle. It

57:54

was written by Kerry Howley, who

57:56

worked at Reason for a long

57:58

time, and wrote a fantastic profile

58:00

of reality winner for New York

58:02

magazine, and then more recently published

58:05

a book called Bottoms Up and

58:07

the Devil Laughs. a lot of

58:09

things coming out of the reality

58:11

winter case. What I like about

58:13

this movie is that it is

58:15

very funny and it is also

58:18

a great, just outrage-inducing reminder of

58:20

all of the banal things that

58:22

we took seriously during the global

58:24

war on terror era, including prosecuting

58:26

somebody and then putting her in

58:28

jail, sentencing her to jail originally

58:30

for 63 months, somebody like reality

58:33

winner, who gave a document which

58:35

shouldn't have received classification in the

58:37

first place, certainly not at a

58:39

top or secret level of classification,

58:41

and then got convicted and put

58:43

in jail, she ended up taking

58:46

a plea deal and serving several

58:48

years in a federal penitentiary for

58:50

something that should not have in

58:52

any way shape or form. a

58:54

crime. And I'll just point out,

58:56

going back to our earlier conversations

58:59

about Donald Trump and all of

59:01

that, she was prosecuted under the

59:03

Espionage Act, you know, in Trump's

59:05

first administration. It was really... awful

59:07

case all along. This is a

59:09

small piece of art that is

59:11

a great and sardonic reminder of

59:14

what happens when we start to

59:16

get into a hysteria about where

59:18

we got to shut down freedom

59:20

of expression in the name of

59:22

some greater good. I haven't seen

59:24

the movie yet, but that story

59:27

is a case study in all

59:29

of the neo-conservative post-911 policy that

59:31

Justin Amash was talking about earlier

59:33

on this show. Justin, do you

59:35

have a cultural recommendation for the

59:37

reason roundtable listeners? Yeah, first I

59:39

want to say repeal the Espionage

59:42

Act and pardon reality winner. So

59:44

I watched the NBA all-star game

59:46

where my man... Kate Cunningham was

59:48

in his first NBA all-star game

59:50

and what I want to say

59:52

is they completely screwed up the

59:55

format. They changed it from a

59:57

normal game. Were they playing golf

59:59

or something? They changed it from

1:00:01

a normal game, you know, just

1:00:03

like an NBA game where you

1:00:05

got the four quarters, 12 minutes.

1:00:08

They changed it to this mini

1:00:10

tournament where you have four teams

1:00:12

playing up to 40. No clock,

1:00:14

no overall clock, just each team

1:00:16

plays up to 40. It's three

1:00:18

teams of all-stars and then

1:00:20

one team of just random

1:00:22

rising stars who are not

1:00:24

actual all-stars. They're just newbies to

1:00:27

the league. And then the three

1:00:29

teams of all stars were divided

1:00:31

in such a weird way where

1:00:33

like you had the old timers playing

1:00:35

on one team, you had the

1:00:38

international players on another team, and

1:00:40

you had kind of like the

1:00:42

relatively younger stars playing on another

1:00:45

team. So it was completely

1:00:47

mismatched and odd and it wasn't

1:00:49

very competitive. They did it because they

1:00:51

thought they were going to make the

1:00:53

game much more competitive. I

1:00:56

missed the old days watching. Michael

1:00:58

Jordan, Isaiah Thomas, Magic Johnson,

1:01:00

players who would actually go

1:01:02

to the all-star game and

1:01:05

compete. And now... You are

1:01:07

getting old. You're getting old. Now

1:01:09

the players go to the game.

1:01:11

They don't compete. They don't try.

1:01:13

This did not make them try

1:01:15

any harder. I know that they

1:01:17

do get some kind of prize money

1:01:19

for winning this tournament. but they really

1:01:22

have to up the dollar amount or

1:01:24

something like you know maybe give each

1:01:26

player a few hundred thousand dollars or

1:01:28

something. I know that's a lot of money but

1:01:30

hey they're putting this on TV it's

1:01:33

entertaining people at home you got to

1:01:35

these are players are already making millions

1:01:37

and millions of dollars you're going to

1:01:39

have to up the incentives to get

1:01:41

them to play hard otherwise you just

1:01:43

got to do away with it. This

1:01:46

this format this year did not fix

1:01:48

the problem. You know you mentioned Michael

1:01:50

Jordan that the whole setup reminded me

1:01:52

it was like something out of the

1:01:54

Space Jam movie. It just seems so

1:01:56

ridiculous and stupid I was expecting

1:01:58

what was the name of the

1:02:00

bad team, the monstars or something

1:02:02

to be playing in the final.

1:02:05

It was, yeah, just a misfire.

1:02:07

But fascinating that all of these

1:02:09

old institutions, they're not just in

1:02:11

politics, you know, are falling apart,

1:02:14

like nobody cares about the NBA

1:02:16

all-star game anymore, baseball or the

1:02:18

Oscars or the Grammys, like they

1:02:20

are, they're desperate and they're trying

1:02:23

to reinvent themselves because whatever the

1:02:25

old magic was, it just, it seems to

1:02:27

be a big deal. That is a great transition

1:02:29

because you know what has screwed

1:02:31

up the format and makes me

1:02:33

miss the old days? The Marvel

1:02:36

Cinematic Universe! There's

1:02:38

a new Captain America movie in

1:02:40

the movie theaters and oh my

1:02:42

goodness, it is a disaster. Just

1:02:44

an absolute disaster. Captain America,

1:02:46

Brave New World, supposedly the

1:02:49

fourth Captain America movie. That's

1:02:51

what it's billed at as. But

1:02:53

it's not really a Captain America

1:02:55

movie. It's an incredible Hulk movie.

1:02:57

And very specifically, it is pretty

1:03:00

much a direct sequel to the

1:03:02

17-year-old incredible Hulk film from 2008,

1:03:04

starring Edward Norton, who hasn't played,

1:03:06

the movie was so bad that

1:03:09

Edward Norton is no longer part

1:03:11

of the cinematic universe. They recast

1:03:13

that role, and Hulk has been

1:03:15

played by a completely different actor

1:03:18

for the last nearly two decades.

1:03:20

And yet, Marvel was like, you

1:03:22

know what? We're having real trouble here.

1:03:25

The movies are not, are just not

1:03:27

as successful as they are, as they

1:03:29

were before the pandemic. Everything is kind

1:03:31

of a mess. So let's, let's go

1:03:34

back and make a direct sequel. to

1:03:36

one of the least liked, least successful

1:03:38

early experiments in the Marvel universe and

1:03:40

then tell people it's a Captain America

1:03:43

movie. It's even worse than you think.

1:03:45

This movie went through tons of reshoots

1:03:47

and you can tell. I mean this

1:03:49

thing just looks like it's been through

1:03:52

like a wood shipper for the

1:03:54

editing. It's just an absolute disaster

1:03:56

on a story perspective. It's boring.

1:03:58

It's not fun. Harrison... is in

1:04:00

this movie as the president and he turns

1:04:02

into the red hulk at the end and

1:04:05

there is a fight in like in Washington

1:04:07

DC in front of the it's the flowers

1:04:09

that we always have like a cherry

1:04:11

blossoms like a like a like a

1:04:13

like in the cherry blossom trees down

1:04:16

by the the water like a spot

1:04:18

I've run there's this like it should

1:04:20

be this wonderful amazing like everything comes

1:04:22

together in this sort of glorious sort

1:04:25

of spy you know Washington DC set

1:04:27

thriller moment and it's It's just flat

1:04:29

out boring. all the way through. It

1:04:31

is totally, forget being a bad movie

1:04:34

though, it is totally misconceived. The people

1:04:36

running the Marvel Cinematic universe do not

1:04:38

understand what the appeal of the Marvel

1:04:40

movies are. They don't understand the appeal

1:04:43

of Captain America and what Captain America

1:04:45

is supposed to be in, what he

1:04:47

is supposed to be doing, because he's

1:04:49

not supposed to be the second, the

1:04:52

supporting player in his own movie. He's

1:04:54

not supposed to be somebody who doesn't

1:04:56

have any real conflicts or like this

1:04:58

movie is about like... Is this new

1:05:01

Captain America? Can you really take the

1:05:03

mantle of the old Captain America? And

1:05:05

the answer is, yeah, sure. Anyway, it's

1:05:07

terrible, it's boring, misconceived on every level.

1:05:10

I think it would be great if

1:05:12

Ed Norton had to hulk out in

1:05:14

every movie that he's in, because that

1:05:16

would have been a great scene in

1:05:18

a complete unknown when he plays Pete

1:05:20

Seeger, like when Bob Dylan goes electric.

1:05:22

You know, that might have saved that

1:05:24

movie too. I would have watched

1:05:26

that one. Catherine, what have you

1:05:28

been watching? And please, if you

1:05:30

have any comments on the NBA

1:05:33

All-Star Game or the Marvel Cinematic

1:05:35

Universe. Yeah. Now's the time. I read

1:05:37

a book and the title feels somehow

1:05:39

I propose for this podcast. It's called

1:05:42

I Who Have Never Known Men. And

1:05:44

it's supposed to be a dystopian,

1:05:46

honorary, beard, and podcast guy. It's

1:05:48

supposed to be a dystopian, but

1:05:50

it sounded pretty good right now. It's

1:05:52

by Jacqueline Hartman, and it actually came

1:05:55

to prominence on Book Talk. This is

1:05:57

a Book Talk book. Book Talk tends

1:05:59

to like... like, you know, this

1:06:01

is like, gals recommending each other

1:06:03

books on, on Tiktak. They tend

1:06:06

to like, kind of like, fantasy,

1:06:08

fairy, porn, that kind of thing.

1:06:11

This is not that. This is

1:06:13

a gorgeous spare translated from the

1:06:15

French dystopia. It opens with

1:06:18

40 women imprisoned in a

1:06:20

cage. They don't know why they

1:06:22

got there. And it's just

1:06:25

this long, beautiful meditation on

1:06:27

freedom and what makes you

1:06:29

human. if you have nothing.

1:06:31

And it's basically like if

1:06:33

it was the handmade's tail,

1:06:35

but nothing was ever explained.

1:06:37

You just live in this total vacuum

1:06:40

of, you don't know why the world

1:06:42

is the way it is, and you

1:06:44

just have to live in it. They

1:06:46

mean character just has to live

1:06:48

in it. She doesn't have a

1:06:50

name. She doesn't know her name.

1:06:52

She's the child, the only young

1:06:54

person in this world. It's

1:06:57

gorgeous. It's beautiful. It's weird.

1:06:59

It's all the things that

1:07:01

the NBA all-store game, Captain

1:07:03

America, Brave New World, are

1:07:05

not, and I recommend it

1:07:07

very, very highly if you

1:07:09

want to be confusingly depressed,

1:07:11

but also inspired. I who have

1:07:14

never known men by Jacqueline

1:07:16

Harman. Confusingly depressed is what

1:07:18

I am after reading the

1:07:20

news every day. But also inspired.

1:07:22

Well, we're hoping. Nick, do you

1:07:25

have any announcements, any events

1:07:27

you want to promote? Yeah,

1:07:29

on February 27th in New

1:07:31

York City, I'm going to

1:07:33

be sitting down for a

1:07:36

live interview. taping with Brian

1:07:38

Doherty who has a book

1:07:40

coming out called Modern Libertarianism

1:07:42

which kind of gallops through

1:07:44

the post-war era. It's a

1:07:47

nice addendum and auxiliary and

1:07:49

supplement to his radicals for

1:07:51

capitalism book but go to

1:07:53

reason.com slash events and come out

1:07:55

and talk to Brian Doherty and

1:07:58

drink some beer, wine, soda. and

1:08:00

have what we call light fair.

1:08:02

I don't know what that means

1:08:04

really, but you know, don't

1:08:06

expect to get a full

1:08:08

meal, but you can do okay.

1:08:10

It's like a county fair,

1:08:12

except it doesn't weigh that

1:08:15

much. Yeah, we will have

1:08:17

a butter sculpture of Barry

1:08:19

Goldwater, so yeah. Just an

1:08:21

homage will not be eating

1:08:23

that. Okay, before that's our

1:08:25

show. Not in a shredding

1:08:27

phase, no. Before we go,

1:08:29

a couple of announcements here.

1:08:31

Do you want to work

1:08:34

for Reason? We are hiring.

1:08:36

If you want to work

1:08:38

with us, go to reason.com/Jobs.

1:08:40

That's reason.com/Jobs. We have fellowships.

1:08:42

We have internships. We have

1:08:44

internships. We're looking for writers

1:08:46

and video producers and people

1:08:48

who are good at making

1:08:51

things happen. So go to

1:08:53

reason.com/Jobs and see if there's

1:08:55

a job that's right for

1:08:57

you. Finally. Nira Badwar, John

1:09:00

Bill's, Jeffrey Brand, Tori, and

1:09:02

Aaron Haberman, Matthew Chanel, Terrence

1:09:04

Wolf, and Roberta Yuan, Richard

1:09:06

Reynolds, thanks so much for

1:09:08

making this podcast and everything

1:09:11

we do at Reason Possible.

1:09:13

As always, if you like

1:09:15

this podcast, you can support

1:09:17

us by going to reason.com/Donate.

1:09:19

Thank you so much for

1:09:21

listening. Like Captain America, the

1:09:24

Reason Roundtable Will Return.