Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 6/3/25: China Popularity Soars, Zohran Surges In NYC, Palantir Surveillance, Biden Spox Admits Lies

Episode Date: June 3, 2025

Krystal and Marshall discuss China's popularity soars as US declines, Steve Bannon demands Trump abandon Ukraine after drone swarm, Zohran surges in NYC poll against Cuomo, Krystal debates abundance neoliberal rebrand, Trump taps Palantir for sweeping surveillance of Americans, Biden spox admits he lied to cover Israeli crimes.   Marshall Kosloff: https://the-realignment.simplecast.com/    To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com   Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. the recording studios. Stories matter and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Over the years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned no town is too small for murder.

I'm Katherine Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community. I was calling about the murder of my husband. The murderer is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Stay informed, empowered, and ahead of the curve with the BIN News This Hour podcast, updated hourly to bring you the latest stories shaping the Black community. From breaking headlines to cultural milestones, the Black Information Network delivers the facts, the

voices, and the perspectives that matter 24-7 because our stories deserve to be heard. Listen to the BIN News This Hour podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Sagar and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to BreakingPoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at breakingpoints.com. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to Breaking Points, where we have an extra special show planned because we have celebrity guest host, Marshall Kosloff, long time, long time friend of the show and friend also of soccer,

sitting in this morning. Great to see you, Marshall. Yeah, I'm excited to be here. I moved out to Texas. I had a kid. I have a mustache. So everything is different. Everything has changed. And I'm excited to be back on the show. Yeah, it's going to be a lot of fun. So Marshall, if you guys don't know, hosts The Realignment. He also is in deep in the abundance world. So I'm really excited to talk to you about some of that because I've been listening, I told you, to your episodes

on abundance on the realignment. And it's actually helped me much better to understand what's going on inside the movement and what it's all about. So you can be a little bit of our guide through abundance world today, which I'm excited about. In addition, before I forget, guys, announced this yesterday, we brought back the monthly subscription, which I'm super excited about. I think it comes at a really timely moment when, you know, economics are a little uncertain. That's actually what we're starting the show with today. And we are doing a free monthly trial right now. So if you want to try out being a premium Breaking Points subscriber, go to BreakingPoints.com. The promo is BP free, so you can get that monthly trial subscription.

All right. So here is what is in the show today. Let's go ahead and put the show bar up so I can read it and not have to use my memory, which is a little bit suspect. We're going to talk about the latest with regard to tariffs, some back and forth with China. We've got the continued fallout from that extraordinary Ukraine drone attack. Wanted to get Marshall's take on that in particular. And some reaction from Steve Bannon. That was kind of interesting. We're going to dig into that New York City mayoral race, which is tightening between Andrew Cuomo and Zoran Mamdani. A lot of really interesting dynamics there. I think that will lead us into a great discussion I'm looking forward to on abundance, what it is, what it isn't, how the left should really be thinking about it.

And then we're going to thank Marshall for his time, let him go about his day. And Ken Klippenstein is going to join to break down what's going on with Palantir. Looks like the Trump administration is trying to assemble a mass database of all of the information that they have on every single American. Yes, you should be terrified about that. I certainly am. So Ken is going to talk about that. And he is also going to talk about Matthew Miller, former State Department spokesperson under Joe Biden, basically admitting that he was lying the entire time he was at the podium and asserting that Israel had committed no war crimes. So definitely want to take a look at that. So, Marshall, before we jump into the news, a lot of Rising and Breaking Points fans know you already.

You've undergone, as all of us have, I think, somewhat of a political evolution over the years since you started being a guest on the show. So before we jump in, why don't you just sort of like set up for everybody who you are, where you were, where you are now, and kind of your general view of politics in this moment. Yeah, totally. So I think for a lot of people with the 2016 election was really huge as it should have been if you were a person who could see both like Trump and Bernie, if you just were comfortable with your perspectives and thoughts and evaluations of the world before that, and that did not at all change by 2016, then I think there was probably something wrong with you. So Sagar and I have known each other forever. So we started a podcast called The Realignment. And The Realignment was really rooted in responding to this 2016 moment from both the right and the left. And I think as someone who's sort of contrarian by nature, I'm from the

center-left Portland suburbs, I was really attracted to the right, especially in the 2010s after the 2012 election where everything was up for grabs, right? Like Mitt Romney loses to Obama. You have gay marriage passing at the Supreme Court. It seemed like we were moving in one direction as a country in a more progressive direction by 2050. So the question of how would the right respond to that moment, I think was genuinely the most fascinating question of the time. Then that really got me into those spaces. I covered a lot of those topics. The Realignment's first guest was J.D. Vance before he was, well, I met J.D. before he was famous. But our first guest after J.D. was a little more famous was J.D. on the show.

So covering that space was huge. After 2020, though, I think obviously what kind of happened with everything from January 6th to sort of COVID, I think made pretty clear that the, I think, most hopeful version of that right populist project wasn't going to end well for anyone. It wasn't going to lead to like a stronger United America. It was just leading to more division and the lack of actual like certainty on these questions. So I started just getting more interested in the left and frankly started going back to my roots.

So just in the same way that like 2013 was like this big era where like the central questions were how would the right respond to how the 2012 election really shattered their story? The question right now is how is the center left? How is the center? How is the center right? And how does like the further parts of the left I think you represent really well, how are they going to respond to that moment? So I think my politics have naturally drifted towards where the big questions are. Interesting.

Okay, excellent. Well, with that being said, let's go ahead and jump into some of what is going on with the Trump administration that I'm anxious to get Marshall's thoughts on in particular. Let's go ahead and put this up on the screen. So we have an update on how they are thinking about the tariff regime. And you will recall that there was a series of court decisions that were impactful here. So you had one court, the Court of International Trade, that came in and said, OK, you can't actually use this particular provision that you're using. You have vastly exceeded your authority. You can't do that to levy the Liberation Day tariffs. Another appeals court came in and said, well, you can do it for now while this is playing out in court. So the big question has been, how is the Trump

administration going to respond? Are they basically going to take the out and be like, oh, well, we tried and we're just going to move on now? And effectively, all the indications are that they are not going to go in that direction. So that tariff sheet that was up on the screen indicates that they want to have countries provide their quote unquote best offer on trade negotiations by Wednesday, as in tomorrow, as officials seek to accelerate talks with multiple partners ahead of a self-imposed deadline in just five weeks, according to a draft letter to negotiating partners seen by Reuters. So effectively, they're saying that on that, you know, the liberation day, which the tariffs went into effect on April 9th, they're giving them a deadline till July 8th.

And then if there isn't some sort of deal into place, Trump is going to levy whatever tariffs he decides to levy. A bunch of administration officials, including Howard Letnick, have been asked about the court ruling and if it makes a difference in terms of how they go about this. And effectively, they're all saying, no, we're going to do what we want regardless of what the courts say, and we'll figure out some other provision to use if it isn't IEPA, which was the original provision. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that. Congress gives the president under this IEPA authority the ability to take on other countries who are creating a national emergency. And the $1.2 trillion trade deficit and all the underlying implications of that

is a national emergency. It's gutting our manufacturing base. The president takes that on and Congress lets him do it. Specifically, does not vote to take it away. Calls a vote and says he can keep it. So what's going to happen is we're going to take that up to higher courts.

The president's going to win like he always does. But rest assured, tariffs are not going away. He has so many other authorities that even in the weird and unusual circumstance where this was taken away, we just bring on another or another or another. Congress has given this authority to the president and he's going to use it. And Marshall, my suspicion is that I and others who were thinking that maybe the IEPA court ruling would be like an excuse for the Trump administration to back off of this were probably mistaken, and they probably are going to just figure out some other way to accomplish this. Because ultimately, I'm curious, I want to know your thoughts on what really is going on here. I think Trump loves the tariffs because it consolidates a lot of power in his hands.

And I don't think that he is going to let go of that easily. I think it's not just the fact that he loves the power and using the executive branch over Congress. I think it's that if there are, I'd say there are probably two things we could reasonably say Trump 120 percent believes. Yeah. It's tariffs and immigration. We should also understand that because Trump had a first term and an interruption between his first and second term, I think he's coming into this administration and they've made very clear that this is their priority. They see tariffs and immigrations as their unfinished business that they did not get done. Therefore, they are going

to push as hard as they can on this issue. That's just like the number one thing here. If you don't understand that Trump just truly believes in this more than almost anything else, you're going to sort of miss the fact that they're going to keep pushing forward. And to be honest with you, I actually think he believes in terrorists more than he I think immigration is more a means to an end for him, because even at times there, you know, like he told all in guys the thing about we're going to staple a green card to every, you know, student who graduates, you know, in practice, his administrations are obviously very hardline anti-immigrant. And I think he's basically outsourced that portfolio to Stephen

Miller, who is a psycho and a white nationalist and is going full force with the anti-immigrant program that he wants to. But it seems like the part of the agenda that Trump has really taken the most interest in and actually asserted himself in is the tariffs. And so what is your view, Marshall, of, you know, the tariff program, of the possibilities for it? Do you see any upside here? You know, what is your kind of like broad view of what's going on and what the impact could be economically? Yeah, no. So right before the election, when Sagar and I were talking about this on the realignment, we really focused on the fact that if we want to understand the story of the moderate American presidency, it's that when you come into your second term or even in your first term of Biden, presidents are going to just have like a theory of the case.

And in 2005, after George W. Bush won, his big theory of the case was I won. I have my mandate. I won the popular vote this time. I'm going to do social security reform, even though the voter base wasn't actually there. In this case, and you see this leading up to the 2024 election, Trump's theory of the case was, once again, I'm coming back. I'm going to finish the job. And this has been something I've talked about since the 1980s when we were talking about Japan and other East Asian countries. I am going to pass tariffs. I'm going to reindustrialize America by taking that specific route. That has always been his sort of approach. And the big problem with these like mandate theories and these big like this is my big agenda project that I come in

is if that mandate or that idea isn't actually synced with what the American people are failing, you're going to run into a huge issue. The huge issue they run into is if there's one lesson, and we'll talk about this during the Zoran segment, if there's one lesson that we should take from the 2024 election, it's that pretty much the main thing Americans care about is how unaffordable everything is right now, every single level. And it's easy for people in the Trump administration just to say like, oh, you know, these cheap goods and do you need $30? You just have $2. If we look at what's happened in America

over the past 50 years, like education, healthcare, housing, in those sectors, everything has gotten way, way, way, way more expensive. The one thing we've actually kind of kept relatively cheap at the cost of manufacturing, at the cost of like in many ways, like our domestic politics and domestic economy have just been these consumer goods. So coming out of the COVID supply shock, coming out of Biden ignoring this issue, we needed to pay attention to it. Having your theory of the case be, I'm going to launch a massive trade war within the first three months without doing the long-term planning, without getting the industrial policy together, without going to companies and businesses, even some of the small businesses. I'm sure you saw a lot of those small business owners who voted for Trump saying, wait a second, like, I wasn't ready for this.

I needed time to prepare for this. And what's really frustrating and crazy about the whole program here is that even if you buy Trump's case for tariffs, this is just not the way you would actually do this. The starts and stops, 90 days. Now, we're extending 90 days. Actually, no, we're going to get this other deal. Tariffs and reindustrialization and bringing manufacturing jobs back to this country is a medium-term project. Starting a new factory, rejigging your supply chains. That is so complicated and such a heavy lift for small, medium, and large businesses that you have to have a consistent policy so they can make investment decisions based off of it. If you

and I were going to launch a factory in Ohio, we would not launch a factory based on this current dynamic because we could have an entire situation where if you premised your reindustrialization plans on what was happening in February, March, and April, you could be totally screwed right now because, wow, are those tariffs going to be there? Is it going to make sense? Is it going to get a big deal? And the last part here, too, is that in many ways, the big problem is trade policies. They're doing so many different things at once. So on the one hand, the tariffs could serve as a new form of revenue that could lead to like a income tax decrease. But if we're actually decreasing the

income tax and we're actually like making money from this, then that's not going to reindustrialize the country. Right. So it doesn't really make sense. And you really needed a different version of this administration that actually took those three months to say, we're doing these five things. They make sense for this reason. And we're going to stay strong on it. And here's the other thing. And guys, let's skip ahead to a five.

Like, if your goal is re-industrializing the country, you're already failing. So this USISM manufacturing imports index fell to 39.9, lowest level since 2009. Kobe's letter says this, we're seeing 2008-like contraction in manufacturing imports as tariffs take effect. The overall measure of manufacturing has been falling month after month after month. And the reality is, Marshall, the Biden industrial policy plus protectionism in certain key sectors was actually working. For the first time in modern history, we came out of a recession, the COVID recession, creating more manufacturing jobs than we went in. In recent modern history, typically what happens is there's a recession, manufacturing drops, and it never comes back, right, for a variety of reasons.

And this was the first time that they had bucked that trend. And when you're talking about EVs, when you're talking about battery production, when you're talking about green energy, when you're talking about semiconductors, the policy was actually working because you paired the protectionism with industrial policy. And that's the piece that's completely missing here is any sort of a strategic direction. And at the same time, the parts of that Biden policy, which I'm first to say was inadequate and more should be done and it wasn't transformational for people in their daily lives and wasn't sold, all of those things. But the parts that were actually working are also being attacked and dismantled by a Trump administration, which just,

you know, hates Joe Biden, hates green energy, anything that smacks of like liberalism, like EVs, you know, EV batteries, any sort of green energy they just want to destroy. And so they've taken a chainsaw to those pieces and, you know, are actually destroying the part of our industrial policy that was actually working. Yeah. And the thing is of Bidenomics, we should like think about it on two different levels. So level one was like the political project. Biden's going to bring all the jobs back. We're going to re-industrialize America from sort of a center left perspective. That political project totally failed. It didn't deliver. It didn't deliver fast enough. Like, I have a lot of, like, MAGA in-laws. And, like, if you tell them about, like, the actual policies

that Joe Biden pursued, they were, like, they are literally skeptical and do not believe it was happening because you just didn't see this. There was lots of, like, really great reporting on how, despite the fact that they put a lot of these jobs in red states and in purple and swing states, it just wasn't actually felt on the ground. So at a political level, it did not work. At a policy level, I think what's been so frustrating about covering this tariff topic is if you actually talk to most people, left, right, and center, what they will say is, wow, we actually came to kind of a consensus after the first Trump administration and the Biden administration. The Biden administration could have jettisoned all of Trump's tariffs when they came in in 2021.

They didn't, though. They kept them because they, A, bought into the idea that we couldn't just treat China entering the, like, world market as this, like, chill thing that was going to work out for everybody and magically, like, keep everyone's jobs together. They kept that part. But then they once again added the government spending and industrial policy side. So we found a mix that, to your point, needed to be implemented better. So in a better version of the Trump administration, to the point I was saying earlier, you would have said, okay, here's what didn't work with the Biden approach. Here's what didn't work with our approach in the first term. Let's combine this into a mix that

actually builds us into something productive. And the key thing here, there was consensus in the business community, in the labor, with labor, and with policymakers on the left and right around that mix. Jettisoning in it just because it's like Bidenomics or because it's Biden-tied is like a huge disaster. Let's talk about the China relationship a little bit more. I can put A3 up on the screen. So we have an indication here, Trump and Xi may talk very soon. We'll see. In addition, this was the big news that came out yesterday. I can put A3B up on the screen. Trump has extended the China tariff. So pushing it off into the future, allow more time for negotiation, pushing it off till August 31st. And then this was pretty remarkable in terms of global impact on view of the U.S. since Trump has

come back into office. Net favorability, this is, again, global average net favorability. This is a poll conducted by Morning Consult. The U.S., when Trump comes into office, the view of the U.S. falls off a freaking cliff. And at the same time, the view of China has been significantly on the rise. So now you have a positive, you know, almost nine point margin in favor of China and the U.S. is underwater at minus 1.5, which is no surprise, Marshall. You know, again, with the incoherence of the trade policy, it would be one thing if you're like, we're going to specifically focus on China. We're going to create a block of our allies to, you know, have some policy solidarity and to try to isolate China. But

instead, they went to war with the entire world, including like Canada and the EU and countries that only have, you know, places that only have penguins and the whole thing. And so, of course, much of the world is like, screw you. Like, what are you doing? So in that respect, too, it has been thoroughly counterproductive and has really strengthened China's hand going into these trade negotiations. Yeah. And if you, I think the perfect, so like two examples here. So number one, like why were we placing tariffs on Madagascar? It actually does not make sense other than the explanation we gave earlier that Trump just specifically does not like trade in the conventional sense. So it's not just that, hey, we have these industries that really matter. Oh, hey, we have this whole part of the country that really relies on these jobs. So we have to balance the the trade-offs of like cheap goods versus people actually having jobs here. No, Trump just broadly is hostile to trade, which explains why

we are doing a trade fight with Mexico, which explains why we're doing a trade fight with Canada. And if you talk to the Canadians specifically, you know, the Mexico side of this thing has always been much more complicated because, you know, going back to like NAFTA in the 1990s and then like Hila Doris, like a lot of jobs like went south. So I think people had within their mental framework the idea that, okay, the U.S. and Mexico are going to kind of have a hostile trade relationship. And I think a dynamic where that is a fight doesn't lead to that fall off of like support for the U.S. in terms of these global polls. What the Canada experience just revealed is just like a real lack of trust.

Like if you talk to Canadians about this, if you talk to people across the kind of world, they would say, wait, like if we're just coming after us on this, why would we assume they're trying to find the right deal for this? Why is this about sort of us getting a good deal with them, us getting something from, you know, us being Canadians, the Canadians, they get something from us, we get something from them. It's all just domestic politics. Well, and not to mention, so in Trump's first administration, he renegotiated NAFTA with Canada and Mexico. So if you don't like the deal that was struck, like you're the one who struck that deal, buddy. So again, to your point about trust, why should they expect that some new deal that they would enter into this time around would be upheld under this Trump administration,

under the next administration, whether it's Democratic or Republican. Like the word of these people is just absolutely no good. Not to mention the just completely like chaotic and schizophrenic nature of how the tariffs are on and off and they're up and they're down and, you know, he's chickening out and then he's all in on a day to day basis. I am curious, what do you make of the the taco discourse? Because I'm actually a little bit skeptical to your point about how Trump is like ideal. One thing that he is ideologically committed to is tariffs there.

And not to mention, you know, if you had told people going into the Trump administration that we would be at the level of tariffs that we're at right now, and this is at a time before, you know, we get to July 8th and he once again does like another Liberation Day announcement or whatever that's going to be. People would be deeply concerned about what that would mean for the economy because it was an extraordinary increase. Even just the levels we're at now are an extraordinary change and increase over where we were previously. So I'm a little bit, I understand where it comes from because he has backed off the most maximalist positions of like 145% tariffs on China, which just completely ended trade between China and the US, which was completely insane. But on the other hand, you know, I think it is, I think it would be foolish to understate where we are and what he could potentially still do in the future. Yeah, and I think that that's why the court cases are really matter here, too, because, like, once again, if we're going to understand, like, what are the consistent parts of Trump's politics and personality over the past 50 years, he's a negotiator.

Now, if I am sitting in China, if I'm sitting in the UK or the EU right now, I'm much less certain that Trump is operating with a full deck of cards here when it comes to the United States. Why is there an—and this is the danger of just sort of doing this Hail Mary, we're going to reconfigure the way we conceive of trade policy and the trade policy that the administration is going to do versus actually Congress. Because if you get knocked down at the courts, even though those are being paused by the appeals court right now, why would China negotiate? The other thing that really is important to you too, and I want to go back to the comment about how China's perception is going up,

is that the real problem that we're facing here is that we sort of root our approach to China in sort of two different periods. So a lot of people root their approach to China in 2000. We let them into the WTO. They're a low-cost, cheap manufacturer. They take a bunch of our jobs, and that all basically happens there. In exchange, we get cheap consumer goods. That's one version of China. The second version of China is the China that Trump faced down during the late 2010s. We now, in the year 2025, are facing a new China where they now have BYD, who are producing the best, the cheapest electric vehicles in the world. And they are penetrating the European and the most advanced.

They are penetrating European and global markets. So if I'm sitting in, let's say, Germany, or I'm sitting in an East Asian country, and we see China delivering, not just, oh, competing for jobs of us, but actually delivering like industrial first world technological advancement that the United States cannot match right now. But also weirdly enough, the Trump administration says they are just totally uninterested in. China looks really great right now. Like that's just like the key real context here. You can't just treat China like it's the 2000s or the 2018 China. Or even like the night.

I mean, I feel like sometimes Trump has this like 1990s view of China almost that is completely out of touch with where they are today. They made an explicit government-led plan to move up the value chain, and they've done it. You know, it's not the days anymore of just like China stealing other companies' IP and using it to, you know, create knockoff cheap versions of it. Like they have their own very high-tech, advanced research capabilities. In some areas, to your point about BYD and EVs, they are outpacing the U.S. I think they're on par in terms of AI development at the very least. And so this is a very different China, not to mention the trading dynamics have changed as well. The U.S., if you consider ASEAN as a bloc, the U.S. is no longer China's largest trading partner.

They trade more with ASEAN. You have an entire rest of the world. So it was easier for China to acquire more customers than it is for the U.S. to, you know, recreate all of the supply lines and all of the manufacturing capability that has been outsourced to China and other countries, too, by the way, over the years. And it always seemed to me wild at the beginning of this that there was so much confidence from the Trump administration that it would be China that would have to come to them and China that would be in the more difficult political position in terms of these trade dynamics. Because that too, there isn't public consensus around what Trump is doing. Whereas in China, because we're the instigators here who started this war, there does appear to be a sort of rally around the flag effect and a willingness to, you know, withstand whatever it is the government policy in order to fight back against

what the U.S. is doing to them. Yeah. And there's been some really great reporting from The New York Times that I checked in on. So it's not as if this is just all like a total win for China, like the Chinese really depend on being able to export goods to the United States. So it's not as if a trade war wouldn't be a disaster for their own economy. But what the Chinese have explicitly done since the last round of these wars back in the 2018 period is they've made their economy more resilient. They've prepped for this. They've set the national narrative. You are not going to see Chinese, aside from the politics of it, you are not going to see Chinese small business owners knocking on Xi's door saying, wait, this is a disaster for us. This doesn't work. So they have set the table to fight

a actual trade war. And what we have just literally not done, and I don't care if you're on the right and you like object, even if you are on the right and think we need to take a totally different approach to trade, it would have taken multiple years of preparation to actually get our economy to the point where we could stand off against China, to your point, to the degree to which Trump wants to trade off on. I want to also go to Letnick's comments about national security. That's why we need to really do this. I hope no one takes away the idea that you and I are dismissing the idea that there aren't national security concerns here. My favorite topic on this is like, we are incredibly dependent on China for pharmaceuticals. It's a huge problem. It's a huge risk. This isn't just like a China-Taiwan thing. This was like a

COVID thing. Like there are so many critical, critical things that we are over-dependent on China on. And in an era where we have to be ready for supply chains to break at any time, once again, separate from your views of war and peace, we need to be more resilient in that category. The national security emergency supports the argument that, wow, we should really, really concentrate on these five specific areas. So once again, we really, really, really should have focused on semiconductors, which is what the Biden administration was doing. Wow. Even if our pharmaceutical goods are cheaper because of the fact that we get them from China, we can't be overly dependent subsidy or pursue some sort of industrial policy for our political goods. That would have been met not only with more policy consensus in this country.

You wouldn't see the courts fighting. You wouldn't see even Republicans in Congress fighting. You wouldn't see angry town halls where Republican congressmen and women cannot even articulate the case for this policy. That would have been the right approach here. That's a good transition into the next block, actually, because you know what I learned yesterday, Marshall? 90% of the drone industry is also in China. And obviously, we covered yesterday, but we'll just put back up the images on the screen and refresh everybody's memory, Ukraine was able to commit an extraordinary drone attack on far-flung Russian air bases. And it's not confirmed how many Russian warplanes they were able to take out.

The Ukrainians are saying over 40. Of course, the Russians are saying a lot less. There hasn't been independent confirmation, but obviously a significant amount of damage was done. And, Marshall, it was, you know, quite an extraordinary operation. Zielinski says this was 18 months in the making. They used, it appears, civilian supply chains trucking in these drones on, you know, on large trucks, leaving, parking them in key positions. The drones were, like, hidden in the top of these crates. And then at the appropriate time, the crates were remote control opened and these little drones, you know, that look like toys were able to go out and do tremendous damage to the Russian air fleet. So we've got some interesting Bannon comments. But before we get to that, since we didn't have

you here yesterday, just tell us sort of your overall view of the significance of this operation. Yeah, it really shows a key way that the war in Ukraine has changed in a way that was totally different from the Biden administration. So one of the big debates within the Biden administration, the Biden administration, as with all areas, sort of found itself in this like middle where basically no one was happy. So there are all these people sort of to the more populous side who thought that the Biden administration was escalating things in Ukraine and were way too sort of in favor of Zelensky's approach. The hawks were pissed because the U.S. wasn't authorizing strikes into Russia. We wouldn't say, hey, if we're going to give you missiles, we're going to give you ammunition. You cannot use them to strike Russia's potential nuclear assets. Because to build on your point, these weren't just like warplanes.

These were like Russia's strategic bombers. Nuclear bombers, some of which they're not really able to produce anymore apparently. They're quite literally not able to produce. They've obviously been upgraded, but the Tu-95 is a Cold War relic. Just in the same way that our B-52s, the airframe that first started in the 1950s, same thing is true of these planes. These are propeller-driven bombers that can launch missiles. They've been launching missiles into Ukraine, but they also can be used to drop and launch nuclear weapons.

So the fact is, now that Ukraine has this capability of utilizing the drones the way they use them, this isn't something the U.S. can control anymore. So it doesn't matter if we're not sending the missiles to launch these types of strikes. They have built their own drone industry. They've effectively become, in many ways, and this is kind of an overstatement, but it gets to the point, they've become a drone superpower. This has really changed the way they can approach and take this strategy. Another really interesting thing that I learned, too, and this is why we were speaking earlier

about how we're entering in a really new era. We need to think differently. It should be noted, all of these planes were out in the open. These were things that people could see. That stems from the fact that ever since the Cold War, it has been in a basic rule that there's a degree of transparency with nuclear forces from a pure deterrence and awareness and safety perspective. It's unclear that after this attack, any country of nuclear weapons could afford to let their strategic bombers out in the open, even if it means that previous nuclear limitations treaties required they be out in the open so we could monitor. That was a very good thing. That's the type of thing that you need to have in a Cold

War situation. That's not sustainable anymore if you can get civilian drones in or if you could convert civilian drones into military use and then launch these attacks within the country. Yeah, no, that's I mean, that's absolutely right. And, you know, you saw it also the ability to use these relatively small, relatively low tech and easily accessible drones to inflict significant damage, I mean, it really does level the playing field of warfighting in a way that should be very troubling to the U.S. You know, we see it certainly here in Ukraine, where increasingly it is a drone war, where you have drones fighting against other drones. You also saw it to a certain degree on October 7th, where Hamas,

the first thing that they were able to do was to take out the very high-tech fence, multi-million dollar fence that Israel had built along the Gaza border, including, you know, automated machine guns and surveillance. So they're able to take those out, and that's how they're able to effectuate their attacks on October 7th. So, you know, this was a complicated operation that Ukraine was able to pull off. The U.S. claims they had no idea this was coming. I don't know whether that's true or not. There would be some interest both from the Ukrainians and the U.S. if they did collaborate to deny that there was any sort of coordination or collaboration. So I'm not sure if that's true or not. But this was a complicated operation to pull off. At the

same time, the tech is very easily available and very low cost. And so, you know, obviously the reason for Zelensky to do this at this particular point in time is because there are peace talks ongoing. The general consensus is that Russia is in a much stronger position than Ukraine is because they have much more manpower and they have much more industrial might than the Ukrainians do. And so this is an effort to say, look, this is not, you know, the playing field is more level than you think. And we can inflict damage on you deep into your territory that, you know, and it doesn't require the assistance of the United States of America to be able to pull this off. Yeah, I know.

And the way to understand the Russian position right now is there's some good reporting. The Russians are moving miles a day. They're sort of advancing into Donetsk. And the thing is, if you're looking at the Ukrainian position right now, what the Ukrainians are basically trying to do is just make clear that they are in this for the long term, especially in a world where they can no longer guarantee the United States is going to have their back in the same way that the Biden administration did. I think obviously the Zelensky-J.D. Vance blowup at the White House was a disaster on like 15 different levels. But what I think it really accomplished in a way that the Biden administration, I've

read all the reports, I still don't understand why this never happened. I think what the Oval Office blowup forced the Ukrainians to finally reckon with is the idea that they cannot take for granted that the United States will supply them with intelligence, supply them with weapons, always have their back no matter what, always be pushing for them to sort of get some sort of settlement in the exact way that's most maximally Ukrainian. What happened this past weekend is what happens when Ukraine realizes it has to be much more independent and be able to actually back itself up without just begging the United States for more. So let's go ahead and take a listen to Steve Bannon's reaction to this operation from the Ukrainians. The White House has to condemn this

immediately and pull all support and tell Lindsey Graham, come home or we're going to put you under arrest when you come home. You're stirring it up. Lindsey Graham's over there saying, hey, forget Trump. I got the House and the Senate. We're going to pass him. You're going to see something in a couple of days. Remember that? He's stirring it up over there. He's telling me they got backing.

If they did not give us a heads up on this, full stop, no minerals deal, walk away from all of it. They're irresponsible. They're dragging us into a kinetic third world war. As we said, us, we're getting dragged in now. Or the deep state is driving us in there. Either of these are not good. Tulsi Gabbard's got to let us know.

Did anyone in Intel at all have anything to do with this? Did anybody have a heads up? And if not, who the hell's running the Ukraine desk? Who's running the Russia desk? who's running the russia desk same thing with ratcliffe this is why cash and bongino and pam bondi you got to clear out the deep state this is a ticking time bomb and you see what they're going to get us into because now we're now inexorably we're being drawn into this. If we didn't know about it, the president to me has got to condemn it and got to say we're not going to give any more support because these people cannot be trusted.

You're supposed to be in Turkey today talking peace, not 3000 miles into Russia blowing up their strategic bombers. So what do you make of Bannon's position here and kind of the position he occupies in the party overall, because, you know, he does this thing where he'll be critical of certain things going on in the Trump administration. It's never Trump's fault, though, right? He's very critical of Elon Musk, but it's not Trump's fault. He's very critical of the direction that they're going in Ukraine. But, you know, it's the deep state. It never has anything to do with actually the administration. Yeah, I think the principal thing that, A, I just appreciate you noting how in many ways Steve Bannon is a politician. And he has to like navigate that. So here's the prime flaw here.

So Trump, and Trump now claimed that his comment that he was getting into the war in Ukraine on day one was sarcastic. I think that was not true at the time. And that really did reflect his sort of perspective that Biden had bungled this among all the other things that Biden bungled. And therefore therefore you could have gotten a deal once Trump was actually there. If the U.S. just walks away from Ukraine, and not just walks away in terms of giving every single munition they ask for, or saying we're going to back some sort of NATO or EU membership, just actually walks away and leaves the table, Russia isn't going to settle. I think it's very clear that Trump wants a settlement. I think in certain ways, the Ukrainians and the Russians want an

eventual settlement. It's clearly neither side at this point is getting their end goal. It should be noted that Putin, we should define his end goal. Putin launched this war claiming that Ukraine was a delegitimized, illegitimate Nazi state. Denazification, debathification. Like this really should be understood as Russia's Iraq war here in all the disastrous ways that that metaphor really matters here. Ukraine's going to exist.

Ukraine is a nation now. This war has forced Ukraine into a nation. So Putin is not going to get that full maximalist extent. The Ukrainians are also not going to get because Trump has been very clear in a way the Biden people were not clear that the US U.S. is not going to back Ukraine until they take back every single inch of their territory. So everyone is going to have to get some form

of settlement at some point. However, the issue though, is if the U.S. walks away and the U.S. makes clear they're not going to back Ukraine at least, or even participate in the process, why would Putin stop from that perspective? And that's the other reason why we should understand Ukraine's need to launch an attack like this. Ukraine has to launch an attack like this to make clear that they are still in this, that this is serious. And even if the Russians are going to take miles of territory in eastern Ukraine, if they're going to slowly but surely march forward, even though things are still kind of stalemated, Russia isn't going to get its eventual total aim. Therefore, you have to get to some form of settlement. Yeah. Well, and I think this attack underscores why you need some sort of a settlement, because, I mean, it is a dangerous escalation. And, you

know, we do have to be wary of the fact that Russia is a nuclear arm superpower. And, you know, Putin will be sensitive to, you know, this attack, which is incredibly embarrassing and humiliating, that they were able to penetrate so deeply into Russian territory. So I think it underscores the need for a settlement. I mean, to be honest with you, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the Trump administration here because I do think it is such a mess and so difficult to untangle at this point. You're talking a little bit about the Biden administration policy. In a lot of ways, it really was the worst of all worlds because obviously they short-circuited and undercut the original peace talks. So there wasn't pressure early on for some sort of a settlement. I think that was a grave error,

you know, underscoring the fact that, listen, there's no guarantees, obviously, that there would have been an ability to have a resolution at that point. But I've also become more sympathetic to the sort of more hawkish faction that says, listen, you're just letting them bleed out slowly rather than, and over time, the Biden administration kept going, okay, well, you can't, you can have these particular weapons. All right, you can have the long range. All right, you can strike inside of Russia. So it's like, well, if you were going to do that anyway, you may as well have actually given them the tools to be more successful earlier on, push for a peace and be able to get some sort of a settlement that wouldn't be a complete and total disaster for the Ukrainians. So I do think the people who say that

the Biden administration policy was kind of the worst of all worlds are absolutely correct. And at this point, it is a disastrous, brutal, bloody, horrifying mess that lands in the lap of the Trump administration. And I don't think that there is an easy resolution. There's certainly not a resolution that is going to make literally any side happy at this point. And look, and because the stakes, and this is, you've really highlighted this, because the stakes are nuclear, you cannot have a situation where the U.S. just walks away. This isn't just another sort of Eurasian conflict. This isn't Azerbaijan versus Armenia. The stakes here are nuclear. The stakes here, and I think if there's, obviously you and I are going to have our disagreements about the Cold War and the different ways that it went, but I think a key thing that

was achieved during the Cold War is that we limited nuclear proliferation. The world still exists. The world still exists. And because the stakes are nuclear in this case, A, a Russia that just thinks it has total impunity to do whatever it wants without consequences, a world where you could see that type of escalation. I think part of the reason why, and this is where I'll give like a mild defense of the Biden administration, the reason why they are hemming and hawing and were never really finding support from either sort of like the skeptics or the hawks was that Jake Sullivan was terrified of nuclear conflict. So the, well, maybe this, maybe that.

So to your point, they're saying, okay, no F-16s, okay, F-16s, no missiles, okay, missiles, was because they, I think, took very, very seriously the idea that Russia could potentially nuclear escalate. Russia didn't. Russia was bluffing. The actual thresholds for what Russia would say, for what Russia claimed would lead to escalation were passed years ago. So the Biden administration slowly, slowly, slowly dripped in. And I think we're probably overcautious if we look

at the pure, what are the best possible words that could have came here? But they sought to really manage that. But once again, they came to an uncomfortable, unpopular position because they're just trying to manage a nuclear conflict. And that is like the primary thing. And once again, Steve Bannon's position, I'd be more sympathetic to that if once again, this was Azerbaijan versus Armenia. The consequences of this war going in the wrong direction are, well, maybe Poland gets a nuke. Maybe other countries become convinced like, oh, wow, like we're all in it on our own. We can't be guaranteed that the US orS. or the EU or other powers will have our backs. We need to get a nuke. Maybe South Korea needs to get a nuke. I think just tamping that down is why we have like an exit. And here's the key thing, too, and this is what the hawks did not do. Us helping to bring this conflict to an

end does not mean Ukraine gets an unlimited sort of amount of munitions or weapons. It doesn't. And this is what the Biden administration also did not do. They should have made much clearer because they knew this internally, that the American people did not support a U.S.-Ukraine policy that equaled they take back Crimea and every single part of eastern Ukraine. That was never the actual in the administration consensus. What the American people want is a situation where this war comes to an end and Trump participating and negotiating and driving this process, him serving as the third force that's pressing these two sides who know in their heart of hearts they need to settle in some ways, but are incentivized not to

do it. Like once again, more New York Times reporting that I'll shout out at breaking points, you know, stay true to the mainstream media. Mainstream media has its actual functions. I'll point out that part of what's driving Russia's unwillingness to take the negotiations seriously, like they sent junior diplomats, not serious senior level diplomats, is they're like, actually, we've got a summer offensive. It's kind of moving. Let's take as much territory as we can before things slow down in the winter. So that's really the situation that we're playing with now. Yeah, that's exactly right. And the last piece we can put up on the screen here is B4 guys. So there were negotiations yesterday. They were among low level delegations as Marshall was just gesturing towards Ukraine and to, but that's really all that came out of that. So, you know, you have the Ukrainians that were able to pull off this dramatic, risky, but quite, you know, damaging and effective attack within Russia. You have the

Russians who've been able to claim quite a bit of territory actually just in the recent past, and neither side really looking to bring it to a close or take the losses that would be entailed in bringing this to some sort of a settlement in the near term. All right, let's turn to the New York City mayoral race, which has become much more interesting, I think, than people expected. We can put C3 up on the screen. There's a bunch of contenders here, but the two that are really in contention are former New York governor Andrew Cuomo and Democratic Socialist Zoran Mamdani. So this looks very complicated. This is a recent Emerson poll that came out. They do rank choice voting in New York City. That's why you have all of these

different rounds. But the one that really matters is if you look all the way to the 10th round, you've got Cuomo coming in at 54, so he's still winning. But his edge has significantly declined, and nipping at his heels at this point is Zorhan Mamdani at 46%. So we definitely have ourselves a race here. You know, Mamdani obviously not enjoying the vast name recognition that Cuomo has and the establishment backing, etc. Really been an upstart. Marshall, there are some indications that even he and his campaign were not expecting him to have this much traction in this race. And so we've got a couple clips of Zoran that we can play here in a minute,

but just wanted to get your reaction off the top of some of the dynamics that you see unfolding here. Yeah, so several things here. I think what, so, and we'll get into this. Zoran, what I love about this race is it's sort of like a microcosm of all of the dynamics that you see unfolding here. Yeah, so several things here. I think what, so, and we'll get into this. Zoran, what I love about this race is that it's sort of like a microcosm of all of the challenges facing the Democratic Party as we like look forward. So you have an aging, sort of like unattractive,

establishment centrist candidate who doesn't really stand for anything. Like I genuinely do not know. If you said to me, Marsha, like what is Andrew Cuomo running on beyond just like post-MeToo redemption? I could actually like not articulate that for you and I don't think most people can. Versus Zoran clearly believes in things

and I think is being really responsive. He's really great on social media. He's also bringing the suit back. This is where I will speak for Sager. I think he looks so great in his suit. And I think that hopefully he can move us past like the very condescending era of like politicians like dressing down

to sort of act like they're like fake and not sort of with it. So like maybe there's a fashion trend. We could do a breaking point spinoff on those cultural things. But here's the problem for Zoran though. He's still underperforming with like over 40 black voters. Like that's the central – so the central challenge for centrism is it's its central casting problem. The challenge for democratic socialism and so on is just the fact that with Black and Hispanic working class voters, just a real amount of skepticism about the project. So I want to talk more about that. Let's go ahead and put C4 up on the screen

just to underscore what Marshall is saying here about what the various coalitions are. Cuomo's strongest support comes from Black voters at 74 percent, older voters over 50 at 66 percent, and this one kills me, women. Really, guys? 58 percent to 42 percent. Mamdani leads among voters under 50 with 61 percent, holds an edge among white voters 57 to 43, and college educated voters 58 to 42. So it's the exact opposite of the coalition that he would, you know, claims to speak to, and that his agenda is really crafted to attempt to appeal to. Before we talk a little bit more about that, because I do want to dig in on that piece, he was on MSNBC recently, and I thought was asked a good series of questions about his platform, and especially about the critique of,

like, yeah, you know, you're really too far left to appeal to be able to govern effectively. There's a concern within the establishment quarters of the Democratic Party that what's gone wrong with the party is that it's gone too far left. Obviously, I have my disagreements with that, but it's an important question to ask. Let's go ahead and take a listen to how Zoran responded. What New Yorkers deserve is a plan that actually speaks to the crisis in their lives. And affordability is the number one crisis. So we're going to freeze the rent

for more than 2 million New Yorkers who live in rent-stabilized housing. We're going to make the slowest buses in the nation fast and free. And we're going to deliver universal childcare to each and every New Yorker, whether their child is six weeks or five years of age. Because today, childcare is the number two reason

people are leaving our city. And it makes sense. It costs $25,000 a year to raise a kid here, which is more money than it would cost to send that same kid to CUNY 18 years later. But what do you say, though, to Democrats who look at what we saw in November with Vice President Harris losing?

And a lot of the post-game analysis, if you will, was the party had moved too far to the left, that it was actually time to come back to the center a little bit, to connect to a lot of those working class blue collar voters who have broken for Trump in recent cycles. That seems to be what Governor Cuomo is saying. What do you say to people who say, well, I like the guy, but he's not right for this moment. He's too lefty. Well, you know, I think we as politicians need to lecture less and listen more. And when we saw New York have the greatest swing towards Trump in the entire nation, 11 and a half points,

we saw that it took place in the hearts of immigrant New York. And so I went there to Fordham Road in the Bronx, Hillside Avenue in Queens. I asked those voters, why did they vote for him? And they told me they remembered having more money in their pocket four years ago. I asked them what it would take to bring them back to the Democratic Party. They said a relentless focus on an economic agenda. And when I told them my plan to freeze the rent, make buses fast and free, deliver universal child care, they said that they would vote for me. And I think ultimately that's what we need is a recognition that for too long our party has moved away from working class voters. It's time we actually bring them back. So I personally think that's a great answer because he reframes it as not just like a

where are you on the left right ideological axis, but hey, we need to deliver for people and cost of living is this crushing burden, especially in a city like New York. And so here are the really super concrete ways that I'm going to try to make life a little bit easier for working class voters. What did you think of how he responded? Yeah, I know. It's really funny because if you, and this is why I'm just really down on Cuomo as a candidate. If you think of like what the best version of like the centrist, pragmatic, technocratic pitch is, it's just like, look, forget the lofty stuff. People aren't trying to have a big ideological debate about socialism or liberalism or whatever. They just like are trying to put food on the table and they care about things. So Zoran is given just like a perfect like, hey, life's expensive, rent control. Life's expensive, we're going to focus on like housing and those other issues in child care. I just had a kid myself and even in the Texas suburbs,

it is incredibly expensive. I cannot imagine how expensive it is in New York right now. So it's just wild to me that Cuomo and his team, I think it's because they were asleep at the wheel, allowed themselves for Cuomo to take like the general like rhetorical tack of what centrist moderate candidates use and just like bring it that way. Like I think at their worst sort of DSA candidates come off like they, and this is the diploma divide that's the center of our politics, too many DSA candidates come off like they're sort of like campus organizers or they're sort of in academia and they're having this big debate about worker power versus or i don't think that means anything to most people zora was just like this this and that yeah cuomo hasn't responded to and i you

know you know since my politics more to the center here like i have like qualms and concerns about like rent control those different issues but it's just like really frustrating that like if and if you actually have this is kind of what we want politics to look like. We actually want politics not to just be like a, you're a socialist, well you're a Me Too monster. Like that's like very destructive and unhelpful. I love how Zoran has brought policies to the table. And I wish we had a politics where Cuomo could say, hey, rent control, I get why you're doing it. Here's why it doesn't work. Here is my actual plan. The lack of that on Cuomo's side is a huge problem. And then the other big issue I want

to respond to the comment about, didn't voters perceive what Kamala Harris is being too left? And you know this as a lefty yourself. One of the big issues facing the American left right now is when voters say the left broadly, they conflate like a bunch of different things. So the left doesn't just mean rent control, minimum wage increases, universal health care, things that poll really, really popularly. It also means certain positions on crime and immigration, especially with working class voters. There are a lot of working class voters who want their minimum wage to be higher, but

also are skeptical of like democratic approaches to crime, especially in a post-2021 era. There are a bunch of people, these voters who he's going to speak with, who are going to say, we support economic populism, but actually we're really worried about like migration and the ways that it's like

overstrained the city and its resources. So I think the thing that Zoran is really getting at here, and this is why he's not talking about the cultural issues as much, is he's focusing on that part of the left. Another thing, and this is just like so fascinating,

and this is the type of thing which centrists and my sort of can't really reckon with, were assessing Kamala Harris's campaign, obviously, in the wake of original sin. But it was revealed that her most popular ads had to deal with building more housing and cracking down on landlords. Those messages actually broke through. So I think the problem with sort of like the left camp that like Zoran is sort of engaged with, they're a little unfocused on like the building more housing part. Like this is where my politics are kind of EMB. Rent control is effective for people who have housing right now, but what are people who don't have housing right

now? It's not a full spectrum approach. I mean, housing policy actually requires that we do a bunch of things at once. But once again, Zoran is speaking to an environment where people say they don't like the left, but Kamala Harris's most popular policies are a weird mix of like centrist yimbyism, but like left-oriented landlord punching. Yeah. No, I mean, my politics are the center of the policy conversation and the center of the political narrative that should be pushed by, you know, by the left and by Democrats more broadly, focuses on economic populism, where you have a competing, like Trump has this narrative about immigrants are ruining the country, trans people are ruining the country, cultural elites, college educated women, they're

destroying your life, ruining the country, destroying your communities, etc. And Democrats basically don't have a consistent, coherent story of what has gone wrong in the country, what has gone wrong that led to your life being difficult, what has gone wrong that led to the rise of Trump, that led to the re-rise of Trump. They have not really had a coherent storyline about that. And, you know, this will, we'll get into this more in the abundance discussion, but the story that resonates with the majority, vast majority of Democrats and vast majority of independents and majority overall of the American people is the reason life has gotten difficult is because you have a bunch of greedy billionaires who've rigged

the system and are effectively incompatible with democracy. And I think that's just, you know, with the rise of Elon Musk and what we've seen in this administration, they've sort of made the case that the acceleration of oligarchy truly does represent both a democratic threat and an economic threat to people overall. So, you know, that's why this conversation about, you know, well, should we, should we like throw the trans people overboard or should we throw the immigrants overboard? I think sort of misses the point because the reason those issues were made so salient and so effectively by Trump is because they fit into his narrative of what had gone wrong in the country. The reason why Democrats were unable to stand up

to those narratives is because they didn't have their own story and theory of the case of what had gone wrong that made any kind of sense to people. So that's sort of my view of why that conversation really misses the mark. I mean, if you think about, this is what always drives me crazy, like if you think about polling the comments that Trump has made and the things that he has done, including things like, you know, you want to talk about crime and safety and policing, whatever. Like he pardoned all the violent January Sixers who beat up a bunch of cops. It polls at like 5% support. Even one of the January Sixers was like, I don't even want this pardon. I broke the law.

I shouldn't be forgiven for it. So, you know, that's where I get frustrated with some of the conversation around, like, let's just pull out what the right positions are and let's just locate ourselves on the ideological spectrum. Number one, it ignores the fact that people's minds can be changed, as they obviously, you know, have been on a variety of issues over time. It also ignores the fact that Trump won while holding some like insanely unpopular positions. Why? Because he had a compelling, wrong, evil, cruel, in my opinion, storyline, but that rang as true to people and sort of hung together as a narrative. Yeah. And I said earlier, I didn't

understand the rationale for Cuomo's candidacy, but like in your comments, you kind of revealed it. Like Cuomo's candidacy was really premised on this November, December, January vibe shift where like, oh wow, like Democrats overreached in so many different ways. We overreached on Me Too in the sense that like young men are incredibly skeptical of Democrats. We overreached on immigration. We overreached on LGBTQ rights. It I think makes sense to like look at a bunch of policy issues that way. And I think the Democrats do definitely overreach in those categories. But if you really understand what's being said there, it's incredibly defensive, right? It's basically this theory of the way we come back into power is by recognizing where we

overreach and basically either explaining or not explaining why our position is different. I think that's needed in a bunch of cases, especially where those positions like lost trust. I think Biden's immigration policy really damaged the party's long-term trust with like these same like working class black and Hispanic voters who like Zoran is really speaking to. So like that has to be acknowledged. But what centrists did not do, and I say this as a person who's more of a decently centrist coded, is they didn't actually focus on what does the offense look like.

So, okay, we need to get a more moderated, or not even moderate in the sense of like, we're just moving the chessboard pieces around, but like, I love Zoraun's quote, listen to voters. Let's listen to what voters are actually saying on sociocultural issues and have an agenda that's responsive to them. Step one. But step two is also, what else are they also saying that requires us to have something to say? So Cuomo was ready to basically just say, hey, like, I'm the research and center left, everything's going to be normal in 2019 again. That wasn't enough when people were facing an affordability and housing crisis. Well, and not only that, it's very convenient for a Cuomo who is an establishment politician, who is very closely aligned with business interests and,

you know, interest of the wealthy in New York City, And, you know, that comes out in his rhetoric, et cetera. It's very convenient for him to say, well, the parts of the agenda that don't threaten wealthy interests, those are the parts that we can dispatch with. And that's going to enable me to keep together, you know, my wealthy donor base and make sure that there's nothing that infringes on the things that they want to do. And I think we saw a lot of that coming out of Trump's reelect, where there was an immediate effort to basically do the things that are easy in terms from a sort of like wealthy donor perspective and not analyze any of the failings on the like, you know, economic populist front and in the areas that, you know, would be more challenging and uncomfortable for some of those alliances with mainstream Democratic politicians. I do want to go back to, though,

because I'm curious your view of, you know, the demographics that we put up earlier. There was all kinds of conversation during Bernie 2016 and again in Bernie 2020 about the nature and demographics of his coalition. And I think, you know, parts of that were always really unfair because it was very much stereotyped as like, it's just a bunch of white bros. Well, now that the white bros have shifted to the right, the Democrats would very much like to get those white bros back. But it was also never truly representative of what his coalition was. Bernie did have a largely working class coalition. His greatest weakness was with older black voters, and I think we can talk about why that is. It's now increasingly apparent that that's not a Bernie Sanders

weakness. That is a left weakness in general, as evidenced by, you know, Zoran and as evidenced by any number of other, you know, sort of left progressive DSA type candidates. But, you know, he had a, it was a diverse working class base, including Latinos in particular and certainly among young people. And that generational divide is important as well, because the stereotype was always like, oh, black people just don't like Bernie Sanders. If you looked at young black people, that was not the case. You know, he had a very diverse coalition among young people. So why do you think it is that the left consistently struggles with older black voters in particular seem to be the greatest sort of challenge point for, you know, for people who have a DSA style ideology? So, yeah. So I think, A, we should understand that there's a

policy pitch and there's a political pitch. And a lot of what, when I talk to sort of like – you know, when we used to do Breaking Points live show, like when we actually would talk to people who were attracted to these sort of ideas. Yeah. They were really attracted to like the anti-democratic party, anti-status quo part of the Bernie pitch. Yeah. It wasn't – I would talk to people. They'd say, yeah, I like universal health care. Yeah, I want Medicare for all. Yeah, I want the minimum wage increases, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

They would say those things. But what was really animating them was just a deep distrust, and not just distrust, but deep dislike of center establishment politics. These are people who came of age after 9-11, after the 2008 financial crisis, after 2016, after COVID. There is very little to no reason why people should trust, if you grew up in that environment, the center. If you're looking at older black voters who are rooted in the civil rights era, who are rooted in a different era of the American political system, that appeal of like, don't you just hate these old bums who just like screw everything up? That just is not going to resound as well. particularly attractive about the way that Zoran's approaching this is he's making this much less of a establishment versus anti-establishment pitch, though it's obviously there, and more just,

I'm going to go down the line and find the positions that you actually agree with and you are actually thinking about. So this is also another broader, and there's a warning here too, but I'll offer at the end of this, but there's also a broader lesson here for the left, which is that like, you know, my takeaway is I'm actually thinking that, like, city issues and municipalities are probably a better fit for left politics right in this immediate moment. So, like, you know, if you think about it this way, like, what is the central challenge that, like, centrists like to say to, like, lefties who say they want to take over the political system? They say, like, okay, cool, then, like, flip a red state or flip a purple state or win a congressional district the same way that we're doing right now. It's a tall order, and it is.

And I think it's a real serious challenge that left politics needs to really answer. And the thing is, though, if we're actually looking at these actual cities, if we look at the combination of policies and political dynamics that are better suited to the local rather than the nationalized dynamics. Soren's not having to debate LGBTQ people. He's not debating immigration policy. He's talking about specific city issues. The warning, though, for the progressive left, though,

is Chicago and Brandon Johnson. And we'll get into this during the Abundance Agenda conversation. I think a problem the left has yet to reconcile is that it's one thing to run successful campaigns and put together narratives that I think are clearly winning the long-term narrative war and actually govern. So he could say, we're going to make buses fast and free. He said that during the clip.

Okay, can you actually do that? And okay, we're going to impose rent control, but if you don't actually make more housing available for more people, that's only going to help people who kind of have theirs. What are you actually going to do when these actual challenges come in? Okay, cool. You're going to do paid sick leave. That's really great. How, like, and I know this is usually a cent for a dunk, but it really matters in like city and states where like the budget is actually constrained and where voters also do not want tax increases. How are you actually going to pay for this program and make it actually work? Brandon Johnson's one of the least, he's the mayor of Chicago, is one of the least popular politicians in America

because he campaigned on these sets of issues, but he did not have the talent, the coalition, the ability to actually get it done. So that is the warning for the left here. I think that's fair. But I also would say that the left always has to answer for any politician on the left who doesn't deliver. But like the center never has to answer for any politician on the left who doesn't deliver. But like the center never has to answer for Gavin Newsom or Kathy Hochul, who's, you know, pretty profoundly unpopular. And I would also say that the most popular Democratic governor in the country is Andy Beshear in Kentucky, who may not be DSA, but he is an economic populist. I mean, you know, I used to live in Kentucky. I've followed, I know him a little bit and I've followed his career and his pitch very closely. And I still talk to people in Kentucky about what it is about him that's really resonating there. And it's not because he, you know, did a hard right turn on any particular issue. He stood up for trans people. He closed churches during COVID. You know, he went all in on like, you know, protecting people from the disease.

But there are two things that people mentioned to me. Number one is just that he is hyper accessible. During COVID, he was doing like weekly, certainly, and maybe daily briefings where he would just go out and talk to people in this way that was felt very approachable. And like you actually had a direct line to him. And number two, you know, his pitch has been on health care, education and good union jobs. He's brought a lot of good union jobs. Some of that came from the Biden administration into the state of Kentucky. And so he really has sort of delivered on this economic populist message. So I would put him up as proof that that general direction, when executed effectively, is highly successful, both in terms of the policy and in terms of the politics. You know, if you also look at congressional districts across the country, a lot of the candidates that have overperformed, they may not be, you know, exactly Bernie Sanders, but they have really featured a

challenge of corporate power in their messaging and have used that to consistently outperform, you know, the top of the ticket. So I do think that there is plenty to suggest electorally that there's a lot there. But, you know, to your point, obviously, it has to be competently executed. And at the city level, especially when you're talking about, you know, any sort of executive position, it has to be competently executed because at the end of the day, it's like, did the trash get picked up or did it not get picked up? Did the snow get removed or did it not get removed? One thing I want, and this will help us transition more into the abundance conversation,

is that one thing that's interesting to me about Zoran, and this actually isn't unusual on the left, oftentimes the left does focus on issues like zoning reform and some of the things that are considered to be abundance policy. He has not only leaned into those more like DSA policies, like the rent freeze and the free bus and those sorts of things. He also has made an explicit focus of zoning regulations of, you know, streamlining bureaucracy for small businesses. He's talked about, you know, some of these things that are like single staircase reform and some of the things that are like core in the abundance movement and the zoning reform movement more broadly. Let's go ahead and take a listen to this ad that he cut about small business in particular. There's a lot of things that make

New York City special. For me, it's the delis and bodegas. Habibi, could I get an egg and cheese on a roll with jalapeno? One's the one special coming up. Small businesses employ nearly half of all New Yorkers in the private sector. They keep the city running. But the last four years have been hard. We've seen the dollar slice go extinct, storefront after storefront close,

and had a mayor in Eric Adams who has ignored the struggles of small businesses. That's why as mayor, I'm going to make it faster, easier, and cheaper for small businesses to get started and stay open. First, we're going to cut fines and fees for small businesses by 50%. Regulations are important, but small businesses have to navigate more than 6,000 of them, with far fewer resources than the big chains. That's why as mayor, I'll appoint a mom-and-pop czar with the clear goal of making it easier to run a small business. A thousand dollars isn't a lot to our city government, but it can be make or break for

a small business trying to get off the ground. Next, we're going to accelerate permits and applications. The mom-and-pop czar will coordinate with agencies to speed up turnaround times, cut red tape, and let New Yorkers start businesses sooner. Because you shouldn't have to fill out 24 forms and go through seven agencies to start a barbershop. But most of all, we're putting our money where our mouth is. By increasing funding for small business support programs

with 500%, we're going to invest $20 million in our Business Express service teams. So very abundancy messaging, I would say. You know, what do you think of the pairing of the rent control, the pairing of the, you know, the rent control, the free public transit, and some of those other policies alongside the zoning reform, the cutting red tape, and the kind of like abundance suite of policy options? Yeah, no, I think you are going to talk about this later, but as someone in the abundance camp who's

probably done more speaking with the left than like anyone else in that broad coalition. Yeah. What I keep hearing is obviously there's like the angry or like Twitter discourse and they're all like the negative reviews. But when I talk to people in the know who I would take seriously, they're like, look, abundance at its best has pointed out some real problems. And we'd like to get to a yes and. Yeah. From a progressive perspective that doesn't just treat us as these people to be left punched, but like a broader conversation. Because like this is like, I'm really interested in like UK politics. I always like to think of American politics in the sense of like coalitions. Like

this is a coalition. And if a coalition is going to be like 50 plus one and actually have a governing majority, it has to take everyone's different perspectives in mind too. So like, I really think that like the best version of the abundance agenda is going to be a set of policies that a politician like Sarah Rankin likes to take and leave. This is good. This is good. That isn't good. That isn't good. Okay, I'm governing. How do I actually make this happen? That's my best version of the project rather than just a version that equals, okay, now we have to support Richie Torres for governor. When I saw the reaction to that ad from specifically Matt Iglesias, who's an abundance guy, and his position is you should basically rank Zoran last. Cuomo would be superior. Cuomo, who we know was a failed governor and who, you know, like sent elderly people like to die in

nursing homes during COVID is obviously there's the Me Too issues, doesn't really stand for much of anything other than preserving the status quo. He thinks that he would be superior to Zoran. And there's just, it seemed to expose that abundance is not really about getting to yes and. It is actually an attempt to compete with what is an ascendant narrative within the Democratic Party, a very popular narrative within the Democratic Party about fighting corporate power and fighting oligarchy. So how should I think about those things? Yeah, so the key thing here is abundance is rooted, right? So actually abundance is a bunch of different things, right? Yeah, so maybe start that way.

How do you define abundance? Here's how I define abundance. So Ezra and Derek have written this incredibly successful policy book. And yes, like it's an air book, it's a quick read. But policy books like that, even short and accessible ones, do not sell as many books as they have sold. They have big platforms. They're really good writers. Like this is speaking to a set of people who have like real organic like interests and thoughts behind this.

So that's one part of it. The other part is there's a right wing, people call it dark abundance, that in many ways is sort of more of the VCs, like Marc Andreessen, people in the Trump administration. So a lot of the tech right falls into that sort of right wing abundance kind of because they're like, look, Trump's going to build nuclear. Trump's going to deregulate everything and help us build again. Technology is the way to the American future, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That's part of the abundance movement as well too, though I would not overstate the use of the word abundance. That in many ways is this center that was finding itself in a defensive position after November, December, where they said, okay, we have to moderate on LGBTQ issues. We have to moderate on immigration, et cetera, et cetera.

But we actually do need to have something like forward-facing to say. And they have adopted abundance as part of that project. Because, though, the project is like moderating and making the democratic party more centrist abundance has been mixed into that what i'm trying to do with with my work from my small podcast perch is build out abundance as a broader sort of approach or set of policies and questions that any sort of like from the center to the left of what we think about and i think the way i tell this story and i don't I'm not saying this as a dunk on you, because this has become a sort of cliche, but I'm actually asking, did you read the book Abundance?

Yes. Okay, so you know this. I listened to it, but yes. The first chapter is this like 2050 vision of the future where like technology and growth provided us all these different like great things. I actually really did not like that first chapter, especially from the perspective of articulating to the left why they should actually care about these ideas. Because I think, A, to

your point, we live in an era where people are backlashing against oligarchy, where people aren't excited about technology, where we're debating smartphones. That is a version of the book, because this book was supposed to come out in 2024. I would suspect if they were to start this project today, the book first chapter would be a little different. So my pitch for what the first chapter should have looked like is rooted in me not being a New Yorker or a San Franciscan, which is where a lot of the Yimby House people come from, but me being like a Texan. I live in Austin. I live next to the Hill Country. And I haven't looked at the books in a while, but The Path to Power, Robert Caro's biography, LBJ, is no longer back there. But that was a really like informative book book for Sager and my politics.

And here's my favorite chapter of the book. It talks about how in 1937, LBJ is a congressman. And during the New Deal, there was something called the Rural Electrification Administration. And what it literally did was bring power to rural America. We had electricity in the country for more than 50 years, but the private sector was not delivering electricity to the hill country, to poor, like, hardscrabble farmers. And what the New Deal did, they used a combination of private actors and public actors to create these co-ops that brought, and Robert Caro's telling, I really recommend people read this book, brought people into the 20th century from the Stone Age, effectively.

People were like, didn't have power. Now they have power. That is a vision of broad left liberalism that delivered for people and really mattered and got over the actual like objections and things that wouldn't make that happen. So rooting abundance in the story of like, wow, like it used to be that we had like a majoritarian left liberal politics that could fundamentally change people's lives by delivering them things that are powered by technology, that are powered by different forms of like organizing and when the private sector or the public sector can't get it done, that's

really what I want abundance to be rooted in. And I think the first chapter of the book that we pitched to the left would be rooted not in the future in a way that people aren't really bought into, but just in the, like, why was it that 1930s liberalism could deliver? But if you asked basically anyone, they would say that, like, New York, California, et cetera, all these, like, bastions of, like, left liberalism can't really deliver. That's why I want abundance to be rooted in. I think the whole country can't deliver, though. I mean, I am perfectly willing and happy to admit I'm in favor of, you know, zoning reform, that there are, you know, ways that the Texas housing zoning policy is superior to the California zoning policy. But I feel like the differences between Texas and California are less important than the

differences between America now and America during the New Deal as you're laying out. And so, you know, I was telling you before, I feel a little bit gaslit on abundance because sometimes it will be pitched to me this way of like, we're just talking about the New Deal. Like, you like the New Deal, right, bro? And I'm like, yeah, I like the New Deal. And then other times it's pitched like, screw Zoran Mandani, and we just need to, you know, effectively, like, abundance is just a new pitch for neoliberalism, where we get the regulators out of the way and these out-of-touch do-gooder liberals so that the big business can do their thing. And it can't be both of these things.

So there is a part there, the goals of abundance, who could disagree with, right? Building more stuff, making, building more housing, making housing more affordable, actually being able to do the high speed rail, like really building out. And this is where there's another, I think, tension within abundance, like really building out the capability to move into a green energy future. But to your point about there's this other part of abundance that also is very fossil fuel aligned and is, you know, exists in the Trump Party that would otherwise organically happen and that you see happening towards, you know, a framing around corporate power and checking oligarchy. And so that's where the concern comes in, is that you've got this moment, you have this reckoning

with the, you know, the wreckage of neoliberalism that has been repudiated sort of across the board here and around the world, by the way. You have a moment where Bernie and AOC have never been more popular, not just with the original Bernie base, but with the broader Democratic Party. You have a really clear reckoning with oligarchy, which has been made abundantly evident by the Trump administration and Elon and Doge and the tech right and having all of those oligarchs behind him at the inauguration and the way that so much of their policy is driven towards providing for the billionaire class. You also have this reckoning with AI coming, where these people are trying to become the first trillionaires and

eliminate like half of the jobs. And into this march marches effectively what appears to me to be basically like a rebranding of neoliberalism to say, oh, no, this is new and different, but really try to preserve the status quo. And that's where, you know, I think evidence for this in terms of the way it's being used is by how eagerly it's being accepted by the Richie Torreses of the world, by the entire Senate Democratic Caucus and the establishment Democratic figures who are most comfortable with trying to preserve the status quo. Yeah, and I think that I'll offer you kind of a rubric here. So you should know that when I was sort of giving my pitch for abundance, I wasn't saying,

and we need to get America back to growth. Growth is the key, key thing. Growth, growth, growth, growth, growth. You'll kind of hear that from sort of like the right wing, like tech billionaire crowd here. That is like the version of abundance, which is basically just like a substitute for like neoliberalism, just a substitute for like rehash 1990s. And so that is a key thing that I really should like offer here. But let's go back to the Zoran conversation. What I love about abundance, and this is like the key thing, we're going to talk about this poll in a second, but there's,

you know, there's a poll out there by Demand Progress that revealed that abundance messaging is far less popular when you're door knocking for voters than a more like populist-centric pitch. So I think that's fine. Like that is not a shocker. Like if you are running for office right now, you should not be talking about bottlenecks and like the fact that like our NEPA laws have made it so permitting doesn't like that is not the pitch the pitch is that like Elon Musk is like literally killing kids in Africa he's cutting your grandmother off of social security so a bunch of like 18 year old you know dudes can like play around and pretend they're like new dealers or something like that like that is what you are talking about right now and to your point about um Zoran you're also talking about like housing and affordability, like actual, not just like housing in the abstract, but like,

actually, like I am meeting you as a voter and I'm recognizing the number one thing you're worried about right now is how truly precarious American life is right now. So like that is what the actual like electoral pitch is. But what abundance should be in response to voters not being jazzed about bottleneck reforms is a toolkit to help politicians actually think through how freaking complicated and difficult it is to navigate this country. So back when I was first getting into policy, if you're talking to people about housing, we just say like, yeah, like rent control or let's just kind of do that. Abundance expands the set of policies in a bigger direction. So it says, okay, Zoran,

so I'm not going to convince Zoran in any way whatsoever that rent control isn't what New Yorkers are demanding or what wouldn't be a form of delivery for his base. But what I could offer with the abundance toolkit is, but hey, we really should also build more housing because there's a real gap and shortage of housing. And yes, there are 2 million New Yorkers who want rent control, but there's also like other New Yorkers who don't have apartments right now in the first place and need apartments to actually exist in the first place. So my real, like, and the good news here too is- But which he embraces. Yeah. And so great. Right. That is what yes and looks like. And once again, yes and should also

be rooted in that Kamala Harris poll and ad thing we talked about earlier where it's like voters love more housing. Talk about the new D.A.R.E. Like what did Harry Truman do after he comes into office? There was a housing shortage in America when Solve It, She Eyes came back. We built more housing. This is something we have to be able to do in this country. So we're going to have to come up with a broad mix of doing these different things. I think part of the issue, too, of abundance, like kind of Ezra and Derek are pundits.

Like that is their job. Like if you're a pundit, you know this, like you have to make your argument, dial it up to 120% and advance the argument. So they, in their argument, really focused this on the deregulatory story. The reason why I went back to the New Deal story in terms of my telling of abundance is more just that we should be focused at this point in the conversation, or let me put it this way, because people can have whatever conversations they want. We should root our abundance conversations when we're trying to engage between the center and the left in objectives and then work our way backwards rather than just sort of saying, hey, guys, guess what? Deregulation's the answer to all of your problems because you're not going to agree with that.

What I want you to agree with me here, and I suspect you will, is we need to approach housing through a bunch of different vectors. Rent control is not going to solve everything. That's your concession. I'm going to concede that if we magically – also, A, we're not going to magically just relax zoning across the country because it's incredibly unpopular. Ironically enough, even with moderate centrist voters – I live in the Texas suburbs. I promise you – and this is also why the centrist like abundance project is going to like run into like a weird place. I promise you like my centrist Texas voters definitely would like, they're down for like the moderate on social and cultural issues part. They are not down

for like a mass YIMBY deregulatory program that fundamentally transforms the suburbs. So we're both going to have to make some sort of like concession here and build an approach together. And that starts with recognizing, wow, we need to get more housing for people and make housing more affordable. That's a bunch of different approaches. I agree with all of that. When you read the book, that is not actually the message of the book. And I think one of the things that has been useful to me in listening to the realignment is helping to understand, like, OK, the book is not the entirety. There are different factions here and the book is not an entirety of the movement.

But, you know, when we were talking about narratives before, the narrative of the book is that there were these liberal do-gooders who put a bunch of regulations in place, well-intentioned, that have been that have, you know, out-served their usefulness and need to go. And a lot of this becomes very squishy because there are difficult moral choices involved in pushing to the side any of these regulations or any of the interest groups involved in what Ezra Klein calls everything bagel liberalism. So he never wants to actually say like, and that's why we shouldn't use prevailing wage standards, right? Or that's why we shouldn't require childcare as part of building these projects. Or that's why we shouldn't do environmental review. Or that's why we shouldn't have these air protections to make sure that when we do build public housing, that poor people aren't like suffering from asthma and other

conditions that would be avoidable. That's all kind of pushed to the side so that it feels like there are no difficult moral choices that have to be made there when there actually are. So that's number one. Number two is what I would say is, like on some of the concrete examples about zoning regulation and about building out green energy, I don't even disagree. What I disagree with is making that story the central story to politics. Because it's not that it's not part of the picture, but I don't think it is the central story to politics whatsoever. And just to give one example, when they did this massive study to look at, okay, when zoning reform has been implemented,

what has been the impact on the housing supply? And it's not that it had no impact, but it increased housing supply by like 0.8%. So to have it as part of the agenda and to understand these issues in terms of governance and being able to better deliver, yes, absolutely. If you're trying to suppl agenda, anti-oligarch agenda with a YIMBY agenda and a deregulatory agenda, yes, those two things are actually at odds with each other. And I think they fail. I think they fail on both the, I think abundance as like this narrow, we need to deregulate project, fails both on the policy level to deliver the things that we would want to deliver and on a political level in terms of winning elections at a time when, you know, the stakes are really existential. Like, you know, if you zoom out for a minute, here we are, and I don't know if we agree

on all of the contours of this, but I think we're witnessing the rise of a sort of like would-be fascism and techno-authoritarianism. You have these, you know, powerful billionaires who have vast control over our government, who are doing things like, you know, just cutting the funding of USAID so that millions of people around the world may die as a result of those cuts. We're stripping the social safety net, who are deregulating AI so that there's just this, you know, massive rush into an AI arms race that could have completely devastating consequences for the human race, but in the more immediate term is certainly going to cause significant labor and worker displacement. And, you know, this agenda is being pursued at a rapid and terrifying pace. And so to fight back against that with zoning reform and, you know, getting the regulations out of the way,

it's just, to me, it feels so wildly inadequate to the moment and what we actually need to deliver as a, you know, counterpolitical project to what is rapidly coalescing in this country right now. Yeah. So two things. So number one, I want to focus on like the liberal do-gooder deregulation story because I think it's like really important. So what's been unfortunate from an abundance perspective is like Derek and Ezra, because they're the size of their audience has just blotted out the sun. There was another book about abundance that also came out a month before. It's called Why Nothing Works by Mark Dogelman.

It's a very, very good, frankly, it's actually a much better book. It's 100 pages longer. People, if you want to really learn about these books, you should read these books. Why Nothing Works. And what Mark does an amazing job is he tells this abundance story through the lens of, like, debates about America and the left and liberalism for the 20th century. So here's, here's the way he tells the story. In the 1930s, you saw, he explains this, that liberalism, and by the way, I know people, you know, people get so nitpicky

with the terms. I'm basically describing like left of like center left thought in America, extends all the way out. During the 1930s, the way he explains this is liberalism has like two instincts. Like one is like the Hamiltonian instinct after like Alexander Hamilton. It's big. It's making moves. It's trying to force change. It's aggressive. So the New Deal was a Hamiltonian project. We were going to, once again, electrify the whole country. We're going to build the TVA. We are going to build the Hoover Dam. We're going to do all these big, big, big things and bring America into the 20th century while also like regulating capitalism, all these like different aspects. So that created a lot of like

really great stuff. And also though, and this is why I think this needs to be more rooted in the story of abundance, it created a lot of bad things. Like what is Rachel Carson's Silent Spring about? Like what were all those 19s? What is Ralph Nader's, like, Unsafe at Any Speed? All these sort of, like, left movements that came out of the 1960s looked at a lot of, like, the benefits of what we got from that Hamiltonian New Deal era, where we also had business and government working very, very—and labor working very, very comfortably, a little too entangled together. There was a real industrial complex there.

We got a lot of benefit, but we also got crazy costs. We have Robert Moses destroying whole neighborhoods of people in New York City. We had the police. We had all these different issues. So that activated a Jeffersonian instinct, once again, named after Thomas Jefferson. Once again, this is me just citing Mark here. But the Jeffersonian instinct is like, nah, what about the people? What about the local community? Did anyone ask a small community of Black people in New York City whether they agree with Robert Moses' grand Hamiltonian vision of what the 20th century city looked like? So coming into the 60s and 70s, as we focused more on the costs of everything liberalism accomplished, we got movements that said, hey, let's focus on the downsides of that. And that's really important. And I would really push back on your idea that the best version of abundance says we're just going to jettison. We're going to jettison those regulations because they are just slowing us down and they're a whole problem.

No, like, democracy, like, all of our politics needs to be rooted in a belief in democracy and, once again, a balancing of the Hamiltonian vision and the Jeffersonian vision. So the way that he kind of explains this is what's going to work out during this era is how do we balance the recognition? And I think this is what the Green New Deal is the definition of a Hamiltonian project. Right. The Green New Deal recognizes that in a climate crisis, America has to move. It has to move fast. It has to be big in its ambitions. We're not going to get this done via a bunch of tax credits to a bunch of corporations to get this done. That's Hamiltonian.

The Jeffersonian side, though, is, hey, a Hamiltonian project that is premised on us bulldozing the entire country, not listening to communities who may have pollution, not listening to local communities who have their own actions, is also not going to work. So what I'm trying to do with my work, and this is why I'm really grateful to have a platform to talk about this here, is how do we actually balance the Hamiltonian instinct with the Jeffersonian instinct? And I think if Ezra and Derek spoke from the perspective more of like balancing those dynamics, and that's what we're trying to really get to, how do we recognize a climate crisis? How do we recognize the fact that we really need to do – how do we recognize the fact that we need to reshore our semiconductors in this country with the fact that we have local communities and democracy? So that's what I'm trying to basically get to. And the last thing in the second part of your response is, look, I think an abundance – and this is why I said that Ezra and Derek are doing the pundit thing where they dial everything up to 120 percent to sell their argument. This is – everyone does this, right? This is a left, right, or center thing. I think there's been a serious overstatement of effect of abundance agenda policies and i don't want to like i would

and that's why my pitch for what we do moving forward i'm doing this on my own and other people are thinking about this too and the good news too when i don't when i talk about this on the podcast i get input from actual politicians and actual staffers of what they're looking for is what we're talking about this here too. That's actually the funny thing. Like most people are not actually looking to do a big like centrist versus like progressive fight. Most people recognize what time it is and how we need to build something together. So my point is let's focus on, I would love to sit down with Soran right here and say,

look, let's just start at the fact that housing is a crisis and we need more of it and it needs to be more affordable. And then we work our way backwards to how we actually get there. If abundance people are not willing to do that, then A, they're not going to gain political power in the first place, given your point, but B, it's not going to work. So unfortunately, at the very end of that segment with Marshall, I collapsed into a coughing fit, which took me a while to recover from, but I just wanted to make sure to say thank you so much to Marshall. Really enjoyed seeing him, enjoyed engaging with him. I thought it was really great to have his insights on what is going on in the world and abundance. All right, let's go ahead and move on to what is going on with Palantir. The Trump administration, according to the New

York Times, is launching this elaborate project to hoover up all of our data to consolidate it in one database. And they are working with Palantir in order to accomplish these goals. So let's talk to Ken Klippenstein about what's going on here. Joining us this morning is Ken Klippenstein, who is a fantastic journalist over at Substack and has been following, I guess you'd probably call the deep state, the national security state for a long time. Great to see you, Ken. Hey, good to be back. So I have grave concern and interest over these reports that Palantir is going to be working with the Trump administration to compile this mass database of information about American citizens.

We can put this up on the screen from The New York Times. They say Trump taps Palantir to compile data on Americans. The Trump administration has expanded. Palantir's work with the government spreading the company's technology, which could easily merge data on Americans throughout agencies. So help us understand the contours of this story and what Palantir even is and what it means for ordinary people. Yeah, so Palantir is this sort of AI-fueled software tech company that is a contractor for all sorts of national security agencies across government. I believe they had a meeting with the IDF last year in relation to the war in Gaza.

So basically, because of the advancements in AI that we've seen over the last several years, it has become an integral part of basically every major military at this point for things like targeting kind of the rote stuff that it would have taken a lot of human manpower to do. Now they're no longer limited by that. And I think the concern on the part of ordinary people, even if you're not someone that lives in Gaza or in Ukraine where it's being used or wherever else, is that something that has preserved our civil liberties for a long time has been just the pragmatic fact that as much information as agencies collect, it was never feasible for them to be able to go through it all. AI now is making it possible to do that,

to triage these huge amounts of data that are being siphoned up, not just by social media analysis, but network analysis, ways that they try to map out connections between people. All of that now is able to be done in near real time without that delimiting factor of, you know, how many people you can actually have to go through it. So More Perfect Union put together a good video explaining what Palantir is, what it does, and how the federal government may be planning to use it. Let's go ahead and take a listen to a portion of that. There's a reason Palantir just replaced

Ford Motors in the S&P 100 in the months after Trump was elected. The Trump administration is an ideal customer for what Palantir is selling. First, there are many former Palantir employees sprinkled across the Trump administration, from inside Doge to foreign policy advisors to high-level technology appointees. And Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel, heavily invested in the company, is also heavily invested in President Trump and Vice President Vance.

He was a major campaign donor to both. Then the stated goal of Doge is to streamline and combine government data, which is exactly what Palantir does. The ways that the government is defrauded is that the computer systems don't talk to each other. And obviously, CARP is loving it. Disruption at the end of the day

exposes things that aren't working. There'll be ups and downs. There's a revolution. Some people can get their heads cut off. Like, you know, it's like we're expecting to see really unexpected things and to win. And what is winning, according to Palantir? This is CTO Shams Ankar in 2021.

Turning to government, we continue to advance our mission of becoming the U.S. government's central operating system as we extend our footprint across defense, healthcare, and civilian agencies. The government's operating system. They want everything to funnel through Palantir. So the U.S. government's central operating system, and we can put E4 actually up on the screen here.

Jason Bassler tweeted about some of the data the government already collects on everybody that would now be centralized and unified. He's talking about tax filings, student debt, Social Security, bank accounts, medical claims, immigration status, and he says, no previous database system has ever centralized this much personal info across various federal agencies.

So help us understand the extent of this in the ways in which this could be deployed. You know, I think we already have some inklings of this from the war on terror and the way that, you know, dissent in various administrations has been has been curbed and people profiled who may be at odds with administration priorities. Yeah, so the national security state is so pervasive in the United States that if you look at a case like ICE, which you mentioned a moment ago, there being a report on a large, I think it was a $30 million contract that they were awarded, people think of ICE as the deportation squad, which that's obviously part of their job, but they have another lesser known division that is kind of like the Homeland Security Department's own equivalent of the FBI. It's called Homeland Security Investigations. If you go and look through some of the stuff that's been released under FOIA about them, they're involved in monitoring protesters related to the Gaza War,

stuff that you wouldn't think of as what you think of as ISIS remit, you know, being going after people that they're going to deport. That's what its other function called enforcement and removal operations does, but that's not all they do. So these guys have a very broad mission set. It's not just immigration. It's also quote national security threats, which can encompass a lot. They've got thousands of special agents. It's kind of the biggest law enforcement agency you've never heard of, Homeland Security Investigations. So not only is that all true of ICE, ICE is not actually a member of the intelligence community. So at the very least, we hear more about it because it's less secretive

than some of the other agencies. My concern is the contracts that a company like Palantir is being awarded on the classified side, on the side that is the national security agencies, you know, the part of FBI, CIA, defense intelligence agency. We're not going to hear about any of that. And my sense from talking to people is that there is a massive deployment going on at that level, as well as the lower law enforcement agencies that are not a member of that system, of the intelligence community like ICE. So what we're talking about now is just the tip of the iceberg and what you're actually able to see. All this is an important thing to talk about. I see what you did there.

All this is an important thing to talk about because when Trump talks about cutting these agencies, and in some cases he is trying to cut them. He proposed a 5% cut to FBI, for instance, and cutting certain things in the Department of Defense, the military. He's cutting legacy systems. So we're talking Lockheed Martin. It's going to affect the old school companies. But what's happening at the same time is more money is being thrown at these newer entrants who are focused on AI and technology. So it's sort of misleading to say he wants to cut these deep state agencies. It's more

like he wants to move the money from these legacy platforms, which I think there's a good argument for, but towards these AI-fueled ones that raise all these civil liberties concerns that we're talking about now. Right. And you wrote an article called Homeland Security's Pre-Crime Push, where you're talking about some of these elements. I mean, one of the things that I've been really thinking through in this era where the Trump administration is trying to effectuate this policy of mass deportation, there's a conception that you can sort of limit those tactics just to the immigrant or undocumented immigrant population. That's not possible. And I mean, we already see this in, you know, ways that American citizens are getting swept up by ICE. You see this in the way

that American citizens who may be married to an immigrant are having their liberties infringed upon. But more broadly, in order to figure out who is citizen and who is non-citizen, you got to take a look at and surveil everyone. It necessitates a vast, massive police state, again, the priorities of which are, you know, quite evident in the Republican Trump budget, which massively expands ICE. It also expands the Pentagon budget, massively expands detention facilities. Like, those things don't just stay aimed at, you know, the non-citizen population. It necessarily has to take a look at everyone in order to figure out who are the goodies in their view and who are the baddies. Yeah, a critical point here is that what AI allows you to do is map out networks, connections between people. That's very explicitly what they're trying to do. And that's going to, you know to pull people into the dragnet

far beyond the only individuals you're talking about. So when you send ICE out to conduct things like what's called pattern of life analysis, see where someone walks to and goes back from before they deport someone, they try to get a sense of their pattern of life. Where do they go about their day? Where can we try to intercept them?

And as you're mapping that out, you're going to sweep up all sorts of other things. So in the case of Mahmoud Khalil, they're going to be surve at the demonstrations more generally and not just people they suspect of immigration violations. So yeah, that has to be front and center to everything we think about because again, now they can process this stuff at scale in a way they never could before. And so that is really the sort of, I guess, tipping point that we're at right now is just the technological development has advanced to the point that they are able to accomplish this grand scheme of having a mass database of all of information and tracking us in these significant ways. You know, there's been a lot of conversation about Elon and Doge. There's actually a little clip of him in the More Perfect Union piece. And in some ways, Doge is this total and complete failure, didn't save any money, made the government

less efficient. But in other ways, you know, I have a lot of questions about what was going on there and what sort of data was being collected, what sort of data was being consolidated. And, you know, Elon obviously very close to Teal and to Alex Karp over at Palantir. What do you make of how the Doge project sort of is connected to this move towards massive data collection? Yeah, AI informed that as well. I mean, Musk has his own company, XAI, which the most common part of that that we think of is Grok on Twitter. But the idea behind that is that all of these companies are trying to take the information that they already had. And there's a lot of speculation that that's why Elon Musk bought X in the first place, was to be able to access that data and then have some sort

of input to use to train AI on. And so there is just this blitz around, just to give you just one random example, since the budget came out, I was looking through it. The Department of Homeland Security has an AI core, just like the Peace Corps or any other subgroup that an agency might have, that has an entire team of people going around to these different agencies figuring out, just like we saw with Doge, but happening at the agency level, which we might not hear about, how do we take these breakthroughs, these advancements that are happening, and apply that to case management, to information processing, and like you said before, sharing across agencies. Even though ICE is not in the intelligence community, they have a formal mechanism by which they can share information with them. So something that ICE might sweep up, maybe it'll

get passed along to FBI, maybe it'll get passed along to FBI, maybe it'll get passed along to military police or whatever it may be. So there really needs to be a debate about this brave new era we're entering in because protecting civil liberties can look completely different than it did prior to machine learning and some of these large language models. Yeah, I think that is all well said. I wanted to talk to you also, Ken, about another issue. We got some extraordinary, I guess, comments from former State Department spokesperson Matt Miller, who became quite infamous from being up at the podium and defending things that should be indefensible in the context of our support of Israel as Israel is committing what I and many

scholars see as a genocide in Gaza. Now he comes out and says, yeah, obviously Israel is committing war crimes. You know, that's completely apparent. I just couldn't say it at the time because I was representing the government. Let's take a listen to what he has to say now. Do you think what's going on in Gaza now is a genocide? I don't think it's a genocide, but I think it is without a doubt true that Israel has committed war crimes. You wouldn't have said that at the podium. Yeah, look, because when you're at the podium, you're not expressing your personal opinion. You're expressing the conclusions of the United States government. The United States government had not concluded they've committed war crimes, still have not concluded that.

But your personal view is they have. And they were while you were there. But here's, yes, but let me qualify that. There are two ways to think about the commission of war crimes. One is if the state has pursued a policy to deliberately committing war crimes, or is acting reckless in a way that aids and abets war crimes. And that, I think, is an open question. I think what is think, is an open question. I think what is almost certainly not an open question is that there have been individual incidents that have been war crimes, where members of the Israeli military have committed war crimes. So ultimately, in almost every major conflict, including conflicts prosecuted by democracies, you will see individual members of the military,

of militaries commit war crimes. And the way you judge a democracy is whether they hold those people accountable. But Israel hasn't. That's my point is we have not yet seen them hold sufficient numbers of the military accountable. And I think it's an open question whether they're going to. I'm really struck that you think now that Israel did commit war crimes. And yet at the time, and I get why, but at the time you were at the podium and you couldn't say that. I mean, personally, that must be very difficult. So the State Department itself had concluded, not in these, they didn't phrase it in these terms, but I think I did it at the podium a few times, had concluded that it was likely that Israel had committed war crimes. But I do think

it's almost certain. Your thoughts on that, Ken? I mean, on the one hand, it's, of course, outrageous that he's willing to work for an administration that he clearly didn't agree with. But on the other hand, I'll tell you, and I talked to a lot of people from state, including diplomats, what he's saying is pretty much in line with what a lot of these guys would say privately when I talk to them. I mean, it's the, you know, agency for diplomacy. It shouldn't surprise us that they see these things and have these attitudes. But what does surprise me is how out, it shows you how out of step President Biden was with his own administration. Yeah. That so many people, including this spokes, this paid flack are coming out and saying this stuff. Like Biden had really, you know,

strongly held views about Israel that were not consistent with much of the rest of his administration. I mean, I think most people would feel like even if you are a paid spokesperson, like that doesn't just give you license to lie. And that's, I mean, that is the moral position that he's effectively articulating here. So there's that. It's also astonishing to me the continued levels of spin at this point in time. I mean, you've got freaking Piers Morgan out being like, what can I say? Y'all were right. It's a genocide. I mean, the number of Israeli officials, all you have to listen to is their own statements. He's trying to parse, well, there might have been individual war crimes, but I don't know if it was government policy. It's like, really? Did you not see them announce a policy of mass starvation and blockade of the entire Gaza Strip? Like, have you not watched as we've had month after month after month of total annihilation and people being massacred

as they go and try to get food aid? Have you not listened to what Bibi Netanyahu was saying about how, you know, we're just going to use this aid as a pretext to basically engage in ethnic cleansing? Like, it's wild to me at this point that you could still engage in that level of self-delusion to pretend that maybe this was just rogue actors within the IDF and though they haven't been punished appropriately, but they were just doing, you know, their own thing rather than a very clear, consistent, concerted government policy at a time when, like I said, even figures like Piers Morgan have figured out that this is the case. Yeah, not just Piers, but various officials from powerful European governments like France,

for instance. I mean, this is a sea change. Germany, even Germany. Yeah, these are very powerful, wealthy European states saying these things. Something is happening over the last several weeks. I looked at that and I couldn't figure out what was driving it. But there is absolutely a shift that we haven't seen at any point since October 7th. So just for people's recollection, let's go ahead and take a listen to some of the ways, some of the things that he was saying when he was at the podium.

I think it is without a doubt true that Israel has committed war crimes. You wouldn't have said that at the podium. Yeah, look. Bureaus that look at facts, apply them to international law and make assessments. Those assessments are ongoing. And we have not yet at this time concluded that Israel has violated international humanitarian law, but we have ongoing assessments across a number of different fronts. So all these organizations are just wrong? They just see the law differently? I'm telling you that we have ongoing assessments and we have not yet reached that conclusion.

We failed to implement all the things that we recommended. Now, that said, we are not at the end of the 30-day period. It's not the end of the semester. We don't hand out grades in the middle. It gives you the right to lecture other countries on their moral... So if you have a policy question for me, I'm happy to take it. If you want to give a speech, there are places in Washington where you can give a speech. Yeah, but people are sick of the bullshit in here. I mean, it is a genocide. I'm going to go on to another question. You are abetting it. I'm going to go on to another question. And you are real. Blowing up an entire village in southern Lebanon.

What do you make of that? So I've seen the footage. I cannot speak to what their intent was or what they were trying to accomplish. I know sometimes everyone likes to make this seem like a black and white issue that is completely simple, where there's somebody that's blocking humanitarian assistance, when actually it can be much more complex. Targeted attacks on civilians could not be justified.

But Israel does have the right to go after terrorists. I mean, that is just a fact under international humanitarian law that every country has a right to defend itself. So, Ken, I'd like you to talk a little bit about the moral calculation that goes on here, because I think in some instances, people could be sympathetic to the idea that, like, look, you're a spokesperson for this other politician. It's impractical to think your views are going to line up 100% of the time. You aren't speaking for yourself. You're speaking on behalf of this agency. You're speaking on behalf of the president, whatever. So there are going to be times when you represent something that is not

truly your own personal view. It seems very different when you're talking about something like war crimes and crimes against humanity. And I do think the willingness of someone like a Matt Miller to stand up there and say things he knows is not true, to remain in that job, even as it's not just Israel committing war crimes, it's us funding, providing diplomatic cover for, lying on their behalf, shipping weapons in order for them to perpetrate those war crimes. Like that is, to me, a morally unconscionable decision to make. So talk a little bit about that moral landscape and the rationale that does go through the minds of people like Matthew Miller, who end up adopting this pathetic line of defense. I was just following orders. Yeah, the capacity for rationalization has to be strong if you're

going to be a spokesperson for an organization like that. And he clearly has that. I was amazed at how breezily he was able to put it off. I mean, if I didn't interview like that, I'd be kind of embarrassed and kind of like, here's what I'm doing to try to make up for what I said before. Right, he has war crimes. Yeah, but you know, it's just doing my job. It speaks to the culture because he must be surrounded by people that also are making these, you know, very morally compromising decisions.

And they're also used to it that it doesn't even merit thinking, looking a little embarrassed or trying to explain what you're doing to make up for your position before. That's the most disturbing feature of it is how when they're breezy about it, that means that they're used to it and they're surrounded by other people that are used to it. Yeah, that's such a great point. Ken, tell people where they can follow you and support your work. I'm on Substack. You can find me at KenKlippensine.com.

All right, Ken. Great to see you, my friend. Good to see you again. All right, guys. That does it for me here today. Ryan and Emily will be in tomorrow. Reminder, reminder, reminder. We are doing a one-month free trial of Breaking Points

if you go to breakingpoints.com and you put in that promo code BPFREE, you too can be a premium subscriber, participate in our live AMAs, get the full Friday show, get every show, full and uncut early in your inbox. Thank you so much to all of you guys who are out there who have supported the show and made this work possible. And thanks for watching today. I'll see you soon.

I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Glott. And this is season two of the War on Drugs podcast. Yes, sir. Last year, a lot of the problems of the drug war. This year, a lot of the biggest names in music and sports. This kind of starts that a little bit, man. We met them at their homes. We met them at their recording studios.

Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two I was calling about the murder in their community. I was calling about the murder of my husband. The murderer is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145.

Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I've seen a lot of stuff over 30 years, you know, some very despicable crime and things that are kind of tough to wrap your head around. And this ranks right up there in the pantheon of Rhode Island fraudsters. I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying. Listen to Deep Cover, The Truth About Sarah on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.