Judging Freedom - Matt Hoh : Trump’s MoU is a Pause Not Peace

Episode Date: June 30, 2026

Matt Hoh : Trump’s MoU is a Pause Not PeaceSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Undeclared wars are commonplace. Pragically, our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression with no complaints from the American people. Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected. What if sometimes to love your country you had to alter or abolish the government? Jefferson was right? What if that government is best which governs least? What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong? What if it is better to perish

fighting for freedom than to live as a slave? What if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now? Hi everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for judging freedom. Today is Tuesday, June 30th, 2006. Matt Ho will be with us in just a moment on Trump's Memorandum of Understanding. Is it peace or is it just a pause? But first this. You know, every year around the 4th of July, we celebrate independence. But here's the uncomfortable truth.

A lot of people have never been more dependent. Dependent on the power staying on, dependent on the grocery store staying stock, dependent on supply chains, cell towers, and systems over which they have absolutely no control. That's why I like my Patriot Supply. They've helped millions of Americans become a little more self-reliant with emergency food, water filtration, backup power, and other preparedness essentials. Right now, they're celebrating America's 250th anniversary with some of their biggest savings of the year. Preparedness has never been about fear. It's about fear.

freedom. The freedom of knowing your family will be okay even if things don't go according to plan. Go to preparewithachudge.com and take advantage of the Independence Day sale. That's preparewithachudge.com. Matt, welcome here, my dear friend. Before we get to your very interesting analysis on the memorandum of understanding, this morning the Russian military shot down over 400, hundred drones in the suburbs of Moscow and including at Moscow International Airport into and out of which I have flown several times. Does Russia have any red lines? Thanks for me back on, Judge. You know, I think what we're seeing here is a war that has devolved into a war that, you know, as we've been characterizing it for years now,

a war that Russia can't lose and Ukraine can't win. And of course, if you apply that logic, the inverse is often true as well. And so this is a war that has become, I think what many of us were concerned about it becoming. I'm sure if we reround the tape, this is what we were saying back in 2023 and 2022, this idea that this would devolve into essentially a war of the cities, something similar to what we saw with Iran-Iraq war, where neither side can end the war unless there's some type of external actor, some type of force majeure, some type of deus ex-Makina, something, you know, act of God that is unforeseen or uncontrollable.

So in terms of the Russians and the red lines, I don't really think they do judge. I mean, certainly the political pressure on Vladimir Putin is great. Say what you will about whether these drone strikes, this campaign is effective. the perception is there, not just a perception in the West that Ukraine is now winning the war, which they're not, but it does give a whole real boost of confidence to the Europeans, and it certainly gives confidence to Americans who want the United States to get back into this. But for the Russians as well, though, too, just the reality of the war going this way, an inability to win a war against Ukraine, and I think the refrain you hear a lot from Russians is,

it only took us four years to beat the Nazis, and here we are four and a half years with the Ukrainians. This idea that the Russians have to do something more, have to do something else, have to really hit hard here, whether it being Ukraine or, God forbid, extended outside of Ukraine, so the horizontal escalation of this war. But I don't think the Russians have red lines per se, but I think the pressure that is being put on them only leads to one direction, because if anyone thinks that this drone campaign, again, and we can go back and forth, whether it's effective or not, is going to have any influence on them other than to escalate in response, I don't know what to tell you. And those in Ukraine, those in Europe, those in the U.S., who believe this drone campaign

is going to lead to a weakening of Russian resolve, they're just, you know, they're high on their own gaslighting, as my friend Rich says. Right, right. But the pressure on Vladimir Putin has to be extraordinary. Yeah. For example, do you think he is considering attacking munitions plants in Western Europe that make the parts for these drones? I don't think so, Judge.

I just don't see the Russians escalating it that way. That would give them the war with NATO that they starred this war in Ukraine to supposedly avoid. So I just don't think, you know, watching the Russians over these years, seeing how they act, seeing how they carry out their strategy to achieve their political objectives. I don't see them as lashing out in that way in an effort to escalate to the escalate. There's a misconception in the West of the Russians having to escalate the escalate policy. I'm sure Scott Ritter can talk about this much greater than I can, but that really my understanding is the misconception. the Russians don't possess that policy. But, you know, certainly I think what you'll see is a much harder hitting of Ukraine.

Maybe what we've seen, Judge, say, over the last four to half years, is a Russia that really has had the dial set at, say, a five or a six out of ten in terms of how hard they've been hitting Ukraine. And you've heard this commentary. You've heard this criticism quite a bit coming out of Russia. We're not fighting hard enough. we're not doing enough. Why are the trains still running? Why is Zelensky's government buildings or why are they still standing? You know, why are these headquarters that are buried underground that supposedly our

Reschnics can destroy how come they're still operating? What is the answer to all those why questions, Matt? That's a really good question, Judge. I think the Russians, you know, we here in the West, we have a method of warfare that we view as righteous, but when you look at how we actually conducted, it's barbaric. It's even World War II, say, the war crimes that we were committed in are defeating Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, massive. And the generals who carried out those atrocities fully recognized it, and they understood it. And that's why they created things such as the United Nations and modern international law, the modern Geneva Conventions, you know, in order to prevent those atrocities from happening again because they understood where modern war took you. But certainly you look at

Korea, you look at Vietnam. We were not as robust in our killing in Afghanistan and Iraq, but directly, but certainly we killed millions in our wars in the Middle East, millions in our wars in the Muslim world. If you look at, say, Judge, the conduct of our five, five and a half week-week-long air campaign against Iran in March and April, we hit, I think we launched 21,000 sorties. So 21,000 targets were attacked, essentially, they say. And out of that, less than one third, according to Bloomberg, were actually military targets. The rest were civilian targets, infrastructure, or government buildings. So in the West, we have this idea, and then certainly Israel, the paradigm of Western warfare, I think, you know, but certainly,

You know, you look at the way the Iranians have conducted their warfare. You look at the way that the Russians have conducted their warfare. They are not actively seeking civilian targets. They are not actively trying to kill civilians. Certainly they will hit infrastructure that will pressure the civilian side and make so the Russian attacks on energy infrastructure have made life miserable in Ukraine for, what, four winters now. But they're not striking residential buildings in the same way that the United States and Israel attack residential buildings. Sure, residential buildings get hit often because of errant missiles,

because of drones that go out of control, because of just the nature of warfare. But the Russians have carried out a type of warfare that has been restricted. And they use that term special military operation. And I scoff at that, like I also scop at the idea of having to call the Iraq War operation Iraqi freedom. But I think with the Russians, there is this idea that this was supposed to be a limited war, that this was a war that was meant for limited objectives to secure the Russian-speaking territory in eastern Ukraine, say, you know, as well as to preclude further NATO encroachment, further provocation, further threats against the Russian state. So this special military operation was carried out. Now, four and a half years in, the calls to remove those

those limitations to take the gloves off and they hit hard to engage in a warfare similar to how the Americans and the Israelis carry out their warfare. It's been said for years now in Russia, but now with as we're seeing this point where the Ukrainians, to their credit, have gotten this ability. And yes, the Europeans are heavily involved in the drone campaign, as well as the Americans, because where is this targeting information coming from? Where are the Ukrainians getting their intelligence? certainly this reality that the Russians are now enduring is a reality that was predictable where else was

this war was going to go if you weren't going to end the war either by winning it or by negotiating where did people think this war was going to go how is it going to end it's not going to end in a conference room is it no judge i mean i'm worried that this war muddles along and i know that's a pretty poor choice of words for you know the death and destruction we're talking about here the savagery and the harm, the suffering, but muddling along for another several years. I mean, I just don't see how it ends. I don't see either side losing their will. You know, the best case, I would think for, I would say over the last several years,

I thought the way the war might end outside of a negotiated settlement would have been through economic collapse, through government collapse on the Ukrainian side. But now it seems as if the Europeans have developed the ability to ensure that the House of Card that is the Ukrainian government remains upright, that they've been able to create the political order to ensure that Ukraine is going to get loans, that Ukraine is going to get grants, that Ukraine is going to get money for its coffers, even if the United States is no longer providing such money. And so, of course, now that we're in 2026 or halfway through 2026, we see the United States Congress trying to pass bills to send more money to Ukraine.

The thoughts of Democrats might take the House of Representatives, maybe even the Senate, inspire this confidence in Europe and in Ukraine that the light is at the end of the tunnel. And that if after 2028 and January, 2009, we have a Gavin Newsom or a Gretchen Whitmore or, you know, someone along those lines in the White House that the United States will come back into the conflict. So I really don't see how this conflict ends. I think the Russian plan to finalize their conquest of the Dombas to achieve their territorial limitations and then possibly hope to enter into a frozen conflict. I don't see the Europeans and the Ukrainians going along with that, nor will the Americans. And that if the Russians are successful in their territorial conquest, I think what you're going to have for NATO is this

is NATO's purpose, as it has been for the last several years, and that the Dombos is now the New Jerusalem. And the idea of taking back the Dombos from Russia will animate the Europeans and many Americans for decades to come, maybe. And this idea, this war continuing in some form or another, but including continuing to move into this war of cities, because the next thing for the Ukrainians judge, and you hear this in the, you see this in the op-ed pages. This is not any brilliant insight of mine or anything like that is this idea that the Ukrainians need to get ballistic missiles, right? And the Ukrainians will get ballistic missiles. In a year or two's time, they will have some form of ballistic missile that may or may not be as effective as the Russian ones, but will still

be as difficult to shoot down just because of the reality of how ballistic missiles work and how hard they are to defend against them. So, I mean, I'm afraid, Judge, that this thing continues to, again, muddle along for years to come unless there is some type of black swan event, some force Mujer, some something unforeseen, some Deiasex McKina, right? You pick the term you want that provides for an outside force, an outside actor, something unforeseen to change this war because I don't see either side losing their political will. And again, what I thought might be likely collapse to the Ukrainian government because of, you know, a bankruptcy, just say, that seems less likely than it's ever been because of the commitment to Europe and the hope

that the United States is going to come back in the war. And now, I mean, certainly Ukraine has manpower problems. We can go through the whole list of all this. But what's the European Union doing? They're going to send back all the military age mails, all the Ukrainian military age males that are refugees or... Right, right, great. Let me switch gears.

I guess the reality of defeat in Iran has sunk in. I mean, the Strait of Hormuz is in. Iranian control and the United States and the Israelis are not fighting Iran anymore. Right. I mean, oh, go ahead. I mean, where does it go from here to, to quote what you said recently, is this piece or is it a pause? Right, right. And I think what you're going to see, Judge, is this idea that a modus Evande, we've talked about this for months now, right?

But this kind of just this hot ceasefire, this accommodation, this way of going along and getting along, as long as the commercial ships continue to see an uptick. And you're going to have these top periods where the Iranians are upset and they shut down the Straits of Hamoos because the Iranians have control the Straits of Hamoos. And there's nothing anyone can do about that. And so I think what you'll see is you'll see this status quo that we have seen, essentially continue to develop. And the back and forth with negotiations will continue. And I think this will go on through the elections. And then after the elections, I think Donald Trump has to make a determination as to whether this war is going to be his legacy, this peace, as he can sell it as a piece, as he can sell it as a victory, as he can sell it as the only president in 47 years to

stand up to the Ayatollah, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. You know, then Donald Trump has to make a decision whether or not he wants that as his legacy or he wants to go back to war for what purposes. If you couldn't accomplish in March and April, what you set out militarily, why would be able to accomplish it in December? But is the military starting to bring heavy equipment like jet fighters home? That's my understanding. That's my understanding. That they have rotated some of those units back.

They can always bring them back to the Middle East. But that's my understanding, Judge, is that some of those aircraft, some of those fighter squadrons, have begun to rotate back or have been rotating back to the U.S. And we're seeing reports. One was in the Wall Street Journal, but I think this is what most folks I've been thinking about for the last couple months, is that the United States and its Gulf War allies, or vassals, I guess you could call it might be better,

are revisiting how the American force structure in the Middle East is going to look like. What's the American footprint going to look like? And certainly the idea that the Americans would reinforce their presence or expand their presence in Israel, particularly, you know, as we see Section 224, the proposed amendment for the National Defense Authorization Act. Right. As we see that, trying to integrate the American and the Israeli militaries, you know, that makes sense. Military and intelligence. And intelligence and technology and industry. I mean, I think basically what you have, the entire American military.

industrial complex, looking no different than Congress does when it comes to the Israel lobby. And the real danger on this, just if people aren't sure how it's going to work, is this proposal. And there's also three or four other bills involved here that, as you said, Judge, would expand it to intelligence into other areas, this integration. I mean, the danger, of course, is that, you know, you can vote every year on giving money to Israel. You can take away that money. But this integration is permanent. So that's one danger. And the other danger is, is that this creates essentially an unheard of position within the Department of Defense, this executive agent, essentially a czar, someone who would be responsible for all things Israel

within the Pentagon. And that this person would have the power to override essentially anyone in the Pentagon, any institution, any agency, any branch. Heading the Secretary of Defense? I would assume that person would be loyal to the Secretary of Defense because that's who would have appointed him. conceivably this executive agent would have that authority to override all other decisions pertaining to Israel, whatever is in his or her purview. I want to ask you about Netanyahu and what you think he's up to.

But before I do, I want you to watch this little clip, Chris, where Netanyahu actually says Israel will expand from the river to the sea. Much more. I think there are many principles. I'll give you another example, another principle of the government I intend, the broad national government I intend to lead. There is no place for two states. What, from the seat of the Jordan, there is no room for two states. What is he up to? Oh, he's carrying out the Greater Israel Project, Judge.

Isn't the Greater Israel Project now a failure? Hasn't it collapsed after the memorandum of understanding? No, I mean, the Israelis have gotten the Secretary of State of the United States to create a separate peace between Israel and Lebanon, which essentially is an abscondation of Lebanon's sovereignty. but this peace agreement with Israel and Lebanon put forward, carried out, executed by the Secretary of State directly undermines. It contradicts what the president was doing with a memorandum of understanding. So the Israel lobby, right, has gotten this schism within the administration between, you can put it simply, between the vice president and the Secretary of State. This, of course, is a foretelling or a foreshadowing of 2028.

but this just shows you how these people are not going to give up, and they're very resourceful, very, very effective. Israel, well, you know, Judge, we had here in Raleigh last night, a friend of mine was in from Palestine, and Iod Bernard, and he's in a village in Berlin, which is where the apartheid wall runs right through. And, you know, in their village, Judge, of roughly 3,000 people, 36 children are still being held captive in Israeli prisons.

You just had Bezal Smotrich declare, following the IDF, saying that they now have 70% control of Gaza. Bezal Smotris just yesterday or the day before said, we have plans for three settlements in Gaza. We actually have that clip. It's a little stomach churning, but. Yeah. There he is. Samaria is the mountain that geographically and topographically dominates all these areas. And if we are not there, God forbid, Hamas will end up taking over in a second.

We saw how quickly they took over Gaza. In the end, when we established 103 settlements and 160 farms, pave roads, plan and regulate, our goal is to bring a million settlers to Judea and Samaria so that there won't be pickup trucks later in Raanana, Kfar Saba, Petatigva, Tel Aviv, Be'er Sheva and Afula. And that's true? God forbid. Thomas took over Gaza. I guess he forgets there was a popular election. Right. And as well as to his own prime minister, ensuring that Hamas had the money from the Gattaris to stay in power for all those years. You know, so he's talking there with his 103 farms and 150 settlements or whatever he says there about the West Bank and adding another million settlers to the nearly one million settlers that are already there.

But he also said, Judge, with regards to Gaza, that there are plans to put settlements into Gaza. And you now have the IDF saying we control 70% of Gaza, you know, the 1000. What happened to the Board of Peace? Oh, the Board of Peace. Yeah. Governor General of Gaza. Right. Where's Tony Blair?

How come Tony Blair's not regulating all this? Because Tony Blair's taken home his whatever is getting paid for this, more than you and I are getting paid. That's for sure, right? But certainly that farce, that is the Board of Peace, has a name. enabled Israel to carry out that consolidation of its victory in Gaza. So whereas when the Board of Peace was established, go back to October in this peace deal, Israel controlled roughly 53% of Gaza, they now control 70% of Gaza, and they have made clear it will be 100%.

They are continuing to push their efforts to voluntarily migrate. put that term in quotes. In fact, they've actually changed the name. They're no longer calling it voluntarily in migration. They're now calling it freedom of movement, you know, to try and make it more. George Orwell triumphant. Matt, I have to go. Thank you very much. I'm off for a couple of weeks. We'll look forward to seeing you in the middle of July. Absolutely. Have a wonderful vacation, Judge. You too, Chris, and everybody have a safe and happy holiday here in the U.S. Thank you. Thank you, Matt. All the best. If you're watching us live in 36 minutes at 3 o'clock on all of this, Colonel Karen Koukowski, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom.