Judging Freedom - Matt Hoh: Will Trump Stop US Aid to Ukraine?

Episode Date: January 7, 2025

Matt Hoh: Will Trump Stop US Aid to Ukraine?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. With courses available online 24-7 and monthly start dates, WGU offers maximum flexibility so you can focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, January 7th, 2025. Matt Ho will be here with us in a minute on will President Trump actually stop U.S. military aid to Ukraine. But first this. We're taught to work hard for 35 to 40 years, save your money, then live off your savings. Unfortunately, there are too many threats undermining the value of our hard-earned dollars.

The Fed's massive money printing machine is shrinking your dollar's value. Just the cost of groceries is absurd. Let me be brutally honest. I think the dollar is on its way to being extinct. Not just here, but globally. The BRICS nations, led by Russia and China, threaten to remove the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Central banks have been shifting away from the dollar and into gold.

And if we go to central bank digital currency, that will not only destroy the dollar, but we will lose our freedom. We will lose our privacy. They can track anything we do. You need to take care of yourself and your family. So here's what you need to do. Immerse yourself in knowledge and information. The writing is on the wall.

Now is the time to consider shifting some of your dollars into gold and silver as your bedrock financial asset. Call my friends at Lear Capital, the leader in precious metals investing for over 27 years. They help me diversify into gold and silver. They can help you too. Call Lear today at 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com. Matt Howe, welcome here, my dear friend, a belated Happy New Year to you and profound gratitude for all the time you gave us in 2024 and hope that we can spend as much or even more time together in the new year. To breaking news first, President-elect Trump just concluded one of his marathon press conferences and among many other things in that press conference said he would not rule out the use of American military force in Gaza

to secure the release of Israeli hostages. He was not asked, nor did he mention anything about releasing the 10,000 Palestinian hostages being held by the Israelis. What would an American military expedition in Gaza look like? Well, thanks for having me back on, Judge. Happy New Year to you, though, as we talk, it's really not the happiest of conversations, right? We've seen a drumbeat over the last several days. It was consistent throughout the Trump campaign, but really with some interviews being given over the weekend, statements being made yesterday, including by Mike Waltz, Trump's incoming now security advisor. The speculation about the United States going to war directly in the Middle East seems to be taking on a firmer and firmer reality. And I don't think, Judge, we're looking at the United States becoming engaged in Gaza. We may conduct some airstrikes there, but I think the real issue is going to be Iran. And the way that the neoconservatives,

including those members of Trump's incoming government, have been obsessed about Iran for decades, the way they speak about the Middle East, the way they speak about Israel, they speak about the Palestinians, it's always through the lens of Iran. Donald Trump or when you hear Mike Waltz talking about holding those responsible for not releasing the hostages, they're not talking about Hamas. They're not talking about the Palestinians. They're talking about Iran. Everything in these people's minds goes back to Tehran always. So I think that's what we'll see, judges. We'll see U.S. military strikes on Iran. Israel will get the United States to do exactly what it wants. And then, God help the region, God help the world. Certainly, we're all going to be paying a lot more for gasoline. And if that's the bare minimum we have to endure, then we'll be lucky. It's hard for me to imagine. I sometimes think that he says things without thinking about it, that he would put American troops on the ground in Gaza.

It's also hard for me to imagine the airstrikes. My God, we've already used 2,000-pound bombs on people living under tents. We've destroyed every mosque, every hospital, every school, every bridge they have. What more could airstrikes possibly do? Right. I just saw more footage today, more satellite footage today coming out of Gaza, you know, the before and after pictures. We know that in most of the cities, most of the built up areas in Gaza, 70 percent of the structures have been destroyed. That's destroyed as in rubbled.

Right. So the other 30 percent have been damaged. The question is essentially what could we bomb? But, you know, the idea of putting U.S. forces there. And I didn't see that part of the press conference. I caught the first 15 or 20 minutes that I had to hop onto something else. So I saw him bring out Steve Witkoff, his, you know, the Las Vegas casino owner, who is his envoy to the Middle East, you know, bring him out and have him talk about this and how they're close to a ceasefire deal. But I really do think that they want to get this goal. The Trump administration, Judge, has to have a major foreign policy victory early on. And it's not going to get it with Ukraine, like many people

I think had hoped, or maybe people had speculated. You've heard, of course, Donald Trump making all these statements about Panama and Greenland and Canada and Mexico, et cetera. But the focus for his people, of course, is China. That is their obsession, their white whale, if you will. But like a smaller white whale for these people has always been Iran. And utilizing the hostages as the rationale for why we have to go to war with Iran, as well as all their other arguments, just the environment, who they are, their worldview, their mindset, that this is the right thing to do. Yeah, it really leads me to believe, and I think many others, that the likelihood of US military action against Iran is incredibly high.

Yeah, and I wouldn't have said this a month ago. I would have signed a lot of the rhetoric we heard to the rhetoric we always hear coming out of Washington, D.C., the rhetoric we always hear coming from the foreign policy blob to the campaign machismo of Donald Trump and the Republicans. that. Let's not forget that the Democrats in their platform this year, or this past year, excuse me, put in it that Donald Trump was weak on Iran. So there's been this chest thumping over who could be tougher on Iran. And so is this then the foreign policy victory that Donald Trump and his people can get early on that they feel they need is to show that, yes, we are tougher on Iran than the Democrats were. We are Israel's true best friend. They are our strongest ally. We will stand with them. And then, of course, throw in all the tropes and vitriol and rhetoric about civilization, barbarism, terrorists, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Over the weekend, not today, although I didn't hear the entire press conference either.

I don't think he said this today or I would have seen it. But over the weekend, he said he is Israel's best friend. Does that give you comfort or does it terrify you? It should. It terrifies me, Judge. I mean, the idea, first of all, just with our two party system, with one party having to one up the other to determine to the show to demonstrate who's a better friend of Israel, who's a better ally of Israel. media that are taken seriously, that somehow the Biden administration didn't do enough for Israel over this last year, even as we provided, the United States has provided $22 billion in weapons, munitions, vehicles, equipment, whatever, to Israel, even as Joe Biden, just on his way out the door, announced an $8 billion weapons sale to Israel, even as the United States, the Biden administration, did everything they could to protect Israel in the media,

with foreign governments, at the United Nations, et cetera. So how does Trump one-up that then? How does Trump demonstrate that he is a better friend to Israel than Biden and Democrats? And remember, Joe Biden is the person who has said there's no greater Zionist or no bigger Zionist in Washington, D.C. than me, right? So how does Trump outdo that? And so, of course, you have to look at these things. He'll do what they want. He'll go along with the war on Iran. Now, again, war with Iran is a white whale obsession for so many in Washington, D.C. and has been for generations.

But then also to this idea of, OK, then annexation of the West Bank, allowing the Israelis to do what they want as they will in Lebanon, in Syria over the weekend. I don't know if you saw this judge, but they were commentators on Israeli television over the weekend, stirring the pot about Egypt, saying that Egypt is violating the ceasefire and peace agreements it has with Israel by conducting maneuvers and doing operations in the Sinai, and Israel needs to do something about this, right? So there's even this stirring the pot with regards to Egypt, and no one should not take that seriously. Israeli soldiers wear patches that say from the Nile to the Euphrates. Greater Israel extends for these people from the land of Moses to the land of Abraham. So that's essentially right from the Nile to the Euphrates. When the Syrian government collapsed, you have voices in Israel saying, we need to take Damascus. Damascus is part of

greater Israel. Now, they weren't prevailing voices, but they certainly are voices that have some political significance. In terms of Israel, there's no political significance to anyone who talks like you or I or anyone else on this channel or how most of our listeners and viewers think. But there is a lot of political significance, political capital capability in Israel to pursue the greater Israel vision. Well, you are not that Trump may allow them to do as well.

You are not alone in thinking this way. Colonel McGregor, who will be on later today, has told me know, told us earlier today that the Israelis consider themselves to have conquered portions of Syria. Whether that's legal or not, we know it's illegal. And they consider it part of Israel. And their goal is to have an Israeli flag flying over Damascus. Who or what will stop them? Here we go. Right, Judge? We're going into 2025, and that's what's staring us in the face.

That's the reality. Who or what's going to stop them? And the horror of this is no one's going to stop them. No one's going to stop them. The relationship with the United States allows Israel to do as it wants. And even as we've seen, and we spoke about this before, other nations that are doing things to stand up to Israel, such as South Africa leading the genocide case at the International Court of Justice. Well, South Africa is the biggest exporter of coal to Israel. Israel's

two massive power plants provide the lion's share of electricity for many Israelis are fueled by coal. I was in Ireland back in December. And the Irish, for people like you and I, we look at the Irish government, we say the Irish government is doing great. Thank God for the Irish. The Israelis got so upset with the Irish, they threw a fit and they closed their embassy down in Dublin. But when you talk to the Irish, they say, you know, that's all words. It's all statements. And you talk to them and say, you know what the reality is, is that our trade with Israel, so Irish to Israeli trade in dual use products, so items that can be used both for commercial and military purposes,

increased seven fold in 2024. And so that's the reality that we're staring at. And this is the reality that the Palestinians are staring at. The Palestinians are alone. Don't get me wrong, they're in November, as you know, and they are very grateful for the solidarity. They're very grateful for support. But the reality is that our statements, our dialogue, our marches, our rallies, our vigils mean nothing to the Palestinians as they are faced by Israeli iron and steel backed by American dollars and political support. And that's the question, Judge. How do we stop it? Who's going to stop it? And I agree with Colonel McGregor. You know, a year or two ago, it seemed unfathomable that Israel would do something to

take the Sinai back. But now, no, I don't think it's likely, but certainly possible. I'm not going to scoff at anybody for saying that. You can see it occur, right? They've done it before. They did it in 56. They did it in 67. Why wouldn't they do it now, particularly when they have the best friend Israel ever had coming into the White House. So there this all goes. By his own acknowledgement. Switching to Ukraine, General Kellogg, who President-elect Trump has indicated will be his envoy for Ukraine-Russian issues, has basically said, I'm paraphrasing him, I don't want to denigrate him, but I'm paraphrasing him I don't want to denigrate him but I'm paraphrasing him uh if Vladimir Putin isn't serious about negotiations will provide more military aid to Ukraine than Joe Biden did I don't know if that's even physically possible it certainly

would require a vote in uh in the Congress and the last time there was such a vote Trump wasn't the president Republicans were uniformly saying this is the last time this and the last time there was such a vote, Trump wasn't the president, Republicans were uniformly saying, this is the last time, this is the last time. Can Trump end the war in Ukraine with threats like this? Not with threats like that. If the threats were geared towards the Kiev government, to Zelensky and his people, that look, if you don't negotiate, if you're not willing to end this thing, that's the end of it with us. Certainly that would do it. I don't think the Europeans have the wherewithal to $5 billion that the Biden administration sent to Ukraine, two and a half or three billion of it was to keep the Ukrainian government upright, was to keep the economy from collapsing.

That's a tremendous issue is keeping those structures in place so you don't have collapse, which then causes Ukraine to resemble, you know resemble a house of cards falling down. But the idea that the Trump administration is going to come in and demand the Russians accept the Kellogg plan as the outcome, as the result of negotiations, means that we're looking at more war. The idea that Trump is going to stop sending weapons to Ukraine, that's part of the Kellogg plan, is that Trump and the Americans continue to send weapons to Ukraine. Every aspect of the Kellogg plan that I'm aware of is anathema, is 180 degrees from what the Russians have been saying for years. And so the idea of how do you get to Ukrainian neutrality and how do you resolve the territorial

conquest of Eastern Ukraine by Russia when you are in a losing position? Now, for the Americans, I think the view is, and for many Europeans as well, the view is that we can keep this war going as long as the money goes in. We can get Ukraine into a point where they continue to fall back, but Ukraine's a big country. Russia doesn't want to conquer the whole thing. They don't want to move further west than they have to. We can just keep this thing on life support. And this, of course, gives us reason, right? This gives us purpose for being. This Ukraine then becomes the, right, the new Jerusalem. And this allows NATO to demand that we have to have 5% spending of GDP by all European

nations on their militaries. Something that Trump, of course, is very much in favor of. A month or two ago, he threatened the Europeans that they don't spend 5% of GDP on their militaries. He's going to issue tariffs against them. They later revised that down to 3 spend 5% of GDP on their militaries. He's going to issue tariffs against them. They later revised that down to 3.5% GDP. But so the idea that the Trump administration is eager for peace, that there is a philosophical or ideological understanding of the need to end this war in Eastern Europe, one, to stop the enormous suffering, two, to stop the destruction of a country, and three, to stop this thing from escalating into something bigger and something that could become a world war. I don't think that's there. So I'm also, I would say with the

Republicans in the Congress, as many as they did say that this was the last package. But I think that, you know, when the executives of Goldman Sachs and BlackRock and Lockheed and Raytheon go into their offices and say, you know what? Keeping this war going means tens and tens of billions of dollars for us. I think that holds a lot of sway in congressional offices, whether it's Democrats or Republicans. So I think there are advantages, there are pros that are understood throughout Washington, D.C.,

as to why if we can't get exactly what we want from the Russians, so be it. We'll keep this thing going. Well, he promised he would end the war in 24 hours. Here's somebody who thinks that the United States has been successful in Ukraine. This will make your blood boil. Chris, cut number one. Where the line is drawn on the map, at this point, I don't think it's fundamentally going to change very much. The real question is, can we make sure that Ukraine is in a position to move forward strongly? That the areas that Russia controls, you feel, will have to be ceded?

Ceded is not the question. The question is, the line as a practical matter in the foreseeable future is unlikely to move very much. Ukraine's claim on that territory will always be there. And the question is, will they find ways, with the support of others, to regain territory that's been lost? I think the critical thing now going forward is this. If there is going to be a resolution, or at least a near-term resolution, because it's unlikely that Putin will give up on his ambitions. If there's a ceasefire, then in Putin's mind, the ceasefire is likely to give him time to rest,

to refit, to re-attack at some point in the future. So what's going to be critical to make sure that any ceasefire that comes about is actually enduring is to make sure that Ukraine has the capacity going forward to deter further aggression. And that can come in many forms. It could come through NATO, and we put Ukraine on a path to NATO membership. It could come through security assurances, commitments, guarantees by different countries to make sure that Russia knows that if it reattacks, it's going to have a big problem. That, I think, is going to be critical to making sure that any deal that's negotiated

actually endures and then allows Ukraine the space, the time to grow strong as a country. Put Ukraine on a path to NATO membership. He's a lunatic if he thinks that's true. Right, Judge. I mean, there's not an ounce of reason or accountability in anything that man says uh even even even his acknowledgement that the front line is not going to move anytime soon and i'll give him some some wiggle room on that of course it's going to continue to move westward as the russian army advances but even that acknowledgement there that the that the ukrainians are not going to win the war first of all it's three years too late for him to be saying such things but also too it too, it doesn't he's speaking in imaginary with an imaginary mindset here that somehow I shouldn't say it that way. He continues to refuse to acknowledge what the Russians have been saying for years about why this war is happening.

Why did Russia choose to wage this war? Because they felt they didn't wage this war, they'd have to wage a larger war at some point against NATO. And they've been clear about that, their desire for neutrality, their desire to not see NATO expand into Ukraine. None of those things that have been central to Russian explanations of their grievances over this for decades, not just years, for decades, make no appearance in Blinken's words. They certainly don't seem to have a place in his head. And so the fact that we are getting out of this administration without this war having expanded either horizontally to move into other countries or other countries moving into the

war, I should say, or getting up to the point of escalation where we are in a world war and we are looking at nuclear war. I think we all should be very grateful that this Biden administration, Tony Blinken leading it, did not bring about the end of the world through his pursuit of this war in Eastern Europe. That, you know, I will say this, though, and this makes many of, and maybe Blinken will land at one of these places when he leaves Foggy Bottom in a couple of weeks. You know, certainly the idea that there are no winners in the Ukraine war is a valid one, except that there are actually some, one of them being the American oil and gas companies. Russia had 40% of the gas market in Europe, down to 6%. And now with the pipeline being turned off, going through Ukraine, it's going to be down to essentially zero.

And who are the winners of that? Who took up that market share? Well, it's the American oil and gas companies, as well as the Qatari oil and gas companies. And so we'll have to see where does Blinken go in two weeks' time? Does he end up at a bank that benefits from these things? Does he end up at an oil and gas company ending these things? I'm sure he'll have his post at Harvard or Stanford or other places, but it'll be interesting to see six months from now, Judge, looking up Tony Blinken on LinkedIn or whatever and see where his current job is. Jeff Sachs will flip out if Blinken joins the Columbia faculty with Victoria Nuland and Hillary Clinton. I have to go. Thank you,

Matt. Great, great conversation. God bless you. Happy New Year. We'll see you next week. Thanks, Judge. Happy New Year. Sure. All the best. Coming up at three o'clock today, Karen Kwiatkowski, and at four, Colonel Douglas McGregor. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom.