Judging Freedom - Prof. Jeffrey Sachs : Is Trump Planning More Wars?

Episode Date: December 2, 2025

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs : Is Trump Planning More Wars?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, December 2nd, 2025. Professor Jeffrey Sachs will be with us in just a minute on what new wars is Donald Trump planning. But first this. History tells us every market eventually falls. Currencies collapse. And look at where we are now. 38 trillion in national debt. Stock. at record highs defying gravity. So what happens next? Groceries, gas, housing, everything's going up. And this dollar, it buys less every day.

When the system breaks, your stocks won't save you and your dollars won't either. But one thing will. Gold. I've set it on my show for years. Gold survives collapse. Central bankers know this and billionaires know it. That's why they're buying. buying more. Is it too late to buy or is it just the right time? Call my friends at Lear Capital to

find out. Ask questions. Get the free information. There's no pressure and that's why I buy my gold and silver from Lear. And right now you can get up to $20,000 in bonus medals with a qualified purchase. Call 800, 511, 4620 or go to Learjudgeonap.com today. Mr. Sachs, welcome here, my dear friend, and thank you for accommodating my schedule. Before we get to Venezuela and before we get to the murders on the high seas by the Defense Department, and before we get to the likely response to that, we're now a month after the Whitkoff, Kushner, Tony Blair, as Governor General of Gaza, so-called peace plan. Are you satisfied it's a failure, and the Netanyahu regime never had an intention to comply with phase two or phase three?

Well, Netanyahu certainly doesn't have any intention. So anything that depends on Israel being a willing partner of the next phases isn't going to work. What Israel wants is absolutely clear. It could not be more vivid. It wants complete control over the Palestinian lands permanently, and it wants continued ethnic cleansing or any other means to achieve that complete control. So Israel continues to kill Palestinians in very large numbers, both in Gaza and on the West Bank. It continues demolitions, destroying buildings in Gaza. it continues confiscating land and property in the West Bank.

So Israel is not a willing participant in this. The question of peace in the region depends entirely on the United States, not on Israel. Israel is unwilling. It has its agenda. It thinks that it has Donald Trump in its pocket, and they may be right. Did Trump bite off more than he can chew? I mean, can he realistically enforce a permanent ceasefire and restructure of the governance of Gaza and deal with a political and financial blowback that will come his way here in the U.S.?

He could, but he does not yet have anything like that in hand. The way that success could be achieved is a political solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. A political solution, as we discuss almost weekly, is a state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel. Trump has not backed that, even though more than 180 countries in the world, actively backed that, even though more than 150 countries recognize the state of Palestine. Without that, there is no political solution, and therefore there is no peace. There's no disarmament of Hamas. There's no way forward.

So if you say, could Trump do this, yes, if there's a political solution, then ask the question, could he do that politically in the U.S.? Well, yes, and in a way, yes, in the sense that the American people, to the extent that we count anymore, would strongly support that. Every opinion survey shows the American people want the U.S. government to recognize the state of Palestine. The American people want the United States to stop supporting Israel's slaughter. So from the point of view of voting, from the point of view of his base, from the point of view of American public opinion, he could do this. But then there would be obviously the Zionist lobby, which is powerful. And as president, he would have to face that down.

Could he do that? Of course he could. That's the job of leadership. Is he going to do that? Much more doubtful. How divided and demoralized is the Israeli public as we speak? Well, I think the demoralization is very high, but there is no leadership in Israel for a political solution. So waiting for Israel to say, oh, we made a mistake, we need a state of Palestine, is waiting forever.

the public deeply dislikes Netanyahu, the institutions are all under extreme duress. The divides in Israeli society are very deep, but there is no political way forward emanating from within Israeli society. What there is, to a really amazing extent, is a global consensus. on what should happen. The global consensus, which doesn't include the U.S., but includes virtually all the rest of the world, is that there should be a state of Palestine and Israel should return to its borders of the 4th of June, 1967. This has been voted repeatedly this year in the UN General Assembly. It is the ruling of the International Court of Justice. It was the unanimous opinion of the UN Security Council except for the U.S. veto. So the way forward is not a mystery, but it's

blocked by the United States and opposed by Israel. The difference is the U.S. has a veto in these processes. Israel only has opposition. These solutions could be imposed on Israel and should be imposed on Israel. In light of them switching to Ukraine now, Professor Sachs, in light of the exposure of what we all believed we knew, which is massive, massive corruption, in light of the decrepit condition of the Ukrainian military, how much longer can Ukraine last? I mean, why would the Russians even negotiate with a regime that might not be around in two or three months? Well, the Russians have an advantage if they can secure diplomatically core objectives. That would include, of course, as the most important Ukraine's neutrality and a absolutely clear policy of the United States and Ukraine, that NATO will not enlarge to Ukraine. This is why there is a war in the first place. the United States had a project that it has been engaging in for more than 30 years to take

Ukraine into the American military fold. That's the whole story of this conflict. So Russia would like to achieve an agreement with the Trump administration and then have that imposed basically on Ukraine, not against the will of the Ukrainian people, but against the will of a small clique that the United States installed in a coup in February 2014 that says that it wants, and it insists on Ukraine becoming part of NATO. What Russia would like is a clarity. No, NATO's not going to enlarge. Ukraine is going to be neutral. And therefore, Ukraine is not going to be a U.S. pawn in a geopolitical game against Russia. And that's exactly. exactly what U.S. policy has been for more than 30 years that Ukraine would be a piece

in the U.S. game called the Grand Chess Board, no less, by Zbignu Brizinski, when he described this game in 1997. We would get Ukraine. Russia would become a third-rate country, maybe even break apart. So Russia has a diplomatic objective. Stop this terrible game, which is now killed or wounded, probably about two million Ukrainians who are losing on the battlefield. The advantage of settling in the discussions, for example, today in Moscow with Mr. Whitkoff and President Putin, is the United States would not only accept this as a fait complete, but agree with it as a diplomatic principle, which it should, by the way, I've been saying this for years and years and years. On principle, it's correct. NATO should not expand to Ukraine. The whole idea was

a wacky, dangerous, reckless gambit of the U.S., which never should have been attempted. So Russia won't give up core principles because they're winning on the battlefield. But what they would like is normal relations with the United States and, by the way, Europe. And by the way, Ukraine, but on a different basis from a regime playing the U.S. deep state game of trying to weaken or divide or bring down Russia. So yes, Russia would like a diplomatic solution, but it has to go to the core of the issue. What Russia would not accept, obviously, is a so-called ceasefire, which gives time for the war to resume. Russia wants the underlying issues to be solved. It said that for years.

It makes perfect sense. Maybe we're getting close to this because, God, this is destructive and repetitive and boring. I'm sorry to use such a strange word. Oh, no, I know exactly what you mean. It's been going on for so long, so obviously. And still, you know, we have these vulgar warmongers, like, Richard Blumenthal and Lindsay Graham and in the Congress who are paid for by the military industrial complex to keep up the war profits. Enough of this already.

Here's President Putin yesterday. It's interesting that he said what he said, and you'll hear the translator in a minute, right before a meeting with the president's, not with the Secretary of State, but with the president's business partner and his son-in-law. More about that in a minute. President Putin yesterday on Russia and Europe. We are not planning to go to war with Europe. I've said that a hundred times already. But if Europe suddenly wants to go to war with us and starts it, we are ready right now. There can be no doubt about that. The only question is, in what way? If Europe suddenly starts a war with us, I think it will be over very quickly. This isn't Ukraine. With Ukraine,

we're acting in a surgical careful manner, right? So that, well, you get it, right? He actually said that earlier today, addressing some international group in Moscow. Are you surprised he spoke that candidly? Well, it's because of the war mongering that is coming from Mertz, the German chancellor, from Starrmer, the British prime minister from Macron, the French president. who talk openly about war with Russia from the so-called high-representative vice president of the European Commission, Kayakalis, who uses the same vulgar language. It's deeply disturbing, but it is in a context. The context is

extreme Russophobia in Europe for years that continues until this day, And by the way, that has been the history of much of Europe for generations, actually. And so irrationally so. Basically, Russia said many times back in the 1930s when Hitler was threatening the world, Russia said, side with us will make an anti-Hitler alliance. of all countries. Poland said, no, no, no, no, we won't side with the Soviet Union, leaving itself exposed to Hitler. Britain and France said, no, no, no, we won't side with the Soviet Union, leading to nearly the complete disaster that befell Europe in World War II.

And then after the war, the Soviet Union said, okay, we just lost 27 million people, demilitarized Germany. And the United States said, no, no, we're going to remilitarize Germany and put it into something called NATO. And then in 1990 and 91, when I was directly in Moscow watching this, President Gorbachev and President Yeltsin said a common European home, indivisible security, no more blocks. and for a fleeting moment, the U.S. and Germany said, yes, yes, we agree with you. Germany will be reunified with the Soviet agreement, because this was actually the end of World War II from a legal point of view. We agree with you. NATO won't move one inch eastward. And then immediately, again, Europe and the United States started to cheat.

said, oh, well, we'll reconsider that. NATO will move eastward. And not only eastward, not only to Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, but further to the Baltic states, to Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, not only to them, but to Ukraine and to Georgia to surround Russia. So Europe just has a very, very hard time accepting peace. And what they do is war monger. I hate to see President Putin say these things, but the context is all this war talk. I hate to see a German chancellor talk about war. Come on. We've had enough of that.

Let's have diplomacy. To our hemisphere, is it your view that these attacks on the speedboats in the Caribbean, as horrific as they have been, are a prelude to war against, Venezuela. Of course they are. The Trump administration says so that we're in a regime change operation right now. President Trump has announced that he's tasked the CIA with operating inside Venezuela. He said that land operations are going to begin. He's got a carrier task force assembled, the largest that's been assembled in the Caribbean region for decades. And he's basically announced we're going to attack. So, yeah, maybe it's a bluff. Maybe he thinks that he's

going to scare Maduro into stepping down. They apparently had a discussion where the United States president demanded that the Venezuelan president stepped down and leave his country. This is a kind of thuggery. But without any disguise, it's not what we call a covert regime change operation it is an overt regime change operation, where the aim is very explicit, completely illegal, completely against the UN Charter, without, of course, even any sanctioned by the U.S. Congress. It's shocking, frankly speaking, what we're watching. Equally as illegal are the killings of these people on the speedboats, whether it's the initial attack or whether it's the initial attack or whether.

it's the slaughter of survivors, the latest controversy, hanging on to a remnant of the boat, hoping and praying to be rescued. I just don't know how the government from the Secretary of Defense on down can explain their way out of this one. You would think, you know, murder is murder. It really shouldn't be carried out from the Oval Office. Trump is not unique in this. We watched pictures of Obama deciding who would be killed by U.S. drones.

Our president should not be murderers. There should be law. If there's going to be a war, it should be a war of self-defense, which is allowed under the U.S. charter. that's obviously not what's at play here, or it should be an action decided by the United Nations. Those are the only two ways that you can have a war that is according to international law. And from the U.S. constitutional point of view, war has to be declared by the United States Congress. Thank you very much. That's Article 1 of our Constitution. And so these are very basic facts which are all forgotten. And it's good, I will say, that some congressmen are upset about the fact that the U.S.

is not only sending missiles into boats without cause, evidence, legal process, but then killing the people that survive the attack. Okay, it's good that they're concerned about that, but I wish they were concerned about an imminent war that is going to be called by the president without any constitutional authority to engage in such a war. So you have two people hanging on to the remains of a boat. There are two different versions of what happened. The Washington Post has seven. sources that say the call went directly to the secretary of defense who said kill them all the secretary of defense says he was out of the room but he authorized to the admiral in charge to kill them all what are the international ramifications when the united states engages in terror piracy and murder on the high seas Well, they're as bad as you can imagine, but I was just speaking with the senior individual in South America who was saying that if there is indeed an open attack by the United States on a South American country, this will be unprecedented for essentially nearly a century.

Of course, the United States has landed our troops in the Caribbean. and in Central America, but not in South America for a very, very long time. And the vulgarity of it, the brazenness of it, the illegality of it, according to this very important and senior person, said it will be shocking and galvanizing across South America, across countries of hundreds of millions of people. So what is happening right now is crass and brazen to an extent that even within the context of the military industrial complex and America's proclivities to go to war, something that is really beyond any kind of any kind of normalcy or. legality. I wonder what will happen here, Professor Sacks, if there'll be any legal process against the

people that have murdered these folks on the boats. One of the culprits here, in addition to the president, is the Congress, which seems to do nothing, which seems to look the other way when the president is using power. hours nowhere sanctioned in the Constitution to kill innocence on the high seas. Basically, the Congress barely functions right now during the first year of the Trump administration. Trump is an executive branch out of law and out of control. the U.S. government operates by executive decree. As we've discussed, these decrees are, I think, blatantly illegal.

Many, many courts say this. We're waiting to see whether the Supreme Court is interested in saving our republic or just handing it over to basically executive rule. but from the point of view of jurisprudence, I don't think this is a close call. And court after court has said that Trump's tariff measures certainly killing people by orders like this, which is just murder.

And if they actually invade Venezuela, which is quite possible, absolutely brazenly unconstitutional by American standards, as well as in contravention of the UN Charter by international standards. So Congress is nowhere to be seen on anything. Where is Congress acting as the co-equal, separate branch of government? The theory of the United States, is checks and balances, that we have three independent branches of government.

They each have, in their various ways, checks on the other branches of government. And when I was a kid a long time ago, there were senators and congressmen that absolutely demanded their prerogative. They weren't there to hand over power to one person. and they knew it was a cliche that we learned in school, that we had rebelled against Mad King George III because we didn't believe in one-person rule. We wanted representation. By the way, no taxation without representation applies to tariffs.

This is taxes imposed on the American people, reducing their living standards, not according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to levy duties. That's the representation side, but according to one person who declares an emergency and then overturns the trading system. Here's somebody in his administration who may not be around that much longer being very eloquent about the dangers. of the government being involved in regime change in foreign countries. This is just a month ago on October 31st, Chris cut number 11. For decades, our foreign policy has been trapped in a counterproductive and endless cycle of regime change or nation building.

It was a one-size-fits-all approach of toppling regimes, trying to impose our system of governance on others, intervene in conflicts that were barely understood and walk away with more enemies than allies. The results, trillions spent, countless lives lost, and in many cases, a creation of greater security threats. President Trump was elected by the American people to put an end to this.

From day one, he has showed a very different way to conduct foreign policy. Very interesting, by the way. You know, I just happened to have here. This wasn't a setup by us, but a book called Covert Regime Change, written by Lindsay O'Rourke. She was a star student of our friend John Meersheimer, and this is from her PhD dissertation. It's a study of the U.S. regime change.

operations from 1947 to 1989. So the Cold War regime change operations. I'd love every listener to get a copy of the book and to understand the importance of what Lindsay O'Rourke, a professor at Boston College, found in this very meticulous study. She, by the way, studied a period only up to 1989 because she wanted to have the benefit of declassified materials so that she could actually document what happened. But what she found was that during the period in 1947 to 1989, there were 70 regime change operations, 70, six of them were so-called overt or open wars to overthrow governments, but 64 were so-called covert regime change operations. Now, covert means that the United States doesn't fess up to what it's doing. It's pretty overt to the

president who's assassinated or overthrown or kicked out in a coup, but it's called covert because the U.S. says, what, me? I didn't have anything to do with that. Sixty-four of them. And there have been dozens more. And what she documents, by the way, in this book is just what Tulsi Gabbard was saying in that clip. These are failures. Even if they succeed in quotation marks in killing a president or overthrowing a president or chasing a president out of office, they end up in prolonged. cycles of violence, coups, instabilities that continue afterwards and that create wastelands in these countries that don't get out of these cycles for decades at a time. And that's what the United States has done all over the world and what it's so threatening to do in Venezuela right now. Well, before we leave, or actually after the show is over, I'm going to ask.

you to give contact information of hers to Chris and we'll put her on the show. If you laud her and John taught her, she's meticulous in her work. But the Trump people are not going to listen to Tulsi Gabbard. I mean, what she said, she said at the peril of her tenure in office. I'll tell you, by the way, he currently threatened Maduro the other day and said, the only way you can avoid an invasion is if you abdicate and leave the country. And people should understand, like many things in the U.S., like the war in Ukraine, which was a 30-year project, it's right to call it the Ukraine project. It didn't start with Russia's invasion in February 22. It started in the 1990s with the idea that we're going to grab that piece

of the global chess board. These are long-standing projects. They're terrible ones. But when it comes to Venezuela, I think you and I may have discussed it, but I want to repeat it in this context. In 2017, 2017, in Trump's first term, he had a dinner with several Latin American leaders

where he said openly, why don't I just invade Venezuela? So this is something eight years, years in the making. In other words, this isn't something about narco-trafficking right now, for God's sake. That wasn't even mentioned beforehand. This is about oil. This is about American politics in South Florida and Rubio's constituency and so forth. But this is a longstanding illegal, gross project. And when Trump said this to the presidents in 2017, they were shocked. I know it because two of them told me about the dinner independently and gave me exactly

the same scenario. But basically they said, Mr. Trump, Mr. President, this could be very destabilizing. This could lead to a very bad outcome. This could be a major backlash. Through then and true today. Professor Sachs, thank you very much. We've been all across the board, but your thoughts are so valuable and so wonderfully articulated. Thank you for telling us about the professor from Boston College. Thank you for your time. We'll look forward to seeing you again soon. Wonderful.

See you next week. All the best. Coming up tomorrow, Wednesday at 8 in the morning, Dr. Gilbert Doctoro at 11 in the morning, Aaron Mote, at 2 in the afternoon, a friend of ours who hasn't been on in a while. Kivork Almasian, our expert on Syria. And at three in the afternoon, Phil Girolde. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.