Pod Save America - 2020: Julián Castro on Immigration and Beyonce

Episode Date: April 5, 2019

Tommy interviews former San Antonio Mayor and HUD Secretary Julián Castro about his 2020 bid. They discuss immigration, Puerto Rico, housing policy, why Democrats have underperformed with Latino voters and how he plans to make the debates and win. On foreign policy, they discuss the rise of white extremists, whether Saudi Arabia is still an ally, China's muslim reeducation camps, North Korea and Beyonce.

Welcome to Pod Save America. This is Tommy Vitor. You know me from the Monday episodes. You know me from Pod Save the World, the show you listen to after Keep It on Wednesdays. That comment was directed at my wife. We are interviewing all of the presidential candidates who are willing and able to come through our studio here at Crooked Media HQ in Los Angeles. Today, I was honored to talk with Julian Castro. He's a former mayor of San Antonio, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and a very, very nice guy. Here's

the stuff we talked about. Here's what you have in store for you. We talked about his big, bold immigration policy and some of the political hurdles he may face in trying to pass it. We talked about why he went to Puerto Rico first when every other candidate goes to Iowa. We talked about some housing policy. We talked about whether he was willing to break some news with me by releasing his list of Supreme Court justices. Spoiler alert, he did not. We also talked about why Democrats have struggled to make inroads with Latino voters even in 2018. And then for him personally, how he thinks he can break through in a field of 2020 primary candidates that gets bigger by the day. Then we turn to some foreign policy questions. I asked him about the rise of white nationalism and what the hell we can do to stop it.

We talked about the U. US-Saudi relationship and whether they are still an ally after all the terrible things they're doing. We talked about China and the fact that they're locking up an entire religious minority group called the Uyghurs and how we push back and get them to stop. And I asked about Trump's diplomacy with North Korea. And then finally, I asked him about Beyonce. So without further ado, here is the interview with Julian Castro. Download, subscribe to Pod Save the World. I am honored to have with me in the studio today, the former mayor of San Antonio, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Julian Castro. Thank you so much for joining us.

Thanks a lot. Great to be with you. So it's been a weird week in the Trump world as I guess we can say that every week, basically. That is true. But I mean, he threatened to seal the border with Mexico. He threatened to cut off aid to El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala. You rolled out a very, very different, far less punitive and cruel immigration policy. You've proposed decriminalizing illegal entry into the US

and making it a civil infraction. So more like a speeding ticket than a crime. You want to split up ICE. You've proposed a Marshall Plan for Central America. Can you explain your immigration proposals and, you know, in particular particular what you can do on your own versus what Congress would have to act on. And talk about why you took such a bold approach. Well, I just have a different vision for this from the president. If you'll remember about a year ago, his administration told us basically that if we would just be cruel enough to separate little children from their parents, that that would deter more families from coming to the United States. And in fact, more families are coming now. And so he wants us to

believe that in order to have a secure border, we need to choose cruelty. I believe that we have a border that is more secure than it's ever been. And I'm asking Americans to choose compassion. So this people first immigration plan that I rolled out includes rolling back something called Section 1325 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which, as you know, was put in place in the late 1920s. But until about 2004, these infractions, somebody crossing over the border was actually treated mostly as a civil matter. It wasn't treated as a criminal matter. I believe that we should go back to that, that it will help us undo the backlog that exists of people. Folks have been watching these images of people under the bridge in El Paso that are literally fenced in with razor wire. This family detention practice of separating

little children from their parents. That's all part of this incarceration push in our immigration policy. I think that we need to do away with that. I also believe that we need to increase the number of refugees that this country takes in. I think that we need to stop playing games with people who are seeking asylum in this country, stop treating them like criminals and allow them to make their claim. I saw the president today suggest that we should somehow do away with asylum and also do away with immigration judges. Actually, I believe that we should strengthen our immigration judicial system and make it independent and invest in it so that we can

actually process these claims. I mean, the fact of the matter is we know that many of the people who make an asylum claim in the United States may not get asylum, right? Also under my plan, of course, we maintain the power to deport people, but we don't treat them like criminals and we don't act like this is just going to go away. I also proposed basically a 21st century Marshall Plan for Latin America. I know that you can't compare the Latin America of today with post-World War II Europe, right? I mean, Europe was coming back after the war. But what I mean is that I believe that we need to make investments in these Northern Triangle countries in Honduras, in El Salvador, in Guatemala, so that people can find safety and opportunity there instead of having to knock on the door of the United States. And so they win and we win. and we win. I love that you are taking a big, bold approach on immigration policy. I think that Democrats need to go at Trump hard on immigration, because if you look at the facts, he's a failure, right? He's failed on enforcement. He's failed when it comes to living up to our values.

He's not done the job, gotten the job done. But I also know, you know, just from mostly the time in the White House, that some of these policies are tough politically. And some of them you've proposed, like splitting up ICE, decriminalizing illegal entry, the foreign aid. If those require congressional action, and in some instances are unpopular, how do you propose to sell that? I mean, how can we get voters to understand that more money for foreign aid is actually going to help them in the long run? in the relationships that we have around the world with aid to many countries. And so I do think that there's a backbone in our history of some built-in support, some realization of that. You're right.

I mean, we do have to convince people why it would make sense. And I would very much lead that with an explanation of how much we're going to spend, how much it would cost to build that wall versus to invest less, what would be less dollars in these Northern Triangle countries. And I think to stem the tide, stem the flow of people coming over here. So just on a numbers basis. Do you have a ballpark number? I don't, but I anticipate that that would be our approach. And during the course of the campaign, we look forward to getting specific about that.

during the course of the campaign, we look forward to getting specific about that. But the other thing is that I think that on January 20th, 2021 at 12.01 PM, we're going to have a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic house. And one of the lessons on immigration reform of 2009, 2010 is don't wait. And so, you know, we're going to go for that. A lot of candidates announced that they're going to run for president, and then they catch the first plane to Iowa. You went to Puerto Rico. Why'd you do that? I went to Puerto Rico because I wanted them and all Americans to know that if I'm president, that everybody counts in this country. This administration has failed the people of Puerto Rico. Just recently, he lied that $91 billion had been invested in Puerto Rico to

recover from Hurricane Maria. The truth is that that's just over $11 billion. And I wanted to just tell them, you know, we're thinking about them. They're Americans too. And if I'm president, I think, frankly, if any of the folks that are running for president as Democrats make it, that we're going to treat them very differently. We're going to make sure that they count. Do you have a theory for why he is so vicious towards elected officials, any financing going towards Puerto Rico? It's glaring. It's nasty. It's insecurity. He recognizes that it's another example of the administration's either malice or incompetence. See, I don't think that his incompetence is given enough credit a lot of times. It's an incompetent administration full of people who are C or D

level appointees, not all of them, but a lot of them. I mean, you served in the federal government, you know what I'm talking about? A lot of positions that are unfilled, a lot of decisions that don't get made because people are afraid to make a decision because there are gaps in the chain of command, political decisions that get made. So he wants people to believe that it was Puerto Rico's fault from the very beginning when they suggested that somehow, you know, people were on strike and so they didn't help deliver supplies on the island. He riles up his base by making him think it's Puerto Rico's fault when it wasn't and shifts the conversation to that instead of the fact that that Harvard study pointed out that about

3,000 people died and a lot of them after the storm hit because the recovery was not handled the right way. Yeah. Puerto Ricans are known to create their own hurricanes, I think is his take on this. Do you think Puerto Rico should become a state? Well, I think that they should determine that. I know that there have been a couple of votes in years past. I would like to see a process for self-determination. I would be committed to that if I'm president. I think that they should be respected first and foremost, and they've been completely

disrespected by this president. I mean, I cannot believe how disrespectful this president has been. Nor can I. So you were President Obama's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 2014 to 2017. The financial crisis and a lot of the fallout from it was before your time in many instances. But there are some Democrats who believe that Obama didn't do enough to help homeowners hurt by the financial crisis, but he bailed out banks, right? Something you hear a lot. So, for example,

they think we should have let bankruptcy judges modify homeowner mortgages to reduce the terms, reduce the value of the debt and avoid foreclosure. It's called a cram down, one of those awful terms that I will never forget. And no one knows what it means. Do you agree with that criticism? And if you do, what other things do you think we could have done to help homeowners after the crisis? Well, what I believe is that President Obama is that President Obama did a very good job with the circumstances that he inherited. In terms of getting the country back up on its feet, you think about communities like Florida or Nevada that were very hard hit. It was night and day. You know, if you stepped in there in January of 2009 versus January of 2017. At the same time, of course, there are things that, that, you know, lessons learned. Hopefully we won't have to go through that again, but lessons

learned in terms of maybe we can be more aggressive so that more people can keep their homes. But overall, I do think that the administration was focused on the concerns of everyday people, especially in a way that this president just is not. Folks may remember right after he was elected that somebody caught him, I think, on tape or a reporter that Trump told his buddies at one of his clubs, I'm going to get you that tax cut. I'm going to lower your taxes. I'm going to get you that tax cut, right? I'm going to lower your taxes.

I mean, that's completely different from the attitude that President Obama had and all of us had, which is we want to do what we can to improve the lives of everyday Americans that are working hard and have just lost their homes. I think in the future, we can look at more aggressive ways to make sure people can keep their homes. Also to add to housing supply that is affordable because we have a rental affordability crisis out there. And on the stump these days, I talk a lot about that. One of the things I talk about is that we need to be the most prosperous nation in this 21st century, but it has to mean prosperity for everybody, from raising the minimum wage to investing in affordable housing, uh, to making sure that of course we focus on the middle class, but also that we focus on the poor too. Yeah. I mean, look, I've lived recently in DC, LA, San Francisco. I mean, these are cities where rents are just skyrocketing.

You really hit the hotspots of, uh, not the smartest move on my part. I wasn't a tech founder. So, I mean, like these cities, I mean, the gentrification, people are getting driven out of their homes. What role do you think the federal government can play in helping people afford housing versus state and local governments? There are things that we can do. There are things that we can do. You know, at the end of the Obama administration, one of the things we did was to release a set of recommendations for local communities on land use decisions that they could make, basically to increase the likelihood that affordable housing would be built, that we get greater supply, but we can make stronger investments. I would increase the National Housing Trust Fund, increase low-income housing tax credits, also traditional tools like community development block grants and home funding and money to combat homelessness because we have, in these cities that you mentioned, growing unsheltered homelessness. But we also, right? Growing unsheltered homelessness. But we also, I think, have to restore something called affirmatively furthering fair housing. It was a blockbuster rule that HUD did during the Obama

administration to basically tell communities, look, if you're going to get federal taxpayer dollars through HUD, you have to get more serious about providing equal housing opportunity throughout your jurisdiction. And that, I think, will help jurisdictions, cities, or counties be wiser, be more prudent about things like gentrification and displacement. I have to tell you that I traveled to 100 different communities in 39 states when I was HUD secretary over those two and a half years. And I would not have graded a single community with an A when it came to combating displacement. Because oftentimes what happens is by the time people recognize there's a problem here, you know, there's already gone through a tipping point and people can't afford to live there anymore. Austin is a great example

of that. You know, the East side of Austin has lost half of its African-American population over the last decade or so. So there are investments, but there's also, I think, an approach that we can take to help local communities get better about that. Switching gears a little bit, but I guess staying in San Francisco, there's some polling out today about how unpopular some of the big tech companies are like Facebook, Google, Twitter. There's been a lot of talk recently about how they should be regulated or maybe even broken up. Do you think it makes sense to break up companies like Facebook or Google? And if yes, I mean, do we need to update our antitrust laws to reflect the reality of business today versus, say,

standard oil in the 20s? Oh, I think it's definitely worth taking a look at those laws. I believe that that's worth a debate, a conversation. I have concerns about, for instance, companies that have gotten as big as they have with a business model of using consumer information, using the web data, cell phone data, tracking data of ordinary Americans. I do think I was in Iowa the other day. We did a forum in Storm Lake around rural issues. And one of the things I said there was with respect to agribusiness, for instance, that I applaud efforts to not just look at consumer price when two companies are trying to merge in agribusiness, but also looking at the effect on small business along the chain of production.

And I think, you know, analogously that we can say that in the same way about tech or other industries. So, yeah, I think that that's worth a debate. tech or other industries. So yeah, I think that that's worth a debate. During the campaign, President Trump had some donors, lobbyists, the Federalist Society draw up for him a list of potential Supreme Court justices that he could then release to show his conservative bona fides. Do you have a list? And do you want to share any names with us today? I don't have a list. But let me tell you what I would do. Number one, we need to bring back respected organizations like the American Bar Association to give input and make recommendations and take those recommendations seriously. of the Supreme Court to fundamental rights like the right to choose and that the future of Roe v. Wade is under threat because of the direction that the court has been going

in. And if I'm president, I'm going to make sure to appoint very well-qualified judges who have a good track record and have embraced progressive values. I mean, so just this week, Mitch McConnell is forcing through a rule change that reduces the amount of time you have to debate one of these judges in cloture from 30 hours to two. So they are just ramming these, you know, they're finding like anybody over the age of 13 who's maybe taking the LSAT and they're like getting the federal judgeship. Yeah, you're not kidding in some instances. Unfortunately, I'm not. I mean, can we fix this?

in some instances, yeah. Unfortunately, I'm not. I mean, can we fix this? Are they stacking the federal courts to such a degree that the next Democratic president might not be able to unwind the damage? Well, I mean, there's going to be a lot of damage, no doubt, because they're appointing ideologues, because some of these ideologues, as you suggest, are hardly qualified. I mean, there were a couple, I think, that hadn't even argued a case, had not litigated a case, and now they're going to be Supreme Court justices that go into the intricacies essentially of the law. So people have discussed different ways that we could look at it. There's one that I am not too fond of, and maybe a couple that I would consider. I'm not too fond of, and maybe a couple that I would consider. The one that I'm not too fond of is just simply increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Because if we go from nine justices to 11 tomorrow, what's to say that in a couple of years, they don't come back and put it

back at nine or at 15? The ones that intrigue me more, for instance, are term limits on what are now lifetime appointments if you had a 20-year term limit or something like that. Or some system that's, you know, akin to how some states do commission redistricting, right? The Democrats appoint certain people, the Republicans appoint a certain number of people, and then you have to agree on a certain number of people. So those tend to be more in the middle. I think that that's worth looking at, you know? Yeah. In the 2018 midterms, Democrats obviously had a lot of success and we made some progress among Latino voters, but I think it was a lot less than, and we made some progress among Latino voters, but I think it was a lot less than people had hoped, especially in a place like Florida. Similarly, I think you've seen general Latino political participation not keep pace with

Latino population growth. I'm curious if you have a theory of the case for why that is, and thoughts on how Democrats could do a better job of earning the votes of Latinos in the US? Well I mean I think different reasons. What can we do to improve that? It's gonna take an all-out 365 day a year effort to invest in registration and in turnout. As you know, I mean campaigns are often focused on the most likely voters because they have limited resources. So this is something that foundations and, you know, C4s and others are going to have to do year round, not just three months before an election or six months before an election. But if you have a sustained effort to improve turnout, registration and turnout, then I do think that you can start

seeing those numbers improve. We did see, you know, from 2014 to 2018, over 150% increase in Latino participation, at least in Texas. So, you know, there is some reason for hope. I do think that in 2020, we're going to see an increase. I believe also that you have to continue to recruit good candidates from the local level, the state level, and at the federal level. As a candidate, I've always been mindful that you need to represent everybody if you're in office and as you campaign. But I do believe that my candidacy as the only Latino that's running in this race is going to have special meaning to a lot of Latinos. And I believe that if I'm the Democratic nominee, that I can go get the 11 electoral votes of Arizona, the 29 electoral votes of Florida, and the 38 electoral votes of Texas.

Yeah. Something you said reminded me of something that literally keeps me up at night, which is that, you know, Trump is out there. He's going to raise a billion dollars. He's putting millions of dollars into Facebook ads to scare the shit out of old white people in various places like every day. And Democrats, we are going to spend a couple hundred million dollars in Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire, you know, maybe some Super Tuesday states. hundred million dollars in Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire, you know, maybe some Super Tuesday states. Does that worry you that we're not doing the structural investing that you talked about? Or do you think the DNC is filling that gap? Well, I mean, I'll give Tom Pettis some credit, right? I mean, I do think that he has given that thought in addition to addressing some of the 2016 issues of Bernie Hillary's stuff. Yeah, divisions and feelings that were still there. But I do think

that they've taken a, you know, eyes wide open approach now, but it's going to take, you know, the Democracy Alliance and others that are interested in long-term growth in registration and turnout to make those investments. We can't take our eye off of that ball. I do agree that, look, the first order of business is to go get Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. I mean, we lost those by collectively less than 80,000 votes. And I think that a couple of the trends we saw in 2018, like the suburbs going over to Democrats and, as you know, President Obama in 2012, there was an African-American turnout rate of 66 percent and that fell to 59 and a half percent in 2016. I think that that's going to go up again. Right.

Whether I'm the nominee or there are others that can, I think, make that go up again. So there's a lot of promise there. But on top of that, the future is to go get Arizona, Texas, and Florida. Kyrsten Sinema already won in Arizona. Gillum only lost by, in a midterm year, only lost by 33,000 votes. Bill Nelson. Heartbreaker. They were, they were. But, you know, I mean, a presidential year is going to be better than a midterm year, probably for us. But, you know, Bill Nelson only lost by 10,000. And in Texas, Um, but you know, Bill Nelson only lost by 10,000 and in Texas, uh, you know, Beto O'Rourke got within two and a half points of Ted Cruz. So we, there's a lot to suggest that that's fruitful territory for us. Yeah. I mean, look, Beto's, Beto turned out a lot of voters. Um, but he was also

running against like arguably the worst person on the planet. I mean, do you think, do you think Texas is gettable in an election year? Because we've been salivating over Texas for a decade, Democrats have. Oh, I do. I do. A good example of that was that Hillary lost Texas by nine points. She lost Ohio and Iowa by nine points. But for Texas, it had gone from a 16-point difference to a nine-point difference. And now in the midterms, there were a couple of candidates,

not only Congressman O'Rourke, but also the Lieutenant Gubernatorial candidate, I think Mike Collier, who were within three points. So for 2020, I believe with the right candidate that, yeah, we can get it. I believe that if I'm the nominee, that I can get Texas. I like that. So speaking of the nominee, so there's roughly a thousand Democrats running for president. I can't imagine how difficult, I mean, I remember running against Hillary and thinking it was hard to break through. I can't imagine how it is now, especially with there's thresholds one has to meet to

be invited to the debates, right? And you warn supporters in a fundraising email that the party's new rules mean you might not make it onto the debate stage. So I guess my question is sort of what's your pitch to listeners to say, give me a buck so I can get on that stage. And how do you hope to break through? And then because I love 15 part questions, like is your path, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, or do you think you might prioritize your time differently? Yeah, well, you know, I announced on January 12th, and unlike some of the candidates, I had not run for president before, hadn't run for Senate, even though I've served as a federal executive, right, a national post. So we're building up our campaign from scratch. Our

fundraising has accelerated tremendously. I'm still not at the 65,000 threshold, and So we're building up our campaign from scratch. Our fundraising has accelerated tremendously. I'm still not at the 65,000 threshold. And so we're taking contributions to get on that debate stage. I have met the polling requirement though. And why? Well, number one, I'm one of the few candidates in this race that has executive experience, having served as a cabinet secretary, managed an agency of $48 billion budget, 8,000 employees, 54 field offices across the country, also served as the mayor of San Antonio, the nation's seventh largest city. So I have a track record of getting things done. And I represent a new generation of leadership. And I think that people are looking for a new generation of leadership. I've also articulated a strong, positive, compelling vision for the future,

that we be in the 21st century, the smartest, the healthiest, the fairest, and the most prosperous nation, and releasing plans on how we get there, like we did with this People First immigration plan. So yeah, I believe that with the support of the American people that I am going to get on the debate stage and would encourage folks to give, um, once we get on that debate stage, uh, I'm confident that I'm going to stand out in terms of my path. Uh, I think everybody's got to keep compete for Iowa because in such a crowded field, uh, you know, if you get lost in the shuffle, if you don't do very well there, then it's probably hard to stick around. So I'm going to compete in Iowa. I also like that we have Nevada as the third state. After those first four states, I actually really like the secondary stretch of states.

On Super Tuesday, March 3rd, we have California, we have Texas, we have, I believe, Colorado, as well as the South. Puerto Rico, I understand, is looking at moving up its primary to Sunday, March 8th. And then after that, within two weeks or so, you have Florida and Arizona. And so I feel good, very good about that secondary stretch of state. So let's fast forward a little bit. You won. Congrats. You walk into the Oval, put your feet up on the desk what do you do on day one well in that moment will be a very special one I actually look forward let me back up a few hours I look forward to the moment when it's

traditional for the incoming president to usher out the outgoing president and you know on the White House lawn Donald Trump and Melania Trump will be ready to go off to New York or to Mar-a-Lago or somewhere. Yeah. You know, right before he leaves to go off into the helicopter, I'm going to tell him adios. So when I get into the Oval Office, then no, my first executive order will be to recommit the United States to the Paris Climate Accord so that we can lead on climate change again. And also, and I think this reflects the experience that I do have having served as a cabinet member. As you know, this administration has undertaken a number of different rule changes that have undermined civil rights, women's rights, the environment, healthcare,

education, any number of things. My first order of business will be to have a catalog of that, an index of that, and to immediately on the first day and the days following that instruct what will at that point be temporary people in charge of the departments to begin undoing those things that have been done and to go in the right direction on civil rights and education and healthcare. We got to go back in the direction of expanding opportunity instead of taking away from it. Yeah, agreed. I'll ask you a couple of national security questions. So there's been this very frightening increase in globally in terrorist attacks by white nationalists. Most recently, there was a lunatic who shot up two mosques in New Zealand.

The New York Times this week published an interesting analysis showing that many of these attacks were actually connected, either by direct communication between individuals involved or one was inspired by another. inspired by another. I'm curious what you think about what the U.S. government and also tech companies should do to stop online radicalization and the horrific violence that can come from it. Well, we have seen that there's this underworld out there in the internet and social media where people are getting radicalized, right? That's often a word, unfortunately, that has only been used when we talk about folks in the Middle East or Muslims, you know, has been people, you know, groups, whole groups have been slandered. But it is accurate to say that several of these young men who have gone in and shot up, whether it's a church or a night club or other circumstances here

and also in other parts of the world, have been radicalized. And so I do think that whether it's Facebook or Twitter or others, that they have to bear some responsibility for cracking down on that, being more vigilant. And they've said that, right? And in some instances they've taken steps, but I don't think that they've done enough. taken steps, but I don't think that they've done enough. I think it was the FBI director may have testified recently that this white nationalism is a real threat. And we see that, right? I also, though, I do think that we have to be careful because the president and others would have people almost believe that every time somebody who happens to be Muslim commits a terrorist act, that we should view all people in that way.

And, you know, we don't do that. Just like if somebody is white and they go and if you have a white man that goes and shoots up a church or somewhere else, we don't make those kinds of conclusions. We have to come at these challenges where they are. Right. those kinds of conclusions. We have to come at these challenges where they are, right? And do so in a way that separates the actions of one individual from an indictment of entire groups. Do you think Trump has, I don't know, inspired these groups or made common cause with some of the fringier nationalist groups out there? Yeah? I think it's fair to say they've gotten inspiration from him, no doubt. And that from what I can tell, there have been moments where he seems to either encourage or knowingly does not discourage these beliefs.

I'm thinking of after Charlottesville, you know, the very fine people. And yeah, he'll make a comment that, that this is wrong. It's the wrong thing, but it's never as fervent as he does when, you know, it's somebody of a different faith. Yeah. Uh, who, yeah, somebody of color or different religion, especially, um, you know especially incidents in France or Europe or other places where you happen to have had someone who was Muslim commit one of these attacks, and he's all over that in the strongest terms, but will not do that when it's one of these white nationalists. Agreed. It's been about six months, I believe, since the Saudis brutally executed and dismembered a journalist named Jamal Khashoggi and their consulate in Istanbul. This week, Congress voted to end U.S. involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen that has put literally 20 million innocent people at risk of starvation.

This week, we also learned that the Saudis are about to complete construction on their first nuclear reactor, are about to complete construction on their first nuclear reactor, but they have yet to agree to any international rules that would ensure that that technology is used for civilian purposes and not for weapons. Given the trajectory of the relationship and what we know of Mohammed bin Salman, do you think the Saudis are still our ally? That is a very good question. And, you know, frankly, I think that the Obama administration began to take a new look at that relationship. It's also troubling what we continue to find out about the relationship between the president's family and the Saudi royal family. And so, you know, I acknowledge here that I'm not privy to classified information. I don't know what other information there is or how helpful they may have been. But right now, I would say that it certainly raises the question. And it's alarming that Saudi Arabia would be progressing toward nuclear capacity in this way. And there seems to be little accountability right

now. Yeah. I mean, just imagining if Iran butchered a journalist who lives in the U.S. and then we found that they were building a nuclear reactor, I think we probably would have invaded five minutes ago. You know, it's just it's a remarkable double standard. And there's just this inertia in Washington, I think, that keeps us from rethinking these relationships. And I'm not totally sure why. Well, and that's why, you know, you wonder, is there something else there that we're not getting of value? I mean, that's the question that I have as somebody right now that is not privy to that kind of information. But what I can say is that their march toward nuclear capacity or capability does trouble me, given other circumstances that we've seen.

So as we speak, the Chinese government is undertaking what is likely the largest mass detention of a racial or religious group since the Holocaust. Experts estimate that at least one million Uyghurs who are a Muslim minority group are being held in, I guess you'd call them re-education camps. They're forced to renounce their religion, learn Chinese Communist Party propaganda. Some are reportedly being tortured. And I'm just struck by the fact that the world is largely silent on it. And that includes like allies of ours, like the UK. I don't know that there's an easy answer here, but do you have a sense of what the US should do to push them on this sort of massive human rights violation or it's an atrocity in plain sight? Well, I think that should be part of

any agreements that we forge with China and our continued diplomatic relationship with them. I'm somebody that still believes that the United States has a role to play in leading the world on what we care about, freedom, democracy, opportunity. And that even though this administration has scaled back in a big way, its leadership on human rights abuses, we actually need to restore that. And so I would find every single way that we can to apply pressure to China on this. And not only China, but other countries around the world. We just saw what happened with the Sultan of Brunei, for instance. And we're in Los Angeles today. I mean, there's a boycott of one of his hotels over here that he has an interest in. George Clooney raised one op-ed and we're boycotting a bunch of hotels yeah yeah but i mean the fact is that

i like it yeah but that ain't the way it's supposed to work either right um so one of the things that we need to restore is a strong voice of leadership on human rights abuses um so president trump has had this long back and forth with Kim Jong-un in North Korea. He had this summit that he thinks is historic in Singapore where they, you know, he came back and told us that there was no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea and that everything was solved. That's obviously not true. The negotiations seem to have fallen apart. But as someone who worked in government for a while in the NSC and saw, particularly in the first term, the way inertia in DC conventional wisdom can hamstring a president, I was kind of impressed by Trump saying, fuck you guys,

I'm going to meet with him. Who cares? What's the downside? I mean, I guess I'm just curious what you make of that diplomatic effort. And if you've thought about why sometimes in Washington, it seems so much harder to make peace and have talks than it is to go to war. Then candidate Obama got pilloried, right, for saying that he would speak with people who were our quote unquote enemies without preconditions and so forth. And, you know, what we see here with with Trump may be a kind of a Nixon in China example, a smaller scale of it, where because he's seen as a tough guy on these issues, in some ways he can get away with more. as a tough guy on these issues. In some ways, he can get away with more, but it shouldn't be like that. Right. Because the principle of being able to try and negotiate peace should apply no matter who you are,

because it's in the nation's best interest. So yes, I do think that that's an approach that we should take. I also see that, frankly, as for me, I'm not part and parcel of Washington. You know, I spent two and a half years there. I think sometimes folks that spend more time in Washington, right, the more you're influenced by the thinking of elite Washington, we shouldn't let that hamper how we go forward. Of course, what we've seen unfold in front of our eyes is that it seems like this president got played.

Yeah. And in fact, misled the American people about what was happening with these talks. And maybe most disappointingly, you know, just from an executive perspective, he does not seem to have the discipline or the energy to put the time in to understand the issues well enough to be prepared. One thing that you knew about President Obama is that he studied those books, you know, and he respected the people that were advising him. This president thinks that he can wing everything. And, you know, there's no doubt, of course, that he must have some talents. He wouldn't be where he is without it. But he just seems completely in over his head. And because of that, now they're actually going back and probably their breakout capacity is getting, you know,

smaller and smaller, shorter and shorter. So we're, we're misserved by a president that is too busy insulting people on Twitter or playing golf or going to Mar-a-Lago instead of putting the time in to actually, you know, get us the kind of deal that we need. Yeah. Low energy Don. They probably made a few more nukes on his watch. Final question for you. So whenever someone famous comes into our office and gets asked about Beyonce, it gets picked up literally everywhere. So Beyonce's from Texas. Didn't she like strike up a deal with Adidas yesterday? I saw that. Tell me about it. Yeah. Well, I don't know much about it. I just saw the headlines, right?

She's a Texan, right? But it's a big deal. She is. Houston. She's going to endorse? I don't know. Well, if she does, I hope she endorses me. Okay. There we go. Beyonce might endorse Secretary Castro. That's your headline out of this. Secretary, thank you so much for coming in. It's a pleasure talking to you, and good luck. Hey, thanks a lot. Thank you.