Pod Save America - “Dr. Fauci, Unmasked.”

Episode Date: May 17, 2021

The Biden Administration faces a moment of truth over the escalating violence between Israel and Palestine, Dr. Anthony Fauci talks to Jon Lovett about the CDC’s new mask guidelines, and a look at some important stories to watch this week, including the Philadelphia District Attorney’s race, the Supreme Court’s decision to hear a case on Mississippi’s abortion ban, and the future of HR1.For a closed-captioned version of this episode, please visit crooked.com/podsaveamerica. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. On today's pod, the Biden administration faces a moment of truth over the escalating violence between the Israelis and Palestinians. Dr. Fauci is here to chat with Lovett about the CDC's new mask guidelines. And we take a look at a few stories we're watching closely this week, including the Philadelphia district attorney's race, the Supreme Court's decision on a critical abortion rights case, and the future of HR1.

But first, check out the Crooked store for some great new additions, like our Fauci-Ouchi Band-Aid sets. Lovett, did you offer Dr. Fauci a Fauci-Ouchi Band-Aid set? I didn't, and I'm glad I didn't, John. I don't want to have to say that to him. We also, of course, you know, we have our Doug on a mug, a presidential spouse's mug. We now also have a new refill for Jill mug. Important thing about all of this is you can feel good buying all this merch, knowing that a portion of every order goes to support vote writers.

It's helping people across the country getting registered to vote. They do fantastic work. Shop now at cricket.com slash store. All right, let's get to the news. The violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians is one of the biggest stories in the world right now. It began last month when Jewish settlers tried to expel six Palestinian families from East Jerusalem, which led to protests, which ultimately led Israeli police to conduct a raid on the Al-Aqsa Mosque that left hundreds wounded. Hamas militants in Gaza responded by firing rockets into Jerusalem. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded by ordering airstrikes against Gaza, where the death toll has now climbed to at least 192 people, including 58 children. In the occupied West Bank, Israeli forces have killed at least 13 Palestinians. And in Israel, there have been at least 10 deaths, including two children. One image that captured the world's

attention over the weekend was the demolished building in Gaza, where the Associated Press and Al Jazeera worked, a building that was targeted by the Israeli government that they claim was shared by Hamas. In addition to the violence between Hamas and the Israeli government, there's also been some of the worst violence and unrest between Jews and Arabs inside of Israel in over two decades. Tommy, that was my attempt at a quick summary of how we got here. What important context have I left out? Those are definitely the key events. I mean, the little broader context is last week, the Israeli Supreme Court was supposed to rule on whether those families would be evicted from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah. So that helped kind of bring it to the fore and make it a focal point. And land disputes in East Jerusalem are

incredibly sensitive for a lot of reasons, especially because any serious plan for a two-state solution envisions the Palestinian capital being in East Jerusalem. But a lot of right-wing Israelis, including a lot of people in the Yahoo government, want Israel to control all of Jerusalem. So there's this concerted effort by settler organizations to evict some of these families, these Palestinian families from their homes, move Jewish settlers in. It highlights all the unfair ways that the Israeli law treats historical claims to that land. So that ruling got postponed, but it also coincided with an annual Israeli holiday called Jerusalem Day that marked Israel's capture of East Jerusalem. And associated with that holiday, there are often far right wing

Israeli settlers marching through the streets in that area. So it's an incredibly provocative set of actions. And so it became about something bigger than just a conversation about sex evictions. It was about Israeli sovereignty. And this is all in an area with these enormous religious implications and significance for all sides. So it was this tinderbox of Palestinian protesters, far-right Israeli counter-protesters, heavy-handed policing by Israeli police forces. And things really exploded when Israeli police raided the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is one of the holiest sites in Islam. They fired stunner grenades, rubber bullets when people were worshiping.

So that's when Hamas got involved, right? Like the Palestinians were not asking for them to be involved. They're just selfish assholes who want to make this about themselves. They're terrorists and arsonists. And they start firing rockets indiscriminately into Israel, which to be clear is a war crime. And the good news is like a lot of those rockets were intercepted by this Iron Dome missile defense system, which, you know, prevented innocent people from dying. But then the IDF responded with intensive shelling of targets in Gaza, and that's still ongoing. And you look, Gaza, just so people know,

is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. And it's been controlled by Hamas since 2007. So it's sort of this open air prison where the majority of people can't get in, they can't get out. They're just stuck there. And then the last piece of broader context is there's just general political instability in the region because the Palestinian Authority is feckless and corrupt, and they haven't even had elections since 2006. And the Israeli government has been paralyzed because they've had four elections in two years. But because of how their system works, no leader has been able to form a government. So they just go back to the polls and back to the polls. And Netanyahu is basically a caretaker prime minister right now, but he has been distracted by a bunch of corruption cases against him. So it seems like

some people were asleep at the switch in the Israeli government when it came to these tensions in East Jerusalem. What's your reaction been to Netanyahu's response to Hamas over the last several days? Obviously, the shelling continues as we speak. It certainly seems disproportionate from everything that I've read and seen over the last several days. Yeah. I mean, look, the mantra you always hear from US officials and from the Biden administration right now is that Israel has a right to defend itself. And of course, that is true, right? Like any leader would respond if rockets were fired into civilian areas. But to your point, John, I do think that glosses over a more important question of, is this a proportionate

response? Are these strikes going to save innocent lives or take innocent lives? And right now, I'm very worried about all these reports of civilian casualties and these residential buildings that are getting targeted because the way that Israeli defense officials often describe their military operations in these cases, they call it mowing the grass, which is a really disgusting, dehumanizing way of saying like, once the fighting starts, we're going to take out as many Hamas fighters as we can. And we're going to take out as many rockets and as many tunnels that Hamas uses as we can before it stops. But like, it took three months to reach a ceasefire in the 2014 Gaza war. Thousands of people died. And the Israeli defense minister

gave a speech last week where he said, if Hamas doesn't stop, the 2021 response will be worse than 2014. You know, he said, if Israelis have to sleep in shelters because Hamas is firing at them, then Gaza will burn. That's a quote from the defense minister. And to me, that is like, that's a recipe for escalation for more innocent deaths. And, you know, the average citizen in Gaza can't stop Hamas. They can't make them stop firing rockets. They can't help that Hamas is co-locating its operations in areas where they live. They just have to live now. And that doesn't absolve Hamas. But there's this major power imbalance here, right? Like Israel's a superpower with this advanced military, and it's funded by the US. And they control most of the territory we're talking about. And I think that's why there needs to be more of a push to call for a ceasefire immediately. Love it. What's your reaction been watching this unfold? You know, especially the Israelis targeting a building that housed

media outlets because they say that Hamas was co-locating there? You know, it's obviously really hard to watch this unfold. And. And there was something that actually, of all people, Barry Weiss wrote that really stuck with me, not because I agreed with it, obviously. Let me stay that at the jump. Hear the rest of what I'm going to say before you tweet at me, please. Barry Weiss was a former Times columnist. She's now chief cancel culture correspondent for her own Substack.

But she wrote, she said this about the deaths of Palestinian civilians and children in an attempt to try to bring nuance to what she viewed as an anti-Israel, anti-Semitic narrative that had taken hold. And she said, this is an unspeakable tragedy. It is also one of the unavoidable burdens of political power of Zionism's dream turned into the reality of self-determination. And I'll just be honest that it makes makes me so angry, like it makes me really upset to see that because like I am a.

When I think of Israel, it in my mind, it is like. to the fact that after the creation of Israel, Jews had to flee Arab countries or were expelled from Arab countries into Israel. I think of the escape of Soviet Jews. I think of the fact that pogroms took place in Europe after World War II, in Poland, in Central Europe. I'm not talking about this just intellectually. In my bones, as a Jewish person, I am a Zionist. I believe in it. It is my bias. It is how I approach these questions. It is how I was raised. It is how I think about it. Like I believe in the project of Israel. And what is so enraging about this is that that is then twisted by people like Netanyahu, by the Israelis, by defenders of what Israel does as to say, if you believe in Israel,

this is what you must support. And not only do I think that's not true because it's morally wrong, like not only is referring to this as some unavoidable burden of power, like morally reprehensible, which is, I think, I'm taking this one sentence, but I think it speaks to a larger way in which these actions are defended. I think it is counterproductive in a fundamental way that it does not bring us closer to the point at which Israel is free and safe because Palestinians are free and safe. It makes everything harder. It makes everything go on. It makes the animus worse. It makes the hatreds worse. It makes Israel more isolated, more alienated from its neighbors and from the international order. It makes the day in which Israel is at peace and sustainable and safe and free further away.

And that was sort of my reaction on top of agreeing with everything Tommy said, everything Tommy and Ben said on Pod Save the World. It was that I don't believe what Israel is doing is morally right. I think it's repellent, but I also think it is not in the interest of those who believe in Israel and the project of Israel. Yeah. No, I just I mean, sort of watching this unfold, and many people have pointed this out that this only seems to generate a lot of headlines when rockets start falling on Israel. But as Tommy pointed out, there's like a whole bunch of context that doesn't get as much headlines everywhere before the rockets start falling on Israel. And that's always the case every time there's, you know, the conflict erupts between Israelis and Palestinians. And at the end

of the day, you just have to understand that like the Palestinians don't have a state, nor do they live in a democracy. Right. And they either need to have a state of their own or they need to be treated as equal citizens in the state where they live. And the Israeli government under Netanyahu does not want either of those things. And that and it's I think it's important to just focus sort of like on the Palestinians themselves, because sometimes we just don't talk about this stuff until Hamas starts firing off rockets. But Tommy, I do want to get your reaction, because I know you were I saw you tweeting about this over the weekend about Israelis targeting that building that housed both the Associated Press and Al Jazeera. Yeah, I mean, like, like, I to be, I think that that was outrageous and to love its one. I mean, I think it's incredibly stupid to bomb a building that, you know, houses media

organizations. Like the world is watching. I assume that the Israeli government wants people to support their efforts, to think they're just, to think they're proportionate and wise. If there's some intelligence that shows that that building contained Hamas's version of the fucking Pentagon, I will of course look at that. I will take that on board, but I doubt that is the case. You shouldn't blow up a media building. And I also find it troubling that a bunch of big residential buildings have been destroyed. Even if the Israelis are clearing civilians out of places like that before they strike, where are these people supposed to live afterwards? Gaza is being bombed into the Stone Age for this type of time in decades. And so, we have to allow for complexity in all of this and for there not to always be black and

white. It is true that Hamas operates in civilian areas to try to use innocent people as human shields. I talked to a reporter over the weekend who used to cover Gaza. He often worked out of that building, that AP building several years ago. And he said that his understanding was that some element of Hamas had worked out of it at the time. I can't confirm that myself. That's what I was told. I was in no way trying to suggest that that makes it justified to bomb that building. I do not. I kind of think that the debate over whether there was some Hamas office in this building or not misses the point. Wars are often fought in urban areas like this. Militaries decide all the time not to strike targets because of collateral damage,

not to strike targets because you would have curtailed the international media's ability to report on a conflict. And so in this case, the IDF had to know that the response to blowing up a building used by journalists would be enormous. They should not have done it. And their failure to lay out evidence proving why this was some critical military target is allowing far more cynical views about why one might do that, like thinking maybe it's a good thing to curtail reporting on what's happening in Gaza to fester and to be surfaced online. So I think it was an enormous error. It was immoral and it was strategically incredibly fucking stupid.

Yeah. And I think it's also another example of sort of like the power imbalance that is not focused on enough between, you know, the Israeli government and the Palestinians and sort of the disproportionate use of force and how they respond. I mean, that's to Tommy's point. It's I see this idea of like Israel has a right to defend itself, which it does, and that Hamas uses innocent people as human shields, which it does as a defense. innocent people as human shields, which it does as a defense, but dozens of children are dead. So they're not like, sometimes that means you can't do it. Yes. The fact that means you can't, you can't, you can't do it. It works using people as a human shield that you have to protect those children. Your job is

also to protect those children. Killing civilians in Gaza does not save civilians in Israel, period. Right. So I want to talk about the Biden administration response here. But Tommy, you and Ben Rhodes have been talking about how this time feels different in terms of who's speaking out, you know, not just activists and progressives, but a lot more Democrats, people who aren't usually even engaged on this issue. Can you talk a little bit about that? And what do you think has sort of changed? Yeah, I mean, look, one thing that's changed to me, you talked about this earlier, John, about how sometimes the press attention comes when the rockets start getting fired. In this case, there was a proliferation of videos and images out of Sheikh Jarrah, out of this neighborhood

where these Palestinian families were being evicted. And there actually was a ton of coverage of it. It was getting discussed and it was getting talked about. So I think that was different and important. But now, you know, the bombing has started. Like you're also seeing horrifying images on social media out of Gaza as well. I assume people have seen, there's a video of a little girl, 10-year-old girl crying. Her neighborhood was destroyed. There was a video of a man grieving the death of four children, four children. So how do you not respond on a human level when you see this? And I also think that months of conversations about Black Lives Matter and social justice have, I think, encouraged people to think about these evictions and the treatment of Palestinians and, you know, wanting to give them the human rights they deserve and the dignity they deserve as,

and view it in the same way. You know, I mean, we're talking about this in the same sort of social justice framework. I also think there's the fact that Bibi Netanyahu is a terrible leader. He's a bad guy. He's super right wing. He's corrupt. He's a racist. He's made tensions between Israelis and Palestinians worse, did everything in his power to blow up the Iran nuclear deal. And so that's an important distinction, right? Because like, I'm not criticizing the state of Israel. I'm not criticizing the Israeli people. I'm criticizing a shitty leader in the same way I criticized a shitty leader in the US named Donald Trump. You know, that's a distinction that sometimes gets lost in this.

And then you're also seeing Democratic leaders that are just more willing to speak out about what's happening. Bernie Sanders wrote an op-ed in the New York Times. You have AOC, Rashida Tlaib, others delivering statements and really amazing speeches. But even associated with that, 28 senators led by John Ossoff are calling for a ceasefire. You know, you're seeing progressive Jewish Democrats in the House calling for peace. So to me, this feels very different than the traditional sort of unquestioning calls for support for Israel's right to defend itself. People are willing to be a little more specific about what's happening and judge the efficacy of these various military strikes and other actions. Yeah, I also want to focus in on that point that you made about sort of the parallels between Bibi and Trump. Bernie's op-ed,

which is excellent, everyone should go read it. He mentions that Bibi has cultivated, quote, an authoritarian type of racist nationalism in Israel and says that we've seen a similar rise of authoritarian nationalist movements around the world. I do think it's also easier for people to start seeing the connection more clearly between authoritarian types of racist nationalist governments all around the world, especially people who have experienced different levels of authoritarianism, often racist nationalism, both here in the U.S. under Trump and in other countries. And so I think as these movements give rise, it's for a lot of people who aren't as engaged in this issue, it's no longer just a question of like Israel and Palestine. But the more the focus is on Netanyahu and his sort of corrupt racist government, I think the more people can start seeing the parallels between things that are going on all over the world. And the fact that he is barely holding on to power. Yeah. And exploiting this crisis. Corrupt as hell.

I think sometimes people hear all this conversation about settlements and they wonder, why are people talking about settlements all the time? Why is it such a big deal to build more apartments in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem. And the reason is, at some point, there will be so many Israeli settlements that it will be impossible to create a Palestinian state that is contiguous, that is one thing. It'll just be sliced and diced into little pieces. And that is by design. There are right-wing individuals in the Israeli government who want to move as many settlers as they can into those territories so that it becomes de facto part of Israel.

Like the mayor of East Jerusalem said as much on the record when talking about Sheikh Jarrah. That same guy, by the way, also pointed at a Palestinian protester and said, next time we'll shoot you in the head, right? So there's some real extremists driving the debate on both sides. Well, and the other thing, you know, you hear people talking about a one-state solution, but like Palestinians who live within Israel right now, Arabs in Israel are treated as second-class citizens,

not just treated, but like Netanyahu has passed law after law making them second-class citizens during the time he's been in power. And it's just that the settlements make a two-state solution more and more difficult. You now see, you know, Peter Beinart in The New York Times talking about right of return that I remember when when we were in the White House, the Obama administration would face criticism for challenging Israel on settlements, for challenging Israel on some of its policies. And the view was, if you don't push for a two state solution and try to stop some of the ways Israel is, for its part, making that solution more difficult,

you are inevitably marching towards a one-state solution, which means a very different version. It means no longer being a Jewish state because of the inevitability of the demographics in Israel and Palestine. And we see that playing out right now. Yeah. And I just want to say, it is also true that over the last several decades, the Palestinian Authority has walked away from or refused to accept deals that were negotiated by the US or put forward by Israel that would have enormously benefited them today had they taken them. This is by no means absolving the Palestinian Authority of their responsibility for the failure to achieve a two-state solution.

The challenge now, though, like you see the Biden administration putting out a statement that they sent a letter to Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority. Well, Abbas has no power. No one listens to him. He has no moral authority. They delay these elections in part because I'm sure he thought Hamas would kick his ass. So that's when we talk about the power imbalance. Anyway, sorry to go all world on you. One place where it unfortunately doesn't seem like Israeli-Palestinian politics have changed much is the White House, which released a statement on Saturday saying that Biden talked to Netanyahu and, quote, reaffirmed his strong support for Israel's right to defend itself from Hamas. The U.S. is currently blocking a joint statement from the U.N. Security Council calling for an immediate ceasefire. Today, Jen Psaki wouldn't say whether

Israel's response is proportional and instead kept pointing out that there is, quote, quiet, intensive diplomacy going on behind the scenes. Biden is not just in a different place than progressives like AOC who have been critical of his response. As Tommy mentioned, you get 28 Senate Democrats released a letter on Sunday night calling for an immediate ceasefire. The Biden administration publicly won't even go there. You know, we're recording this right before Biden speaks to Netanyahu and then said he he said he told reporters that he would have more to say after he has that discussion. Tommy, why do you think the Biden administration is taking this position? Like, do you think there are certain

political or national security dynamics shaping their response? What are they? I'm struggling to understand. I mean, look, I'm getting pretty frustrated with the Biden response. I know a lot of the people on his team who are working on this. I think they're good people. I think their hearts are in the right place. But I think the world is looking at this as a test of Joe Biden's commitment to human rights. And what it's bringing back for me is there was this mantra that I heard all the time from very smart policy people when I worked in the government that said, when it comes to Israel, there should be no public daylight between the US and Israel on disagreements. We shouldn't disagree publicly. And I just don't agree with that. I think the fact that Israel is our closest ally in the region means that we should be able to have principled

disagreements. And somebody over the weekend flagged a press briefing by Ari Fleischer, like one of the, not a good guy, Bush spokesman. This was from 2002. He was asked about one of the, not a good guy, Bush spokesman. This was from 2002. He was asked about Israel bombing Gaza in an incident that killed civilians. And Ari said that Bush viewed that bombing as a heavy-handed action that is not consistent with dedication to peace in the Middle East. We should be able, Biden should be able to say that too. Obama should have been able to say that, right? And again, this is not about criticizing Israel. This is about criticizing bad decisions made by Netanyahu. And so right now, the Biden team, they're sort of hinting that they're calling for a

ceasefire, but they're saying they're doing it quietly. And they also don't want to talk about whether they think the strikes are proportional or not, which that admittedly is a bigger deal because proportionality gets you to a question about whether something is a war crime. But the problem is Netanyahu is pointing to Biden's public statements about Israel's right to defend itself. And he is asserting that the US fully supports what he's doing. And on top of that, the US gives Israel $3.8 billion with a B per year in military financing. On top of that, the US funded the

Iron Dome missile defense system. On top of that, the U.S. funded the Iron Dome missile defense system. On top of that, the U.S. often blocks criticism of Israel at the U.N., including over the weekend where there was a U.N. statement condemning the Israeli military response and calling for a ceasefire. So the world thinks we are complicit, you know, and a lot of Muslims are going to see the images of Israeli police raiding the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the outrage by it. And I worry about all the security challenge that could come on top of all the moral ones we talked about. So I'm pretty worried here. I just can't understand the national security or geopolitical risks in publicly calling for a ceasefire. I don't understand.

But it's like one of those things where like there's so much, you know, and Rhodes talked about this on Positive the World last week about how sort of like the response is different this time, but the talking points haven't changed for a lot of like Democrats in power, or specifically in the Biden administration. And if you don't pay a lot of attention to foreign policy, there's like all this like sort of conventional language that doesn't really, it doesn't make a lot of sense to people outside government and so when the Biden administration sounds like they're

they're you know behind the scenes doing diplomacy where they're calling for a ceasefire but they won't call for a ceasefire publicly that makes no sense to anyone you know it's like it doesn't make sense to me and I pay somewhat attention to this imagine just like regular people like why the hell isn't Joe Biden want a ceasefire? Why isn't he calling on both sides to stop? There's people dying every day. Like, why wouldn't he do that? What's the problem? been true of Joe Biden as a candidate. It has been true in the early days of Joe Biden as president that there is a real reluctance to be pulled into news cycles that are not the news cycles they want, that this is not the topic they want to be talking about. And this is not the focus of their foreign policy, that they don't want to be mired in this. I'm not defending that morally. I'm talking about the politics of it. And so you can see in their rhetoric, this hope of trying to push for a ceasefire without changing the language that they're using to kind of bring

less attention to their place inside of this debate, that the role of the administration itself in the conflict. And it just seems like what we are seeing and what I think they will see and react to is that to the point that John just made, that the situation has changed, that the language has to change, and that that is not really tenable, that actually you do have to say more now, even if you're reluctant to, because you don't want to be central to the international debate about the conflict. Does that make sense? Yes. I think the policy framework has changed. I also, I don't have any evidence to prove this right now, but I think the political context has changed and that young people and progressives are looking at what's happening and they're thinking that is morally in very important meetings and they talk about, you know, soft versus hard power and all these big esoteric things. And when it comes time to

write the press guidance, the mantra is basically give them as little as possible, say as little as possible. Let's deal with this behind the scenes. And I just, that's not how the world works. The rubber meets the road. As you speechwriters know on policy, when you say something publicly, that's how the world is going to hear about Joe Biden's views on this issue and every other issue. So, you know, I think it's a real mistake not to give Jen Psaki or the State Department spokespeople or others who are speaking for Joe Biden on these issues the room to state the obvious, which is that we're incredibly worried about civilian casualties, that there should be a ceasefire, et cetera, et cetera. You mentioned how this is generational, too. I think

one of the generational aspects to this is people paying attention to this for the first time and just hearing, you know, your mantra from when you were in government about how, like, there should be no daylight between the United States and Israel. And like, why? Like, you know, even our best, right? Exactly. That's what I was going to say. Like all of our allies around the world, when our allies are acting like assholes, we should be able to tell them.

That's like what a good ally is, right? Like the idea that our alliances are beyond criticism when someone, a nation or government in a nation that we're allied with does something that we don't like, that we can't criticize that, is I think that strikes most people in this country as bizarre. But I will say it comes from a different time, a time in which the United States was really keeping Israel in existence by being its defender and being its stalwart. I'm not saying,

and not that what you're saying is wrong, it's that it just speaks to how much has shifted, how the power imbalances has changed, you know, that that there was a that like there's been more recognition from Israel's Arab neighbors of its right to exist that has not changed the fundamental fundamental dynamic inside of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But it does, I think, the reason that you can be more critical, and actually the reason even the Bush administration was more critical is because they saw it as a necessary way to build distance for their ability to be an interlocutor, for their ability to be a broker. Yeah. Look, also though, Bibi Netanyahu, he seems pretty cool with expressing his views on policy,

including when they disagree on areas like Iran. So I'm not sure why we should take a different tact. Also, I love it. You mentioned Trump and Jared Kushner's Abraham Accords, where basically the US gave tons of weapons, basically, to autocratic regimes that agreed to announce normalization treaties with Israel, even though a lot of the places we were talking about, like the UAE, basically had relations with Israel anyway. I believe that those Abraham Accords actually exacerbated the underlying tensions we saw in Sheikh Jarrah

because for a long time, the Palestinians felt like, well, our Arab neighbors had our back. And all of a sudden, these accords, which look, I agree. I want Israel to normalize relations with all its neighbors. I want there to be peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia, et cetera, et cetera. But I think it exacerbated the tensions with the underlying Palestinian issue because the Palestinians were like, well, we have nowhere to turn now. We're desperate, more desperate than before. Is there anything that the Biden administration could be doing or should be doing right now in addition to calling for a ceasefire, Tommy? Yeah, I mean, look, I think there's two distinct issues that are inextricably linked.

One is just stopping this immediate war, right? And the second is the longer term underlying problem. So I think they need to call for immediate ceasefire. They need to do so publicly. That is like the key right now. But long-term, like they have to try to find a way to get, like, I don't want Joe Biden to do what we did, which is have a gigantic summit at the White House and bring in, you know, five leaders and host a bunch of negotiations. I don't know that that was a great use of time. But I do think they need to get the two parties back into some sort of negotiation or peace process where there's at least conversations happening about these underlying issues, where

they're trying to empower the Palestinian Authority so people aren't turning to Hamas. That approach and that process should include offering incentives for doing the right thing, but also a pressure campaign that says, you know, the U.S., we will condition or cut off military aid if it's used to annex the West Bank or if we continue to have human rights concerns about the targeting of civilians. We cannot have this approach where Netanyahu is perceived to have a blank check. And also just for people, we constantly hear from people, from listeners to this show who say, look, I live in a blue state. I'm frustrated. I feel like I have no power or agency in Washington. Now is your time. Call your representative,

call Democrats who represent you. Ask them to make a public statement calling for a ceasefire. Ask them to pressure President Biden to do so. It will really matter if reps hear about this stuff on the phones. Yeah, very much agree. It's a good thing for everyone to do. All right. When we come back, Dr. Anthony Fauci talks to Lovett about the CDC's new mask guidelines. Last week, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky announced that fully vaccinated people can safely return to activities indoors or outdoors without masks or distancing. President Biden said the announcement of the news marked a great day, but many have questions about this change, what led to it, what it means for returning to normal life. Here to help is chief medical advisor to President Biden and friend of the pod,

Dr. Anthony Fauci. Dr. Fauci, welcome back. Thank you. Good to be with you again. So first of all, can you explain what we've learned about the vaccines that led to this decision? Yeah, there was an accumulation of data, scientific evidence that was really accruing over the previous few weeks that led to the decision on the part of the CDC to make this recommendation. First of all, the real world effectiveness of the vaccines became readily apparent as more and more publications came in showing that the effectiveness of the vaccine was actually even better than was shown in the clinical trials, namely the trials that led to the emergency use authorization. Highly effective, number one. Number two,

it worked quite well against variants. And remember, one of the reasons why we told people who are vaccinated that they should wear masks and or was the possibility that a variant might infect them. They may then pass it on to someone else. That's the second reason. The third reason is that studies are now coming in to show that not only does the vaccine protect against symptomatic infection, it is highly protective against asymptomatic infection, which means if you get infected, it's very unlikely, number one. that you'll pass it on to someone else. Because the level of virus in your nasal pharynx, if you have a breakthrough infection, despite vaccination, that the virus will be at a very low level.

So highly effective, good against the variants, and you don't transmit it when you do get infected. Those three things together prompted the CDC to make that announcement. Have you seen any bad breakthrough cases? Like how common is that? Like it seems like breakthrough cases in some case, like with the Yankees,

means a small amount of virus, probably not transmissible. It's why you're changing the guidance around even testing people who have been vaccinated. But are you seeing any serious cases of people who have been vaccinated? You know, to my knowledge, no, but you have to be careful because when you have millions and millions and millions of people

vaccinated, you're always going to get exceptions. But if you look at the overwhelming trend and majority is that when there are breakthrough infections, they generally are either without symptoms or with minimal symptoms. And the more we learn, you're going to find for absolutely certain, John, you're going to find that sooner or later, somebody is going to get a breakthrough infection, get seriously ill and probably die. And that probably has already happened. But remember, when the denominator is tens of millions of people, you're going to see virtually one or more of anything. So there was a sign on just this morning on the coffee shop by my house that said,

everyone needs a mask, even if you're vaccinated. And then I see some pundits saying things basically like, if you don't take off your mask right now and you're vaccinated, you're as bad as an anti-vaxxer. You might as well be Marjorie Taylor Greene. How do you? So, so heaven forbid, you have been at this place where politics meets science, where rigorous study meets like human messy behavior. How do you think about that? How do you think about translating what we've learned and updated in real time to information people can actually use in their daily lives as we return to normal? Well, what you have to do is you always have to make sure that the science, the evidence, and the data guide whatever you do. But you also got to be very careful with the messaging. You've got to be crystal clear in your messaging.

You've got to know what your audience is and what your message is. And when you put those two things together, you can avoid confusion. Like getting the point that you mentioned, the very fact that the CDC says that we want people who are vaccinated to know that they are really safe, even when they go indoors without a mask. That does not mean that people who feel they want to continue to wear a mask should not wear a mask. There's not a mandate to take your mask off. I think that's what people are misinterpreting. It's essentially a scientific statement saying that if you are fully vaccinated, your risk is really very low, not only outdoors, but also indoors.

It's saying no more than that. For the people who are not vaccinated, all the recommendations remain the same. So that's the thing that I think get conflated and people get confused that now this is a mandate, take your mask off. No. And in fact, there may be some organizations or stores or businesses that say, you know, I get it that people who are vaccinated are protected both outdoors and indoors. But coming into my shop or coming into my establishment, that they're going to be people who are not vaccinated and some people that are infected. So as far as I'm concerned, if you want to come into my shop or my establishment, you have to wear a mask. That's perfectly fine. And I believe that people who are vaccinated should respect those mandates of independent organizations who feel, I'm glad you're vaccinated. Thank you very

much. But if you want to come into my place, you got to wear a mask. You know why? Because I can verify that you're vaccinated. I don't know. We don't have a vaccine passport. That's the important thing. Do you worry at all, though, that the new guidance kind of leaves people to have to make that kind of choice, basically saying, look, I trust the science, but I don't trust people. I don't trust people to trust the science. And now I'm on my own as a store owner to protect my my staff or I'm a I'm a person who works at this place and I'm going to keep my mask on because I just don't trust the people coming in and out of my store. Well, that's fine. I actually have a great deal of empathy and sympathy for those people. And I would favor them being able to make their own choice depending upon how they feel about things. So if a shop owner or an establishment owner feels that they want to be doubly sure that they're not having people coming into their shop infected and infecting other people, that they say, fine, anywhere else you want to go, you can walk in without a mask.

But if you come into my place, you have to wear a mask. Remember, the recommendations were made to assure people who are vaccinated that they are really safe now because the vaccines are highly, highly protective. So now if you feel comfortable in taking a mask off when you're indoors, that's fine. You should feel confident that you're going to be OK. That's all those recommendations are saying. You know, part of the reason there was this reaction to this news around maybe unvaccinated people not wearing masks is it's similar to some of the it's it's fear around misinformation, to fear about people not following the science. You've come face to face of the, it's fear around misinformation, it's a fear about people not

following the science. You've come face to face with it, even in Senate hearings. You've had these heated exchanges with people like Dr. Rand Paul, in which you've kind of been confronted with distortions, confronted with misinformation. You had this look on your face the last time you went up against him. You look like his neighbor during the leaf dispute right before it turned pretty ugly. Are you surprised that even we're not talking about Facebook memes talking about United States senators spreading misinformation? Is that has that surprised you over the last 14 months? It has. It's unfortunate. It has surprised me. I wish that that were not the case. But, you know, that's the world we're living in. You have to accept it and be able to adapt to it.

But that is the world we're living in, unfortunately. What have you learned as a communicator, as one of the most prominent scientists, doctors in the public mind about how to combat right wing information, how to how to face it when it's led to, you know, reluctance that may impact our ability to get the country vaccinated. Yeah. You know, it is not an easy thing to do, but you've got to, you know, very, very carefully and assiduously stick with the facts, stick with the data. Don't be confrontational. I mean, don't just get kicked around by anybody for sure, but don't look for a fight. I mean, that's the point. You don't want to do that. You want to just stick with the science. If somebody says something that's incorrect, just respectfully, the way I try to do, point out to them that that's incorrect

information. How has your use of the mask changed over the last even week? Has your behavior changed? Have you followed the guidance in new ways? Yes, I mean, I have. I've always felt comfortable. But I think symbolically now when I'm indoors, I don't always have my mask on because I'm in a situation like now I'm around vaccinated people and I'm in my establishment. So I don't walk around with the mask on all the time. But when I'm in a situation where people would be uncomfortable with people without masks, I wear a mask. I wear a mask. And did you hurt your arm when you voted for Joe Biden? Because you voted so hard for him that you may have like punched through the table.

You don't have to. I'm not going to respond to that for sure. But your arm's OK. Yeah, my arm's fine. Dr. Anthony Fauci, thank you so much for your time. My pleasure. Good to be with you, John. Take care. All time. My pleasure. Good to be with you, John. Take care.

All right. Love it. Well, I'll take that as a yes on voting for Joe Biden. What about you? I don't think it was. I think he you were you've been dying to ask that question forever. At least his arm's OK. At least his arm's okay. And I'm going to start a podcast where I just say things at Anthony Fauci, and he laughs and doesn't respond because to respond would be a political nightmare. Love it. I haven't heard it yet, but do you think that you guys are going to be best friends now? You know, I think he would. I think like a lot of really serious professional people, they really would best to keep me in small doses. I don't think but no, it was good to talk to him. And I think I still feel as though like, he's basically saying that he understands why, you know, a restaurant or a store might say, let's keep the mask on because we don't know who's vaccinated and who's not. But it does still speak to the kind of challenge of like telling people the truth about the science when that meets like messy human behavior, because that does mean

like, you know, Dr. Fauci understands, we all understand that'll be people who are unvaccinated, who will pretend that they are simply not address it and just stop wearing their masks. I think the good thing is what he's basically saying is if you are vaccinated, you don't need to worry about that. I thought it was really helpful when he said, you know, this is not a mandate to take your mask off. And I've also been thinking about this since the since the guidance. Like this. A lot of this has to do with the specific mission of the CDC and what the CDC's role is. Right. The CDC's role is not to issue edicts about how to behave. They're called guidelines for a reason

and guidance for a reason. The CDC is trying to base its guidance off the best science. And what they're saying, what Fauci was just saying is, if you are vaccinated, you are protected. You are protected against the variants. You're protected from getting sick and you're not going to transmit the virus to other people. So it's basically a scientific opinion

that if you are vaccinated, you're good. You can do whatever. Now, like if you are unvaccinated or you haven't been vaccinated yet or you're immunocompromised or you're a child under 12, right? Who isn't getting vaccinated, then yeah, you not only still need to wear masks, but you need to be cautious of sort of crowded areas and going in

without a mask and all that remains. But if you're vaccinated, the science says you're good and your chance of getting sick and hospitalized is incredibly low. That's all people need to know. And then they can make their own decisions. Yeah. Yeah. I do think, though, it's like one of the lessons I think we will be learning as we look back on this period is like what happens when scientific based guidance meets human behavior. Um, and like, I think all of that can be true while it still puts local officials, business owners, it puts ordinary people at times in a difficult situation because it's like, well, I trust Dr. Fauci, but I don't know that I trust my these strangers and I don't know that I trust

other people to follow the guidance. And I feel like and so I don't have a good there's no good answer to it, but it's a it's a problem now. But I think I think the answer is if you're vaccinated, you don't have to worry about trusting all those other people. Now, if you have other if you're one of those groups of people I talked about, you know, my mother, of course, like her first call was like, well, you know, you if you take Charlie into a grocery store now and everyone's masked, that's one thing. What if you take him into a grocery store and now no one's masked? Like that's something you have to worry about until there's vaccines for kids. It's like, no, I get that. Now, the chances of a child his age getting COVID is incredibly low also, but that is something you have to be concerned about.

But if I'm vaccinated, you don't have to worry about that. I guess my takeaway from all of this is just frustration at how little grace and empathy we give anyone involved in these issues. Like, my mom is older, right? My mom's older. She is in more of a risk profile, so she's going to keep wearing her mask fine right like also if you read the newspaper this weekend you might have learned that some of the new york yankees caught covid after yeah i love what i was talking about that right like if you get into the details why like it's actually okay right they're asymptomatic because the yankees suck the yankee yes love it yes there you go there you go thank you but like. You're such a Boston bro now that you've been doing this.

I'm a Mets. Excuse me. Well, like I get why people might be scared, right? But we also give public health officials no space to be wrong or to evolve. Like it was a new coronavirus. Of course, guidelines are going to change over time. Like I experienced this in a microcosm with Benghhazi right like the intelligence picture changed over time and when we try to update it you're accused of lying or hiding the truth or some nefarious reasons it's like actually

sometimes you're doing the best you can with the information you have available to you at that moment and it turns out to be wrong and it changes a lot changes like day by day and there's a giant apparatus well funded with like a big megaphone telling everyone that you're lying and full of shit i mean six months ago the president was injecting bleach yes you know like this has been one of the great like every of course there should be grace like there's a once in a century pandemic. The first time doctors and experts have had to communicate with the American people through not just television, not just radio, but social media.

And it has, you know, of course there will be lessons and of course it's hard. Yeah, just don't judge people who are still wearing masks. Don't judge people who aren't. All right, before we go, we just want to run through a few big stories to keep an eye on this week. I'll start. Big news from the Supreme Court this morning. They've agreed to take up a case that involves the constitutionality of Mississippi's ban on most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy,

which could give the 6-3 conservative court a chance to reconsider Roe v. Wade. three conservative court a chance to reconsider Roe v. Wade. This is especially alarming because you're starting to see these bans that Mississippi passed with more frequency. Texas just banned abortions after only six weeks. Voters in Lubbock, Texas recently passed an ordinance making it the largest city to ban nearly all abortions. And in just the last three days of April, three days in April, 28 restrictions on abortion were signed into law across seven states. So there's not a lot we can do about the Supreme Court except wait for a decision. But, you know, advocates are pressing the Biden administration to do more to protect abortion access, including ending the ban on abortion coverage for Medicaid recipients,

which is known as the Hyde Amendment. And the Biden administration has already undid some Trump error restrictions. And the FDA recently allowed access to prescription abortion medication through the mail. So that was progress. You know, one thing that about all this, Elise Hogue, who's the president of NARAL, you know, she was tweeting this morning. Here's a reminder, as we think about upcoming elections, the GOP position is to ban abortion entirely, no exceptions. It's in their platform. Ask every single candidate who wants your vote how they'll expand abortion accidents local state federal everyone has a role so we should not all sit around feeling helpless just waiting for the supreme court

it's good advice also also say um uh just uh you know stephen breyer retire bitch and also uh one just one it is it is going to persuade him i know it honestly it's the best argument i have i don't know how to make it more sophisticated uh one other one other piece of this too is uh despite briar's uh protestations that the court is not a political body it of course is and i've, you know, court watchers and others make this point, but it's also worth keeping in mind that, you know, this will inevitably become a debate over whether or not the court will overturn Roe,

but the court will see that. And we should just be aware that it is also pernicious for them to uphold Roe in some ostensible way while gutting women, while gutting access to health care for women. And we should just be aware that like, don't let that messaging or that frame take hold, because there's a number of ways that they can restrict access to health care without overturning Roe.

Yeah, they're constantly trying to chip away. Yeah. Tommy, what story are you keeping an eye on? Yes. So on Tuesday of this week, so May 18th, Pennsylvania is going to hold a primary election. So they're going to vote on a bunch of important stuff. But the thing I want to focus on for today is the primary challenge to Larry Krasner, who's Philadelphia's district attorney. Krasner is part of a, not big enough yet, but a wave of progressive prosecutors

who have been elected recently and who are trying to do radical things like hold the police accountable for misconduct. It shouldn't be radical. They're trying to generally reduce mass incarceration. And Krasner is running against a guy he actually fired. And this person is taking more of a law and order approach, accusing Krasner of being soft on crime, all the usual tropes. So we're watching this race really closely because district attorneys are incredibly powerful. We don't pay enough attention to their elections. And traditionally, DAs have won by pledging to be tougher on crime, promising to lock people up. Krasner took a totally different approach. And this race will

go a long ways towards showing whether or not that's politically viable or not. So if you live in Philly, vote for Larry Krasner. Everyone should be figuring out who their own DA is, because this is absolutely critical if you want to reduce mass incarceration, if you want a more accountable police force in your neighborhood. So an important race to watch on Tuesday. I will just say too, I was reading about this election and one of Krasner's supporters, who's a legislator in Pennsylvania, they're worried about low turnout because a lot of people are paying attention in this race. And he said, you're always concerned about maintaining interest in non-sexy races. It was sexy four years ago because it was a new thing. Now he's our guy.

It's not as sexy. four years ago because it was a new thing. Now he's our guy. It's not as sexy. And like that's going to be a problem up and down the ballot in the midterms in 2022. Again, like and this this is the danger for progressives and Democrats and saying, OK, we all worked really hard in 2020. We elected some progressives. We elected some Democrats. Joe Biden's in the White House. We can all sort of like chill out now. You can't. You can't chill out because every time that every time there is an election of a progressive or Democrat, there is a backlash. And so the forces on the other side, they're going to be excited. They're going to turn out. And if we don't match their turnout, we're going to lose. And I think that's, you know, we'll see what happens on Tuesday. But that's something for everyone to watch out for.

This is the this is the problem with with cancel culture. You know, Larry Kresner isn't sexy with his pants on, can take his pants off you know i guess you could take them off i'm not not not not with twitter depends on the context okay barry weiss here is the third uh the third host today oh no it got in there love it what's your uh what are these sub stacks i'm reading love it what are you keeping an eye on you got to watch your kids and the sub stacks all right keep an eye on those sub stacks your kids are reading all right you never know what they're going to creep into stick with the message box don't go anywhere else yeah don't click out of the matches box we got only the one sub. There are a lot of great sub stacks.

Don't come at me. The Senate Rules Committee held a hearing and vote for the For the People Act, passing it out of committee in a party-line vote 9-9. The bill's path to becoming law was always tricky because it would require changing the filibuster and unanimity among all 50 Senate Dems. But this week, Senator Joe Manchin

said he's opposed to the For the People Act and in favor of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which is more targeted and looks at addressing the consequences of a very bad ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts gutting the Voting Rights Act. Senate Democrats met for the first time to make a game plan around the bills and protecting democracy, where Senator Kyrsten Sinema asked Chuck Schumer, what's the plan to pass this? Which is a bit like a beaver putting like the finishing touches on a dam and then turning to the fish and being like, how do you plan to get down river? So I don't know.

Like, I imagine. That was wild. I imagine like Brian Schatz's eyes rolled so hard in his head that it like made a noise. Yes. Yeah. You have to change the filibuster that you support. You're the you're the reason you're the reason. So that's, you know, something to watch.

If you if you care about voting rights, it's not looking good right now. So everyone needs to sort of redouble their efforts to call their Democratic senators specifically if yours is Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema. But I mean, look, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act is incredibly important. And if they could pass that, that would be enormous progress. It basically reinstates the preclearance that John Roberts and his court sort of gutted back in 2013. And so states would not be able to just change their voting laws without preclearance from the federal government. So it's an it's an important law. But again, even Joe Manchin being for that, I'm like, OK, well, are you willing to get rid of the filibuster to pass that law? Because so far, the only Republican we know who supports it is Lisa

Murkowski had co-sponsored it a while back. So that's one. You'd still need nine more. So what's your plan? Kirsten Sinema should ask Joe Manson. What's your plan to pass that? You should ask in the mirror. Also ask in the mirror. What's your plan? What's your plan?

Anyway. All of us, all these people worshiping at the altar of fake bipartisanship in lieu of doing stuff. It's bad. It's bad. It's bad. Well, keep up those calls. Keep up the pressure. All right. Thank you, Anthony Fauci, for joining us today.

Twice on the pod for Fauci now. He's a friend of the pod status. He loves coming here. Next time we'll get him to admit, he'll vote for Biden. He voted for Biden, yeah. Yeah. Well, you pin him down on that the third time. So I have to do a quick clarification, uh, an apology to my mother. Last week, I told a story

about the time when our cat died. Uh, Oh, did that not go over well? No, the cat in question, uh, her name was Snooper. She had a heart attack midair, uh, and, uh, died while trying to jump onto the kitchen table to get to her food. I think I was about 10 years old at the time. Um, I made it sound like my mother's reaction was callous, perhaps. In fact, we all were very sad. We loved the cat, even though the cat was incredibly mean and used to slash my face over and over and over again. Of course, we love the cats. We love all our animals. We have lots of animals. But my mom just wanted me to point out that the reason the cat was left in the basement for days for my

father to deal with was because it was the middle of winter and the cat was left in the basement for days for my father to deal with was because it was the middle of winter and the ground was frozen and you can't bury a dead cat in your backyard if you can't get the shovel on the ground so oh that's where that saying comes from yes so that's the latest on snooper the heart louise and i didn't take it that way by the way i didn't see it as callous when you told it the first time i didn't take it that way nothing that's the latest on Snooper. The heart attack. Sorry, Luis. I didn't take it that way, by the way. I didn't see it as callous when you told it the first time. I didn't take it that way. That's because you know my mom. Nothing about her is callous.

She's the nicest human I've ever known. And look, what are you going to do? Now we're doing Tommy politics. Yeah, now we're doing my politics. The cat fucking died. Look, that's what the end of the podcast is for. It's for corrections, particularly corrections that our family demands. Yeah, and grudges.

Speaking of, still no apology from Larry David and the pod. Bye. Bye. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our senior producer is Flavia Casas. Our associate producers are Jazzy Marine and Olivia Martinez. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick.

Kyle Seglin is our sound engineer. Thanks to Tanya Sominator, Katie Long, Roman Papadimitriou, Caroline Rustin, and Justine Howe for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Narmal Konian, Yale Freed, and Milo Kim, who film and upload these episodes as videos every week.