Raging Moderates with Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov - Trump Triggers Economic Chaos as War Costs Skyrocket

Episode Date: March 20, 2026

Jessica Tarlov and Aaron Parnas dive into the U.S.’s deepening involvement in the Iran conflict — troop considerations, skyrocketing costs, and diverging U.S.-Israeli objectives.  Then, they break down the latest on Pam Bondi’s congressional subpoena over the Epstein files, the massive Nexstar-Tegna media merger, and why César Chávez is suddenly under fire. Follow Jessica Tarlov, @JessicaTarlov   Follow Prof G, @profgalloway Follow Raging Moderates, @RagingModeratesPod Subscribe to our YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@RagingModerates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In communities across Canada, hourly Amazon employees can grow their skills and their paycheck by enrolling in free skills training programs for in-demand fields. Learn more at aboutamazon.ca. Chances are your favorite websites used to depend on Google for traffic and money. But that's not really working anymore. Now publishers are scrambling for new lifelines. Neil Vogel, who runs People, Inc., says his company figured it out, a couple years ago.

You would think, given what everyone said about us, that we would be the guys that would be doing the worst now, we're kind of the guys doing the best now. I'm Peter Kafka, the host of channels, the show about tech and media and what happens when they collide. You can hear my conversation with Neil Vogel now, wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts. Everywhere you look right now,

someone is trying to get you to use an AI product. And yet every time they study people and survey people and figure out whether AI is actually working for anybody, The answer is largely that it's not. This week on the Vergecast, we're digging into why there is such a disconnect between the people who want to sell you AI and the people who don't really want to use it. All that on the Vergecast, wherever you get podcasts. Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Jessica Tarlov.

And I'm Aaron Parnas. And in today's episode, we're going to be talking about how the U.S. is extending the war with Iran, despite promises, many, many years of promises. To avoid a long conflict, Pam Bondi's congressional subpoena over the Epstein files and what the tech. next to our merger means for the future of media. If you aren't already, please make sure to subscribe to our YouTube page to get up-to-date coverage on everything that's happening. We're releasing episodes every day. I've said this before. I'm a little tired.

It's exhausting. Having a five-day-a-week job, but I'm loving it. So please subscribe. And let's get into it. The U.S. is getting pulled deeper into this war with Iran. The Pentagon is considering sending thousands more troops to the region. Projected costs for spending a billion dollars a day at least, and it looks like they're going to be asking. for an additional $200 billion.

And now you've got senior officials like Tulsi Gabbard, openly suggesting the U.S. and Israel might not even agree on what, quote, unquote, winning looks like here. Aaron, I'm not sure how you felt during this week, but something was different from the first few weeks of this war. A lot more conflicting signals going and just a general feeling of, like, everybody turning against this except for Pete HEC-Seth, basically. what were your thoughts? Yeah, I mean, I think this week was very different because I think now those around the administration and especially those online and within MAGA world,

they're kind of seeing deja vu of Iraq, of Afghanistan, of what the United States went through in the early 2000s and the war that Bush brought us into. It's actually this week is a 23rd anniversary of Bush announcing the war in Iraq. And so I think what we're seeing now is at the beginning, Trump promised a quick war. Then every day he would say something like,

oh, I could finish this in a few days if I wanted to. Or it's going to be a couple weeks. We're now entering the first month, week four, of this war. We're spending billions of dollars. I don't know any Republican who supported Doge, who also now wants to give another $200 billion to the Pentagon of money that we don't necessarily have. There are reports that the United States and Israel, like you were saying,

are not on the same page in terms of what the end goal is. Israel obviously wants regime change here. Trump keeps saying that's maybe not what they want. We haven't actually officially defined this as a war in Congress yet, I mean, on top of it all. And then the Joe Kent resignation, whatever you may think of him, I mean, he has some very bad skeletons in his closet. That to me was kind of a bit of a breaking point because Kent resigns on the eve of Gavard's testimony in the Senate. And then I don't know about you, but when I watched the House testimony, it was a little different. Like the Senate one was more of like, let me defend what Trump is doing in a way.

And then the House one was, it's not my. personal opinion. It's not like, I'm kind of going to stay away from whatever the administration is doing. This is just what the I see the intelligence community is saying. So yes, I do think the tide is turning here. And I wonder if Trump is looking for an off-ramp, but then you see Marines being deployed to the Middle East. So I don't know. Yeah, I think the problem is he could be looking for an off-ramp, but there just isn't one in sight when you're this into something. And the fact that Israel and the U.S. don't seem to be on the same page, a la blowing up the Qatari oil fields. Now, Trump is lying when he says, I didn't know that this was going to happen.

There is... Trump lying? Trump lying on social media and to our faces. Breaking news. Get that Fox News alert up there. I'll be doing it later today on the five. Like, we had no idea this was coming. But that is a pretty big fissure.

And I think that you're right about Tulsi. And I noticed that John Rackcliffe was talking a lot more on day two. than he was on day one. He was basically silent for the first bit of this. And I feel like, you know, she's thinking, could you just send me to Fulton County? Like maybe this would be an easier life for me if I had to chase a conspiracy theory about election fraud.

But the supplemental funding, I think, is going to be the easiest way for people who are maybe on the fence about this to latch on to something, to be able to say, absolutely not. Like, you actually have to have clearer defined goals if you want this kind of money. And also we've already given $1.1 trillion to the Pentagon. How is it possible that this isn't enough when it's only been a few weeks, right? Like, you're not talking about you've been in here for three, four years like the Ukrainians.

I have a clip of some folks reacting in Maga World to the supplemental funding. So let's look at that. I haven't seen the details. I would not vote for a war supplemental. I am so tired of spending money elsewhere. I think the original wording was around $100 billion. So we need to look at. Let's wait and see what the request amounts to. Whatever it costs to finish this is worth it. Lindsay Graham, we can always defend on you for whatever it costs to finish the job. I'm realistically understanding that this isn't the kind of thing that can just be canceled overnight, right? There are 50,000 troops in the region already.

Thousands more are on their way. It's going to take some sort of ground forest to secure the Iranian coastline. If we're ever going to open up the Strait of Hormuz, we don't even know how many of these mines. they've got in the water already, either like at the top or heading down. So what does a fight over funding actually mean for the course of the war? I mean, I think it could be the catalyst that breaks the war in a way. So I think what we're seeing right now, and I've listened to a lot of national security experts about what's happening overseas in Iran, Iran has really dug in.

They don't want a ceasefire. They don't want an off-ramp because they see what's happening inside the United States. government right now in terms of kind of the divisions and the fissures. Remember, Iran is not a democracy. They don't, it's not like, let's vote on whether or not we're going to stop this war. And that's not what's happening over there. There's a lot of religion infused in it. They're, they're ready to fight until the end. And so it's going to be up to the United States to say, okay, we're willing to take an off ramp, but then that's a loss for Trump. And the last thing Trump wants is to look like he just went into war just for funsies, because that's what's

happening right now. The regime is pretty much intact. You bombed a bunch of of people, I mean, that's it. And you cause black and toxic oil rain to fall on Iran. You didn't really get much progress out of it. So the supplemental funding issue is going to be one that I think should unite Democrats. I mean, I think you should see every Democrat but Fetterman come out and vote against it. It should also unite truly the America First Wing of the Republican Party. You can't run on Doge. You can't run on cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, and then give $200 billion to Pentagon that, mind you, has failed an audit repeatedly every single year for many years. Bernie Sanders has called it out. The Republicans have called it out. The Pentagon itself is the

definition of waste, fraud, and abuse. We are spending billions of dollars on projects that you'll never actually see deployed in the battlefield. And so I would hope that this is the crack that breaks the camels back. And I just draw that breaks the camel's back. And Trump kind of says, you know, we don't need a $200 billion in supplemental funding. Let's figure out an off ramp here. But I will say, and I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, I think if they passed $200 billion in supplemental funding, you're going to see a blue wave of like epic proportion in November. I mean, I would like that. I was a bit swept up in the fun in Texas last weekend, being with James Talleyico. And when I saw the betting odds switched, right, that Democrats were favored to take the Senate. I was really high on all that.

Now that I'm back in New York, I'm like, okay, this is a really steep climb. I also want to pay more attention to Iowa and Alaska than we have been. I think Mary Potola is very exciting. But yes, I think that if we are on war footing, and we are certainly going to be on economic footing linked to a war when we go into this election. This morning, Maria Bartoromo had Chris Wright, the Energy Secretary on, and she said the Saudis are saying 180 a barrel. The Qataris have said it could get up to $200 a barrel, but we're talking about by the end of April. We're not even talking about this is going to take a few months to get there. And the American people, it just can't be sustained.

It's not even, I mean, this goes beyond elections. Like, no one has had their wages go up. The job market is completely stalled. It's at zero. I'm sure you were listening to Jerome Powell talking, where he was like, between tariffs and no job creation, we're at a completely. economic standstill. Yeah. And I'm not sure what a working person is supposed to do.

And your premium just went up, you know, two to 400 percent. Well, I think, and I've said this a long time, is that Trump administration hasn't prosecuted this war adequately, right? The difference between today and 2003, when Bush brought us into Iraq, was that when Bush brought us into Iraq, support for the war in Iraq was over 80 percent, over 90 percent in some polls. And then he went in the Oval Office. He went during a state of the Union address, and he repeatedly prosecuted.

based on false information, why we needed to go into Iraq. Trump today is just saying, screw you, I know better than you, I don't have to explain to you why we're doing this or what the outcome's going to be. Just trust me, bro. Trust me, bro, only gets you so far with so many people, and that's why the approval rating for the war when it first was launched was already underwater under 50%.

And I guarantee you if you pulled the American people today, the approval for the war will somewhere be in the low 40s, high 30s. That's not a winning coalition in any way. anyway. Yeah, it's the lowest polling war, certainly in recent history, but maybe in all of American history, because I'm thinking like, oh, go back to World War II. People were pretty psyched about that, actually, because they understood what the cause was. I think you're right. I'm interested to see what the polling that comes out on Sunday looks like because support for going in was ticking up. It was hitting 50 percent in some polls, like in the Fox News poll.

but what is consistently underwater with Republicans, independence, and Democrats is boots on the ground. Yeah. And now it seems like there is no possibility that that isn't going to be the case. And we're not talking about like a couple people here and there. We've, you know, lost, what is it, seven or eight service members at this point. But, you know, when you're sending thousands of more troops in and you already have 50,000 in the region, some boots are going to be hitting the ground.

And again, Bibi Netanyahu is saying the quiet part out loud. he said, yeah, there are going to be boots on the ground. Yeah, I mean, it's coming. I don't think. And when people say boots on the ground, do I think we're going to have military troops in Tehran? No, I mean, I say that now, no, but in three months from now, we may very well have that. What boots on the ground looks like is they're going to try to secure a cargo island where the oil facilities are. And then, like you said at the beginning, the shores of the Strait of Ormuz.

But that is terrifying for a lot of military families. I mean, you can't claim Iran as devastating. and Iran is done, Iran just struck an F-35 yesterday, right? Like, Iran still has capabilities. Iran struck the Haifa oil refinery in Israel yesterday successfully. Iranian drones have successfully struck over 10 American satellite facilities in the region. This is not a regime that's just over and done with. They still have more firepower.

And that also doesn't include, like, the lone wolf, like, potential for a suicide bomber by American forces on the ground in Iran. I mean, there's just so many issues with this. Yeah. You know, what's interesting is the question of whether there needs to be a peacekeeping force because, so let's say there is some off-ram. And Trump basically, you know, he says they were firing 900 missiles a day. Now they're firing eight to 12. This is obviously a win.

The Ayatollah is dead. Never mind about Ayatollah Jr. or any of that. And says, we got to get out of there. just like after Operation Midnight Hammer, if you don't destroy the infrastructure in an enduring way, they're just going to keep building it up. And Marco Rubio has acknowledged as much that, you know, you can stop the drone and missile capacity for a sad amount of time, but they're going to rebuild. And then is this something that we do, you know, every five years, it's like a tradition, right, that we have to go back in and try to wipe it out? I mean, Israel won't settle for that. I mean, they're, you know, they're in a totally different position than we are from a national security standpoint.

There are more rockets getting through the Iron Dome than we've seen in a very long time. Yeah, and it's killing Israelis, too. And I mean, I don't know that, I think at the beginning of the war, even a lot of Israelis were very excited for it because they were like, finally down with the Ayatollah, down with this regime, this murderous regime. But now, even I think if you hold Israeli citizens, I don't know that they would be fully supportive of this. because I still don't get what regime change is here. And I don't think anyone has adequately explained that. Netanyahu hasn't explained it. Trump hasn't explained it.

Okay, you now have a new Ayatollah. Kill him next. Okay, you're going to have a new cleric that comes up. That's even more hardline. You're creating a vacuum where you have more hardliners come in, more people who are willing to restrict the rights of Iranian citizens, and you're not actually doing anything to change it. And if you did put boots on the ground

and did conduct a bloody war that will cost a lot of American lines, and actually remove the regime in full. You can remove the regime, but you can't remove an ideology. You have millions of Iranians who still support the Ayatollah in this regime. What are you going to do? Kill them to? Displace them? You can't do that.

It makes no sense. Jared Kushner would probably say you can move them like we could move the Palestinians. Crazy. Totally crazy. Before we take a break, I wanted to ask you about the Democratic response. what grade would you give the party on how they're talking about affordability in the midst of this and how they're prosecuting the case for why this is a war that we have no business being involved in? I don't, I can't really grade Democratic response because I don't really feel like they've had a response in a lot of ways.

Like, I think they just put out a lot of, like, strong statements, and they've been, like, asking the right questions and these briefings. But to me, that actually, in it of itself, gets an A grade because it's not like they're hurting the Democratic Party by doing it, right? Like, they're just kind of coasting. So that's our standard now, the do no harm principle? It's better than before. But I will say if you have Democrats break on this supplemental and you have like Senator Slotkin vote with Federman, that's going to be a big problem. So what about the DHS funding? Because airports are a disaster.

Like, I actually, I flew last weekend and it was okay, but just before we got on, I was looking at, you know, the LaGuardia looks insane. Yeah, it's bad. It's really bad. And I saw that Slokin was potentially open to like TSA funding within, you know, so not FEMA and Sessa, but maybe TSA. You know, everyone doesn't want to give ICE funding, which I totally understand. And I wouldn't want to either, but they are funded through 2029. so I'm not, I'm not sure how that argument holds up as we kind of descend into this further. Well, I think we're at the point, and this is a very cynical way of looking at it from my perspective.

Democrats care about people. Republicans don't, right? Republicans are willing to drag this out for as long as they can. And I honestly think Democrats should grow a similar backbone in this respect. Like, Democrats are putting forth TSA funding stand-the-lones, FEMA funding stand-the-lones. Republicans are voting against it every single time. So I'm not sure what else Democrats can do. If Democrats go and cave on the ice stuff on CBP and just allow this funding bill to go through, Republicans are going to know,

just like the first shutdown, just wait 50 days, wait 60 days, and then they'll cave every single time. So it's a very, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. I feel for those flying, I feel more for the TSA agents who are right now working without pay. To me, I would rather collectively come together

and do a massive donation drive for TSA agents right now, right? Like, that's what I would rather do for my position rather than just try to put pressure on the Democrats to reopen DHS, because I get why they've shut it down. But I also think this is, again, a funding battle that should have never happened when it did. The fact that they allow the two-week extension, they lost a lot of leverage back in January.

They should have forced a shutdown of DHS and every other agency, force a bigger government shutdown, have more leverage here. They didn't do that. So I don't know. Well, I don't think, you know, the White House has offered compromises on things like body cams.

They're not moving. It seems like on judicial warrants, though, Mark Wayne Mulling intimated that that is a possibility that we could talk about it. Yeah. Do you think that that is the sticking point that if we get the judicial warrants

versus the administrative warrants for ICE and CBP, that then that's a good. Yeah, I think if they commit to that, but also like the White House's letter, I don't know if you saw, it was like, we're not going to deport U.S. citizens. And I'm like, okay, well, you can't already deport U.S. citizens. Like, why are we talking about things that it's already codified into law? So, yeah, I do think the judicial warrant issue, if they cave on it, I think you'll get a funding deal pass. All right. Let's take a quick break. Stay with us. Welcome back. Epstein, back in the first. the news a little bit, not as much as I thought that it would have been, but Attorney General Pam Bondi faced a congressional subpoena over the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein

files. Lawmakers from both parties and survivors raised concerns about the heavy redactions, missing details about potential accomplices, and whether key information is being kept from the public. Did you see Todd Blanche on Stephen Miller's wife's podcast on Katie Miller's podcast? I did. How crazy. crazy. I was she just snapped on him where he was like, oh, we've been totally transparent and she's like, there are three million files

that you're not releasing. It really surprised me. But isn't there photos of her with victims and Jeffrey Epstein? Yes. And so wouldn't it be prudent to figure out which of those other perpetrators could be prosecuted still? I don't think the American people are wrong

to want to see people go to jail beyond just Jeffrey Epstein and her. Oh, I agree. I don't think American people are wrong. We will always investigate anybody for child sex crimes any day of the week. There are other victims who have come forward, though, in the SDNY case, and in other cases, why are we not taking them more seriously and prosecuting the people whom they cite?

Well, we did the... Yeah, I mean, I think she's... I wonder if Stephen Miller kind of was like asking this question. Yeah, yeah, I wonder. Well, he's probably just mad since he's been put in the corner, right? Like now... Oh, yeah. I think Todd Blanche has been sidelined, by the way.

Or not sideline, but more of just like scapegoated in this whole Epstein thing. I think they've just thrown him to the wolves. Because they like Bondi so much that they're like, we could pin it on you. And I don't know how much Bondi likes Blanche. I think that was like a forced marriage onto her. So... Well, what did we learn this week about, I guess, the future of the Epstein vile releases or where this story is.

So we learned a lot, actually, that unfortunately, media really isn't talking about. See, this is a different kind of week. I feel like last week, you know, it's like war. I don't really know. Epstein, I don't really know.

And it was a quiet but action-packed week somehow. Yeah, there are like four big Epstein news stories that came out this week. First, you have the oversight subpoena that was officially issued to Pam Bondi. Five Republicans joined all Democrats in voting to subpoena Bondi. She then, hours after the subpoena was issued, went on Capitol Hill with Blanche and privately briefed members of Congress.

It was like off the record, not under oath, deposition-style briefing that didn't really materialize Democrats walked out halfway through because she had no impetus to tell the truth and she was filibustering inside there. So that was number one. Number two, you still have the subpoena issued for April 14th. You have some Republicans now apparently wavering on whether to enforce that subpoena that some of the Republicans who voted for. So we'll see what happens then. If I was a betting man, I would bet she doesn't show up on the 14th. Does that mean that she's not going to show up ever for this deposition? No, just I don't know that it'll happen in the next three weeks.

The third thing, Epstein's long time lawyer, Darren and Dyke testified in front of the Oversight Committee yesterday. And in Dyke essentially said he knew nothing about the crimes, knew nothing about Epstein's what he was doing to the young children. But Darren Min, one of the members of Congress on the committee, was like, I'm shocked. he didn't plead the fifth because he seemed like he perjured himself repeatedly throughout the entire testimony. So that was number three. And then the fourth thing that has gotten zero attention, British authorities have actually expanded the investigation into Andrew, formerly Prince,

to include sex trafficking investigation now. So they've now expanded their investigation according to the Times. It's much larger, much more expansive. So hopefully, even if the United States won't do anything, the Brits may. Are you still fully on the side of the United States, is going to do nothing, or is this just going to be like pulling teeth and take several years, but we'll end up getting there? I'm somewhere in the middle of the two. I think it depends on if this issue, if Epstein remains in the news and Democrats keep it in the news after they win the House and they continue an investigation after November,

I have higher hopes because then I see a president, a Democratic president potentially coming in and actually doing something more about it. if they just kind of let this fall to the wayside, then I don't think anything's going to happen. What are the survivors thinking and feeling right now? Abandoned, again. I mean, but, like, I think, like, truly, like, I think the public is feeling what many of the survivors have felt. It's been 30 years since Maria Farmer first reported Epstein. In 30 years, every time they came close to the truth, they were met with a redaction or a denied FOIA request.

Same thing now. I mean, like, as we get close to the truth, like, right, we get the truth. Like, right, we get three million files, okay, but they're redacted. You're not getting all of them. And it's the same thing, just over and over again. It must be an insanely difficult way to live on top of the trauma of what happened. And I still feel guilty that we weren't paying attention. I'm not talking about, like, the government, but that Americans were not paying enough attention to a scandal of this level of proportions.

It's sad. Yeah. We absolutely have to do better. Yeah. I want to shift gears a bit and talk about the government taking steps to pave the way for the merger between Nextstar and Tegna to broadcast news giants who announced their intention to merge last summer. It's a $6.2 billion deal. And in order for it to happen, Brendan Carr and the FCC had to waive the so-called 39% rule, which prevented one company from owning TV stations that reach more than 39% of households. But that's gone now.

And Next Star and its partners will oversee 265 television stations in 44 states and D.C. reaching about 80% of U.S. households. What is happening? Well, that's why you have to subscribe to this YouTube channel because independent media... All the independent media. Has never been so important. I don't know if you saw it, but NextAr, after this merger, put out a statement declaring itself as the, quote, anti-fake news. And saying that they thank President Trump and FCC Chairman.

and Carr for ushering in this new kind of wave of media. But the truth is, is that this is just a monopolization of media on the local level. We see it with the Ellisons with CBS and soon CNN. Now we're seeing it with Next Star and Tegna impacting local TV. Unfortunately, it's going to impact older Americans the most because most young Americans don't watch traditional cable local TV, but older Americans who rely on local TV like your local affiliates, you're going to have changes in your coverage. And it is honestly terrifying to me, because I think that it is this type of consolidation shouldn't be happening. Now, there is one silver lining, which is eight attorneys general have already filed a lawsuit to block this on antitrust-related grounds.

And I think that they'll actually win here because one company cannot control all of this. It's just too much. So we'll see what happens, but it's terrifying right now. It really is. It makes me think about, remember when they started tracking what the anchors were saying on Sinclair, local stations, and they were all reading the same script? Yeah. I mean, that's that it's very similar. And I wouldn't be surprised if that's going to start happening now, too.

Is there a way to, let's say it goes through, I understand the eight attorney generals are suing about it, but let's say they find a way to get it through, which is usually the case with things that Donald Trump wants to get done. Is there a way to undo it or regulate it better when there's a different, okay,

what does that look like? So I think a lot of these companies aren't realizing it. And if they are, they're taking a massive gamble with the future of their companies. And it's not just next to our tegna to any one of these big mergers. You can undo a merger just as quickly as you can do a merger. And when I say quickly, I don't mean like overnight. It takes years. But you can undo it and you can sanction these mergers, lots of fines, lots of penalties,

and ultimately try to break up these conglomerates. I mean, Google's faced antitrust issues. Amazon's faced antitrust issues. biggest companies face antitrust issues, and they usually face massive penalties and fines when they're targeted. All it takes is one Lena Con 2.0 to come in, and good luck next to Artegna. Interesting. Well, we'll definitely be watching that. And quickly, before we go, did you see all the news about who Cesar Chavez actually was? Crazy.

Absolutely insane. I mean, I guess not completely surprising, and there are a number of people who have been giving interview saying, like, we knew bits and pieces of it. But obviously, Dolores Huerta, coming forward with her story as a critical component of it. What do you think lawmakers and really democratic lawmakers are going to do about this? Well, I think they should do the only thing that's right to do, uplift Dolores and her story and the story of the women who were abused, or the former children, women that were abused. And to stop idolizing Cesar Chavez. the way that the Democratic Party had in past years. I mean, that's what you do. And you try to uplift the stories of Dolores and others. Does his name come off monuments and schools? And, you know, I mean, this is somebody who didn't have a tiny impact on the country

and the labor movement and the party. I mean, California already ended Cesar Chavez Day, I believe, and change it to, like, farm workers there or something. I would see, I would expect more of. that to continue, but like, yeah, I mean, I think you do rename things. I think you do take his name off of buildings or whatnot. I mean, it's not permanent, right? Like, just because you have a name on a building doesn't mean that name stays there forever. No, of course. And that's the argument that many people, and I don't even want to make it political because there were plenty of people on the right felt about, you know, bad guys from the Civil War, for instance, that they didn't, you know, want their names on

things anymore. So, but that. I mean, certainly a lot of people that I know and work with felt like that's gone too far. But this feels like, this isn't like Christopher Columbus or something like this. No, this kind of seems like something that you could really undo. This is a no-brainer. Okay. Aaron, it was great to see you. Thanks for joining me.

See you soon. Yeah.