Raging Moderates with Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov - Trump’s Damage to Intelligence (ft. Sen. Mark Warner)

Episode Date: August 1, 2025

Description:  Jessica sits down with Senator Mark Warner, vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to talk about the threats to our national security posed by the Epstein files, Signalgate, and DNI Tulsi Gabbard.  Plus — Sen. Warner gives his honest takes about bipartisanship, the housing crisis, what AI means for the job market, and how he thinks the Democrats have done so far. Follow Jessica Tarlov, @JessicaTarlov.  Follow Prof G, @profgalloway. Follow Raging Moderates, @RagingModeratesPod. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Book club on Monday. Gym on Tuesday. Date night on Wednesday. Out on the town on Thursday. Quiet night in on Friday. It's good to have a routine. And it's good for your eyes too. Because with regular comprehensive eye exams at Specsavers,

you'll know just how healthy they are. Visit Spexsavers.cavers.cai to book your next eye exam. Eye exams provided by independent optometrists. Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Jessica Tarlev. My guest today is Senator Mark Warner, who's represented the state of Virginia in the Senate since 2009. He's currently the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a former governor of Virginia. Senator Warner, thank you so much for joining me. Welcome to the show. Jessica, thank you so much for having me. Looking forward to it. It's great. I was just talking to. Scott is on a very long vacation, but he was talking about how much he admired. you and talking about visiting with you years ago that you invited him to come talk about big tech and he was just totally bulled over by you. He also called you very tall and very handsome and said you should run for president. So I don't know if that means anything to you.

I am not doing that. I am like, you know, maybe I got one more of these than me. I'm going to probably run for reelection next year. But, you know, I don't want to be one of those that stays too long in this job. Okay. Well, we'll get to the staying too long problem, but I want to start With the Epstein files, because who doesn't want to talk about the Epstein files, you have been right out in front on the Democratic side and talking about this, making some very effective social media videos. And I've noticed a change in your approach to social media, which I would love to discuss as well. But can you kind of take us through where things stand in terms of the release of the files and what your read is on the Galane Maxwell element, which seems to have taken on new prominence this week? Yeah, a great question. I mean, on the Epstein files, remember, this all came about because Epstein was clearly a bad guy. But the kind of politicization of this started because President Trump and his campaign said, of course, he's going to get all this out. And then the MAGA movement obviously embraced this. And I think we all got teased by Attorney General Bondi when she said, hey, you know, I got the files right here in my desk. And then all of a sudden, voila, there's nothing there, the seed, they said. And it just kind of begs. the question about transparency. If the president says this is important, it needs to get out, now the fact that he seems to have flipped. I think it undermines people's trust in the president. It makes conspiracy folks say, well, gosh, there must be something here. And then what's driven me

crazy has been Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, who was clearly maybe on the way out a few weeks ago in terms of Trump was really displeased with her, and she's politicized intelligence. She is doing everything, to try to throw up distractions to try to get people to move off this topic, trying to re-litigate Russia intervention in the 2016 election, which, by the way, the Senate Intelligence Committee, every member, including Marco Rubio, came to the inclusion. Russia did not manipulate the vote, but they sure tried to have an influence campaign that favored Trump over Clinton. That was well known, and now trying to relitigate that and calling Obama a treasonous.

It's just, it's so far over the line, but all in an effort. to distract. And clearly, it is not distracted because, you know, the House was so freaked out about this that they sent their members home early rather than have a vote on trying to release these files. Do you think that it's going to have a substantive impact, though, because there are, you know, it's a juicy story, right, on a multitude of levels. It is bothering Trump. It is bothering his base. But does it become an election issue for the midterms? You know, I don't know. I mean, it seems like nothing has that long a leg in today's new cycles. But this one kind of goes to the heart of if Donald Trump was going to come in and break the power and go against the elites, it just seems like people were kind of fascinating way up seeing because it seems like there were lots of elites in his orbit.

And if suddenly one of the basic promises from Trump, we're going to expose all this and the swamp and everything else, well, he's not willing to expose all this. And it does seem, and I don't know what mentioned if any of the was of Trump in these files, but clearly it seems like, you know, this question, too, is it appropriate for Bondi to give him a heads up that he may be mentioned? And then all of a sudden, this reversal kind of begs an answer. I don't think, interesting enough, I bet it will be the MAGA base that won't let this issue go. So at some point, this is going to have to come out. And I even read in one of the little cheat sheets this morning that there is now the video that actually includes the so-called missing minutes. And, you know, how did they have this video of the cell that had a minute gone?

Yeah, I mean, I've heard a lot about that, you know, it's routine and before the clock strikes the next hour, these things happened. But then it shifted to it was more than a minute. It was moving to two minutes. And then you think also, I'm not a conspiracy theorist about this. I think Jeffrey has seen killed himself. But for somebody that was so high profile and watched so closely, how was he able to? Because they can keep people a lot. in prison. Yeah, great question. It's a great question. Are you supportive of Senator Durbin's

call to get the Galeen Maxwell interview tapes released? Yeah, yes. I mean, I guess it seemed clear that Maxwell was Epstein's accomplice and groomer and Lord knows what else in terms of getting young women into his orbit. You know, I think it was interesting. The speaker even said he thought the 20-year sentence was light. Might have been too light. So the idea that suddenly you've got the number two or number three person in the Justice Department having an interview with an incarcerated person and it's clear that Maxwell's looking for a pardon. It just kind of stinks in terms of any kind of fair open process. I think Durbin's right. If this ends up resulting in a pardon, I'd like to know what was promised. And it's not like Maxwell has

a lot of credibility. I think she's clearly willing to do anything. to get herself out of prison. And I don't often agree with Mike Johnson, the speaker, but what she did seems pretty damn nefarious and pretty awful, and it would be pretty disgusting if somehow at the end of the day she's set free because she's trying to either cover up

or change her story to kind of appease the Justice Department. It just doesn't seem right. There are victims who have actually said that they think that Galeen Maxwell was worse than Jeffrey Epstein in terms of her role in this. So, you know, Mike Johnson, I was glad to hear him. and tell Kristen Walker, I think it was, that he thought it should have been a life sentence,

but Speaker Johnson has said a lot of things, and then he just does what Trump wants. So I'm not holding my breath. Yeah, let's not hold her a breath. Everybody who's viewing this, please do not presume that Speaker Johnson's position is going to be that Maxwell is a bad person regardless of what happens. You brought up Tulsi Gabbard, our DNI now. You have been outspoken about her and the threat that she poses since the confirmation, hearings, the rehashing the 2016 Intel issue. It didn't surprise me necessarily, but I was

a bit exasperated. I said, how are we possibly talking about Hillary Clinton's emails again and relitigating this when it's in black and white and that you're putting out newly declassified information that was from before there was even an investigation? Right. Like, that's what she just did. She said, okay, these are the initial assessments and then ignored the fact that people spent years looking into this to come to their conclusions. You feel like Tulsi is on more solid footing at this moment with the president, though? I don't know the foggiest idea, you know, the inner workings of Donald Trump. But what made me so beyond frustrated, just frankly, angry and pissed off, was the document

that she released was so sensitive about what's called sources and methods. That's spy talk for how do we spy on people and who's working for us, who's not, what's our tools. But this document was so sensitive that in the first Trump administration, near the end, there was an effort to release it. All of the Trump intelligence officials, virtually everyone, said, you release this, we're going to quit. Because people aren't going to work with us anymore if we release this kind of information. She released this document on Friday without redactions. CIA was trying to redact to protect sources and methods. And it just reflects this disdain for the intelligence committee. I mean, there is a chance that people will die

because that document was released. This is one more piece of evidence after the complete cluster around Signalgate and, you know, classified information now being put on unsecured channel, bring that on top to the fact where Gabbard literally fired intelligence professionals because they wouldn't change their conclusions about this investigation into Venezuelan gang. the gang was really bad guys, trended along with. They are bad people. The Maduro government, bad guys, but the administration wanted to claim that they were totally interconnected. The intel said both bad entities, but they're not totally connect. People got fired. I had five-eye partners saying to me, what the hell's going on? You know, you got to have

independence of the intelligence community. And they got to speak truth, the power. And she constant rebuts that. And then what makes me particularly kind of disgusted is she goes on all of these very political broadcasts. No director of national intelligence. John Radcliffe didn't. Avril Haynes didn't. And then she goes on these broadcasts and then basically trashes the workforce. Just, I mean, over the last dozen years, I've gotten to really respect the men and women who work on our intelligence workforce. They are non-political. They are patriots. They never get the recognition that you get in the armed services. And it just, it's so debilitating. And we hear every day from people in the community saying, gosh, should we even keep

doing these jobs. Yeah, I wonder about that because the jobs that they haven't managed to eliminate yet, you hope that folks that can serve under Republican and Democratic administrations are going to stick with it. But when you see some of these firings and when you see some of these behaviors, it does make you think that people might start to consider another route in life or that they might be able to actually have more impact outside of the government. Yeah. And thanks, Jessica, if you were like, it costs us about $250,000 to do a security clearance and put a CIA agent through training. And if we're starting to fire, you know, they've said they've not fired anybody at the agency. They fired some around DEI, but they said the roughly 500 people

have quit. They want to try to get that number to 1,200. How they picked that number was purely arbitrary. It appears to me. And I worry about losing experienced people, but I also worry about who's that young person who goes to one of our best schools and wants to work at the CIA or the NSA, where it's going to take a year and a half to get through the training process? Are they really going to do that with the Intelligence Committee under such assault? I just worry it's not only a current problem, but it's a problem in terms of the talent pipeline going forward. And that just makes us less safe as a nation. One other thing that I think makes us less safe, and we had Congressman Himes on the podcast,

and we're talking to him right around the time of Project Midnight Hammer. I think it was called the Iranian Strikes. And we were talking about the breakdown in intelligence sharing in a bipartisan way that typically speaking, someone in your position and someone in his position on the Intel committees would have been briefed on such an operation in advance. Can you talk a little bit about that breakdown and actually how you see Midnight Hammer now in retrospect? looking at it from, you know, what are we a month out? I think there was a clear process foul, and I never had an apology or an explanation.

You know, Himes and I didn't get notified. The Republicans did. You know, that's just the Trump first administration would never have done that. It's just they don't have to seek our approval. They just kind of let us know, and this is, we're in the so-called gang of eight. So I think there was a process foul. I think there was clearly our intelligence community had not reached. the conclusion that Iran was moving towards weaponization. They were, again, bad regime. They'd done bad things, but I don't think the Ayatollah had given a full green light. And then you had the

president, you know, once the bombing took place, and the bombing was successful, but he set such a high bar before any of the information was in saying total obliteration. And then you've got the whole community and leaders like Gabbard and others trying to twist themselves into pretzels to try to reach this standard that was just too tough to reach. And nobody in the military ever thought these strikes were going to lead to total obliteration. But we have set back the program. That's just clear. And if at the end of the day, Iran doesn't move any further down the path towards a bomb if they don't retaliate any further, then it's a success.

I just feel like at times Trump tries to make everything the absolute, the biggest, the bestest. And, you know, this was a successful attack. We could litigate, you know, whether it was four months or two years or whatever between. It set the Iranians back. If we would just do that and make that clear, you can take even successes and sometimes turn them into less than a success by claiming the fish is six feet long as opposed to a fish that's two feet long is still pretty big-sized fish. When it's Iranian enrichment facilities, yes, a two-foot fish is not so bad. Not so bad.

and the military did a great job. So I'm not going to continue to criticize, particularly if the status quo in terms of Iran not striking back. But they still have plenty of cyber capabilities. And again, begs a little bit of the question of, oh, my gosh, we've got to get to a ceasefire in Gaza because that would open up so many opportunities for realignment of Saudi Arabia and further realignment of UAE. And we could push Iran even further out of the mainstream if we could have this realignment. Do you think we can have this realignment? It feels like there has been a sea change in how folks, especially on the pro-Israel side, which Scott and I, have been consistently, are feeling about what's going on. It seems like the uniform opinion now that the Gossans are being starved and that Bibi is not doing his best to ensure that humanitarian aid gets through. Trump reportedly lost his temper with Beebe, especially angry about the strike on Damascus, about a week and a half ago.

There has been no legitimate rationale, actually, for why he was doing that. Can you talk a bit about where you think we are in terms of the ceasefire? Yeah, I am, like you and Scott, I have been absolutely pro-Israel because the awfulness of what happened October 7th and need to return the hostages, the fact that Israel has, in the past, at least try. to reach for peace. But I agree with you that I've been very close, particularly to the negotiations when Bill Burns was head of the CIA. And depending on which time it broke down, there were a number of times I think the Israelis could have gotten to a deal. And I just, I think Beebe insults the intelligence, frankly, of the whole world when he tries to pretend there's not mass starvation going on in Gaza.

It is awful, and we see the UK and France, and I just would so wish that he would let the aid in and then move to the ceasefire, get the hostages back. I mean, the idea that there's any path forward where literally every Hamas fighter will be totally taken up, no one in the intelligence or in the military, or for that matter, in terms of private conversations with the Israeli intelligence.

It's an unreachable goal and unfortunately it appears more and more to the outside that Bibi's more concerned about his own personal political future and the charges that he faces inside Israel than he is about actually taking this moment in time where Israel has never been stronger and frankly solidifying that with a realignment of Saudi Arabia. Remember, Saudi Arabia is the keeper of the faith and the holiest sites for Muslims and the possibility of bringing other countries into an Abraham-like accords like Indonesia or Malaysia elsewhere. That is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, but it's not going to happen as long as this conflict keeps going on in Gaza. And to your point on quickly on the Syria piece, amen. I mean, you know, again, I'll give Trump credit here.

I mean, he's trying to take advantage of the government change in Syria. We, you know, trust but verify, but the fact that the new leadership there seems to be moving in the right direction. And I give, again, Trump credit for trying to, like, at least promote that. Again, give Trump credit for much, and I will get grief for even saying that, you know, but then the idea that you're going to somehow bomb the presidential palace, what for? Well, self-preservation, which Trump also knows something about himself. But I do think it's important to give credit where credit is due, and this is a safe place for those kinds of conversations because you seem totally out of touch if you can't even acknowledge something like

what the Abraham Accords part one was or the prospect of Abraham Accords part two and expanded in the way that you're discussing. Amen. You know, in a lot of ways, Bibi got Trump back to the Oval Office and it looks like he is one of the biggest thorns in his side as he tries to navigate this very complicated issue. And as a Democrat, hoping that you could talk about

the fissure within our party as it relates to Israel because you've seen some of the staunchest defenders of Israel, like Richie Torres, for instance, really change the way that he's talking about the issue. And he feels that the break within the Democratic Party on this issue is irreparable. That's the term that he used. Yeah. I don't, I hope it's not irreparable. And again, I'm of the age where I grew up with Ocean Diane and Golda Mayer and Abe Evan and a host of Israeli leaders that celebrated democracy. celebrated in Israel that was multi-faith.

There was still a homeland for the Jews, but had a Christian community, had Arab citizens. And I just, my fear is that I think about young people in this country. They've only grown up with an Israel that has been, for the most part, for the last 20-plus years, governed by Bibi Netanyahu, and it is not the underdog, but it is far and away the most powerful nation in the region. And I celebrate that again. I mean, when Israel has done in technology, it's remarkable. I just hope and pray it is not irreparable because what I have seen, and I've seen this, you know,

as pro-Palestinian protesters have protested at my home, and it goes beyond Palestinian. It does bleed at times into anti-Semitism. Yeah. And I just feel like the scourge of anti-Semitism cannot be allowed to re-rise in this nation. I mean, I just have so many friends who've even started saying, Mark, I'm not sure that my grandkids are going to be able. stay in America. And that, we have to stand up against that. We also have to stand up against Islamophobia as well. And I just, I fear some of those kind of respect for our differences is fraying in this political system. And time and again, Trump never misses an opportunity

to try to divide us further on whatever basis. I don't think there may be a unifying bone in his approach on any policy. And that, that scares the hell out of me on a goal. going forward basis in our country. We're going to take a quick break. Stay with us. In 1961, President Kennedy's FCC chairman, Newton Minow, gave a speech deriding commercial TV programming. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland. He wanted to do something about it.

Is there one person in this room who claims that Broadcasting can't do better. So Congress created something called the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. He might not have realized when you were interacting with the CPB, but it happened all the time. When you were tickled by Elmo. Happy International Joke Day. When someone moved you on the drive home. This is fresh air.

I'm Terry Gross. CPB is the reason you're hearing my voice right now. But due to big, beautiful cuts, the organization announced on Friday that it would be shutting down next year. What's taking its place? If you ask this White House, they might say something like Prager You. What is Prager You on Today Explained? This week on Criminal, in 2008, detectives from the Minnesota Police Department were called to investigate a drive-by shooting. Everything they did was recorded by a camera crew for a TV show.

Those camera people are allowed to ride around in police vehicles. They're allowed to be on the scene of crime scenes that are very active, that things have just happened. and people have just died. Years later, the Attorney General's office would say the TV show had completely misrepresented the case. Listen to our latest episode on Criminal, wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back. I want to shift gears a little bit to immigration, which obviously a hot-button issue. One of the main reasons the Democrats lost the presidential election in November.

the Lake and Riley Act, you voted for it and have recently expressed some remorse that you made that decision. Could you talk a bit about your vote and how you're feeling now? Yeah, it was a very tough vote. You know, elections have consequences. And my feeling was that clearly the American people,

I think across party lines, felt like undocumented people here that had committed crimes should not be here. And that was hard to rebut. But I think you can be for border security and not be for the kind of actions that ICE is unleashed on populations around our country. I mean, the idea that we are somehow saying that ICE, which by the way, now with all the plus ups, has a bigger budget than the FBI, ICE now has a bigger budget than virtually every military. Than the IDF, actually. Yeah, then the IDF, and it has a bigger budget than militaries in all but the 15 largest nations.

And the idea that we are saying, ICE, you don't have to adhere to the same standards that Virginia State Troopers or a local police department has where you're supposed to identify yourself. And obviously, if you show up at somebody's door, you're going to show your face so you can be clearly identified as law enforcement. And I think the American public has said, yeah, we want to be for border security, but we don't think moms ought to be picked up why they drop their kids off at daycare or that, you know, somebody ought to be picked up going to work. I think this has been a huge reversal, particularly when you're seeing some estimates of upwards of 60% of the people being picked up and then potentially deported, have no criminal

even charge against them. So I am trying to stand up and work, for example, with the Latino faith community. We're trying to get literally packets for every churchism. Here's what happened if somebody, if they come to try to invade your sanctuary, who you call, what do you do, here are your rights, how do we connect other faith traditions so that people can reinforce each other? Because the fear level across all immigrant communities, but particularly across the Latino community, it is, you know, it's un-American at this point, that fear level. And I hear from law enforcement all the time. We've worked for years to try to build trust in the community. And now people are afraid to report crime to the police.

this is not who we are as a country. And that is why I can't think of a single issue that has changed more than Americans' views on how we ought to enforce immigration laws. And again, there's a lot of things that I feel like I crash my head against the Wallach State. This is one where I think the basic goodness of the American people are saying, hey, we're for secure borders, but we're not for this stuff. And so I've got legislation to try to say, hey, you know, ISIL operating the same rules that the state, police, and local cops do. And in terms of disclosing themselves and identifying themselves. And of course, if you're undercover or if you're trying to do a SWAT raid, there are exceptions for local police and that. But I'm not sure I should be

held to a different standard than Virginia State Troopers. Do you think that will pass? And that it'll be tough in today's environment. But I think it's so important to show that I'm listening to the communities that are under assault in Virginia and trying whatever way I can to push back and try to do it. The bill I'm putting forward, for example, also says that if you are harassed as an isolation, we will give you the tools to kind of allow you to remove your name, kind of if you are doxed online. We're going to say, hey, that's a real possibility and we want to give the resources. So I'm not trying to do just a messaging bill. I'm trying to say, all right, can I find some Republican partners? And I'm still talking with Republicans and talking, frankly,

with a lot of law enforcement organizations that are saying, hey, you know, one of this may at least be in the right direction of what we could live with. So my goal in this job, and I get grief sometimes from both sides is how do you actually get shit done? That requires, frankly, working with people on both teams. And my view on bipartisanship is not that it makes any solution set intellectually better, but it does mean I've never seen a perfect bill. And if you have both parties working on it, then both parties have to own the good and the bad because every bill, no matter how perfect, go back to Social Security, Medicare, you've got to always come back and fix it. And if you only have one team working on it, it's never going to get fixed in an appropriate way because the other

team will simply say, hey, we told you so. So I'm, again, still committed to the idea that things are better if they're done bipartisan. And I'm trying to work on that even in this space. Oh, I admire it and hope that you have some success. It is a big uphill climb at this moment. What grade would you give the Democrats right now on getting shit done? you know, when you're in the minority, it's pretty damn hard. I think, you know, it may be weird to look back as the one bipartisan bill that has passed that the president has signed has been around stable coins. And I helped get 19 Democrats. And listen, there are a lot of questions about this, but I think crypto is not going away and we ought to have American rules. It was particularly hard to get 19 Democrats while the Trump family was self-enriching itself in this domain. So that, that's on getting stuff done. I do think the Democrats, we stumbled at first. But I'm not, you know, bummed out that we don't know who the leader in 28 is going to be yet. If we did, that would be the old Democrats that are kind of next in line. I think there's got to be healthy debate. And I think

we have sharpened our message that this is not what people wanted from Donald Trump. They wanted lower prices. They're not going to get lower prices. They didn't want to throw 16 million Americans off of health there. He didn't want to cut food assistance. I think we have sharpened the message, and I think also the main goal in 26 has got to be to win, but I also am very much of the mindset that I want to be part of a Democratic Party, and there needs to be this debate that is back to being pro-growth, pro-innovation, that recognizes that in our effort to protect people, we sometimes went too far on the regulatory side. I always point out I'm a big advocate for rural broadband. Forty-two billion dollars in broadband money in the infrastructure

bill. We didn't lay a mile of fiber because both Congress put too many burdens and then we just had too many regulations. Housing is an area that's driving me crazy. We need to clear away some of the regulatory hurdles. And that idea of a Democratic Party that's future focused as opposed to the Democratic Party that now I think by many Americans as viewed as kind of the party the status quo is really, I'm looking forward to that debate and engaging in it. And I think it's really, really important. And give you one last thing, I don't want to keep going on this, but it's just, Trump is doing, we know, huge damage to a whole host of fields and a whole series of government functions and cutting back, cutting back. Democrats come back in. What I think we need to do

is not simply say, all right, we're going to regrow these bureaucracies to where they were just because. Now, we ought to use this as a chance to do a reset on how government performs. I'm a big advocate of like pay for performance. I think on AI, how we get people through the AI transformation. Well, on workforce training, we ought to not pay people for the government-based programs until you actually place somebody in there in that job for six months. Pay for performance. Let's make sure that we actually make government services more consumer-friendly, customer-using. I mean, we're going to have an opportunity, you know, frankly because of some of the stupidity of the original doge, although a smart doge would have been brilliant, to kind of

figure out what is the vision of how you want to build some of these things back. Simply building them back to where they were in 2024 is not what the American people I think are looking at. Definitely not. Doge, the mission of Doge had one of the higher approval ratings that I've ever seen. The execution was terrible. But if we could do a, you know, 1990s redux and go about it the way that the Clinton administration did, I think a lot of people would be happy. And even just the way that you're talking about this, you know, you're who came from the private sector and was quite successful, you know, not talking like a politician all the time is good for people. And they like that about Donald Trump. Amen. And it's like you,

like we got named best managed state when I was governor. And I kept using the example, while I lowered the cost of light bulbs from 32 cents to 23 cents, but we buy a ton of light bulbs as a state of Virginia. That kind of practical, how do you save money or how do you improve, if you think about taxpayers as customers, the customer, the customer experience is what sets a successful organization way. And that has been so missing on how government even thinks about delivering services for so long. And as we think about, the other thing that I'm like obsessed about is AI transformation and what it's going to do. There's great upside. But boy, oh boy, I think we're already seeing huge dislocation. If I had one group

that I have huge empathy for, it's current college students, recent graduates, your folks about to go to college. They've had to live through COVID and that whole disruption. They've lived through a political dysfunction from both parties. And now they're coming out after their parents told you get that college education and all of those good college starting jobs are being just eliminated. You can't say stop, but you can't say, oh my gosh, they're being eliminated because AI can provide those functions. And I think we are about to see a tsunami through the workforce in really thinking how we think about that in a kind of all of the society way. And even to the question of, I think there should be some responsibility. And is it

the company that uses AI? It is the large language model that underlies it. Is it Navidia, who's now the biggest company in the world, the highest valuation, that people who sell the bullets to make the machines? I don't know the answer yet. But I do think that kind of conversation and being honest with people about the kind of holy shit moment that's going to come in people's lives and acknowledging, especially young people right now are going through a level of stress that I think is almost unimaginable would be really important and positive for reestablishing that sense that in America you can do anything. We can't guarantee success, but everybody ought to get a fair shot in this country. And I worry that AI may be removing that fair shot opportunity for a lot

of folks. A lot of young people who've done everything right, everything the parents told them to do. And then they get, holy crap. Yeah. And it's. It's a tough landscape. I have a three and a one-year-old. So I have a little while to fret about this, but it's definitely concerned that we first were talking about it only as a blue-collar job issue. And now I feel like everyone is just focused on the white-collar impacts. Well, Jessica, it's actually going to be the reverse. Frankly, the blue-collar job will be safer. We all keep paying lip service to carpers and electricians. Politicians say that, but they send their kids to an Ivy League school. But those jobs coming out on the Ivy League schools, Those entry-level jobs, I know they are disappearing at a unrecognizable rate. Yeah. And we're still in the, you know, literally on this top of the first inning in AI.

And boy, boy, we need better engagement there as well. All right. What's one issue that makes you rage and one thing that you think we should all calm down about? Well, the thing I think unraging is housing. The average age of first-time homebuyer, 38, and we got to do more housing supply. We just did pass a bill that start taking on some of the regulatory burden. And literally, we got every Democrat, you know, ranking member Elizabeth Warren was part of this. So I think there is finally a consensus that you can't do such regulation that you completely shut off supply.

And I think we need a host of new ideas around housing and supply of first-time homebuyers. There's plenty of home buyers, but how you bring costs down. And I've got a bunch of ideas on that, even some of the ideas on how you get seniors, Maybe you could have mortgages that you would be able to pass on because so many people are locked into low interest rate mortgage. So that's the one people ought to rage about more. Yeah. On the thing that I think people should chill out about, and this is maybe just on a personal basis, you know, the other day when we did our third all-nighter on the big ugly bill. Right. And I would do my, because I'm trying to do better on social media, I would do my social media, you know, one o'clock, three o'clock, five o'clock, seven o'clock.

And I think the 5 o'clock or 7 o'clock one, I was having an egg McMuffin and some, you know, and I got so much grief, Warner, you should be eating healthier, you're being a roll amount. Well, I think people should chill out if I'm done an all-nighter and I want to eat some comfort food or a crispy cream donut or something. As long for those of you who follow me, it's not a gross tuna melt. I think they should chill out about early morning eating habits after an all-nighter. I totally agree. We can't all be Maha all the time, and you deserved it. And I have appreciated your focus on social media because I was tracking you from the car videos to where you are now with – I'm not saying you're Zoran, Mom, Donnie.

No. But you are – you're getting it done, and we're happy to see it. Well, frankly, it's just – it's an education for me. I was a tech guy, but kind of fully grasping the fact that, what is, 65 percent of Americans don't read or watch any news. Yeah. You've got to meet people where they are. You can't just bitch about it. You've got to meet people where they are.

I love it. And I loved having you here. Thank you so much for your time, Senator Warner. Jessica, thank you so much as well.