The Bulwark Podcast - Angie "Pumps" Sullivan and Phil Gordon: The Dumbest People Are Running this Country

Episode Date: March 25, 2026

Trump's shamelessness has been his political superpower, but the regime in Tehran is seeing a desperate and panicked man doing the opposite of what he's said about Iran for the past decade. But his supporters are not likely to see the dangerous moment we are in unless or until they feel real economic pain personally. Plus, Markwayne Mullin is another shorty tough guy, the Dems don't understand our reality show politics, and how an alternate universe might look if Kamala were president and we weren't in a war. Phil Gordon and Angie "Pumps" Sullivan join Tim Miller.show notes: The "I've Had It" podcast "IHIP News" podcast Phil's book, "Losing the Long Game: The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East" Markwayne's booster box To get 6 bottles of wine for $39.99, head to NakedWines.com/THEBULWARK and use code THEBULWARK for both the code AND PASSWORD.

Welcome to the Bullwark podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. We have another doubleheader today. In segment two, we get real heavy on foreign policy with Phil Gordon, who is Kamala's national security advisor. A lot of conversation out there right now about what Harris' foreign policy would have looked like in that magical alternate universe. And so we figured we'd ask the guy who would know the answer to that. So stick around in segment two for that. Also just a reminder for everybody know Kings is coming on Saturday. I've got an interview coming up later this week with Ezra Levin who's organizing that for Indivisible. So keep an eye out for that. But first, we're going to have a little fun. She's a co-host of the podcast, I've had it, an IHIPP News, also an attorney and co-author

of the book, Life is a lazy Susan of shit sandwiches. Yep. And I just found out this morning, she's a Bullard Plus member. So get on board. It's Angie Pump Sullivan. Hi, thanks for having me. Yes, a Bullwork Plus member. I just saw it. auto renew. Great. We appreciate your support and I don't know what the rest of you are waiting for it. And it looks like you just lost your earput into your bra there again. Yeah, I got it out though. Okay. So we're good though. We're good now. If anyone's like me, right, you do, you guys have these niche, niche following. So I want to get to politics, but I want your backstory. A lot of people may know you, like if they're on social media as the other one on IHIP because your co-ho's gin is always

going viral for like calling Trump canckels McTacco tits or something like crazy like that. And And so we want to get your perspective as well. But I saw you guys way before that. I was on an airplane. I don't know if you do this. I do a little market research. And I look at what podcast people are listening to as I'm walking down the aisle. And I saw a couple of girls listening to iHip or I hip news.

I forget. And I was like, what is this? And I asked a couple of the gays and realized that you had a huge fan base. A couple of them had a reality show called Sweet Home, Oklahoma. I knew nothing about. So for people who are like me, let's give us your. Hero origin story. Okay, so Jennifer and I started being friends, like 25 years ago.

I hired her to decorate a kitchen remodel. And she came into my house. She immediately insulted my taste. And I knew I had bad taste. That's why I hired her. And I was like, I know I have bad taste. I immediately insulted it, which just I fell head over heels for that because she is so honest. And that's one great thing about being a podcast person was.

someone who has total conviction and is fearless. I mean, she does not have any fear. And she's like that professionally and personally. So we developed a friendship. And then I think because our lives have been so crazy that we were on a reality TV show. And I was the crazy one on that. Just I had a glove. I smoked cigarettes with the glove trying to hide it from my kids, which, you know,

doesn't hide anything. but I felt like it did. My mother used to, everyone, just there was a brief moment where she started smoking again. I think me for one year, just a high stress year, and also tried similar strategies. Didn't work. Neither did my strategies hiding smoking from her, by the way. So it's kind of a two-way street on that. Smoking was so hard to hide.

Yeah. Oh, no, because here's what happened. I would have kids. So I'd put on a robe. I'd go outside. I'd put my glove on. Then I'd go in, take the robe off, wash my hands. Well, the kids still knew.

I mean, it was just the dumbest. thing on the planet. But anyway, so we had the reality show. And then I grew up a Republican. I was raised by Republicans that are now MAGA. And so as a part of my adult life, my entire life blew up. And I had to reexamine how I viewed my religion, evangelical Christianity, and that spilled over into politics. So I wasn't super political. Like I didn't watch Fox News, but, you know, I registered a Republican because that's what my parents did and, you know, all that. And then I will never forget. So voted for Mitt Romney? Voted for Mitt Romney? Or was that, had you switched by then? No, I voted for Bush one time. But I can't remember. And then it was done. Then that was it.

but I can't remember which time it was. I think it was I voted for Kerry. So I probably did vote for Mitt Romney. Is that right? No, that would be right. It wouldn't Bush Kerry. You have it right. It was Bush once and then Carrie.

Okay. So that's, you know, I'm not proud of it, but I did. But so anyway, then in 2016, all of this Trump stuff was happening. And I wasn't super engaged politically, but I called Jennifer and I go, why are the people surrounding Trump not taking his phone when he starts drinking and he starts texting all this on social media. She was like, oh, he's a known T-totaler. And that just threw me for an absolute loop. I could not imagine that people would see what he was writing and not immediately assume we were in terrible hands as a country. And then I just got more and more involved and engaged,

started seeing that, you know, all the back and forth and then dichotomy of what he was saying versus what's doing. And then I just became completely. enamored with politics. So you guys were on the TV reality show, Sweet Home, Oklahoma, where you were the crazy one. And then the podcast starts and you have a role reversal. But initially the podcast, like you were just kind of doing, like making fun of other reality people, right, and like complaining about people who clap on airplanes. No, it was complaining.

It was just complaining about people like gender reveal parties. Like, of course, you know, it's going to be one or the other, like stop. And just complaining about a lot of those things. And then Jennifer has always been very politically minded. So those conversations just kind of naturally grew. And as the climate became more and more oppressive and all of these things started happening, it just turned into where we felt like we had to speak out because we did have a platform. So we felt like we had to use it for good.

So I'm wondering how that has affected like your, because I get a lot of questions about this from people who, you know, are listeners or whatever. or a lot of us are former Republicans, who are in conservative communities, who don't know how to deal with family members or friends who are still MAGA. I mean, when you started speaking out on the podcast about politics, I have to imagine you got some negative feedback

from your friend group. Here's the thing. What's interesting is, and you're not as old as me, but as you grow older, you become closer to fewer people and you just kind of weed out the people that you don't necessarily

have the same views with over time. And then my, see, all my kids are out of the house. So I'm not thrown together in situations with people that I would otherwise not be with. Interestingly about my family, because they are dyed in the wool, triple trumpers, the whole line. It just doesn't exist for them. The podcast just doesn't exist. Even if it's on Fox News, which I know they watch, it's just, it just doesn't happen.

It never comes to my attention. It's just like in my family, it's very easy to compartmentalize and deny what you willfully what you want. Let's just don't ask, don't tell. It is exactly that. In the family. Got it. So, well, I guess that's healthier than, you know, losing your family over it. I do wonder, do you think in this moment where Trump is screwing it up so much, do you see any opportunities for engagement with MAGA America or not quite yet?

Okay. So on a personal level with my family, what I have said is super religious, what would Jesus do about putting people in alligator alcatraz? Oh, I think that's what Jesus would do. Like, do you really think that? And they can't defend it. And then on other issues that have come up, it is, I'm sad that you can't have empathy for these people. That makes me sad. when I was Christian evangelical practicing, doing all that, I looked back and I had no empathy for

anyone but myself. There was a narcissism to my thoughts that kept me from being able to think about, okay, what happens to a gay couple that wants to have a child? Why would I care? I want every child to be loved. Why would it matter? And those kind of things. So it kind of all unraveled at the same time, but I try to stick to empathy instead of how can you be so stupid. It's tempting to want to do how can we be so stupid. Just on the empathy thing. This is, this is hard. Are you ready for a hard thing to do? Yeah. What about empathy for them? What about empathy for the maga types who either are misinformed or their intentions are, you know, or they have been, you know, kind of propagandized to or sucked up into a cult?

obviously in any group, there's some bad people, there's some deplorables, but there's got to be some that are reachable. How do you kind of think about that, given that, and you still live there. You're still living in Oklahoma. They're all around you. Yes. Here's the thing. Like, this is an example. Yesterday I went to buy bread. And I noticed that there was a $9 loaf of bread on the shelf. And I just thought, that is crazy. And there was a moment where I could, kind of had a little, like, little bit of excitement that MAGA people were going to go in and be faced with the $9 loaf of bread. It was seconds. And then I thought, was it, were you at an artisanal bread shop or was it? No, I was at Whole Foods. Okay. Well, yeah. Whole Foods is spendy.

It's spendy, but, I mean, it was just like a $9 loaf of bread. Are you kidding me? I read about people, you know, taking out of the retirement to make monthly expenses. Okay, so going back to. There is a part of me that because I had a political evolution and a later in life evolution in general, that I feel like I have to have some empathy towards someone that is like, oh my gosh, you know, we saw that, everybody saw that video. I'm an idiot, I guess. Part of me is like, good. Now you know it. You have felt it. But then there's another part of me that is like, you have to kind of put your actions with your words. You have to stand up and say, this is why I was wrong. These are the views that I had and I realized that I was wrong. And I don't know that I see a lot of

that. Marjorie Taylor Green, I'm never, ever, ever going to believe that she is not just trying to further her own political career. But in terms of the everyday person, I would have more grace for that than probably some just because of my political evolution. But I just think a lot of them, they're just never going to change. They're just simply not going to change. Well, that I think is the key question in the moment, is are there enough of them that can change? And you reference a video that everybody saw, but just for our own enjoyment, like a little

just a little appertif. Let's just watch it one more time. If you could say something to President Trump and he was going to hear you right now, what would it be? You're a worthless pile of shit. And you voted for him how many times? three times. That was my bad. Apparently, I'm an idiot. Thank you, Amanda Robbins. We love the bluntness there. Okay. But so that has to give you a little hope, right? Like, in some level, there's the

shot in Freud of like, yeah, okay, it's nice to hear somebody say that bluntly. I'm an idiot. But on the other hand, it's like, okay, if that lady, they voted three times that is probably watching some Fox and some newsmax, if she can have a break, if you can, have a break, if I can. Other people have to be able to. Like, what, how do you think they can be reached? Is it just pain? Do they have to experience pain? Or is there other strategies that would be useful? I think that in my family, I think that the pain would have to be loss of, you know, stocks, bonds, portfolios, 401K. That is where like, it seems the cost to humanity and humans and lawbreaking and corruption, all of that is fine until it affects my pocketbook.

And I say this because, you know, I've viewed it all my 56 years on Earth. But you also have to think, like, you've ignored so much by the time you get to, you know, March of 2026 of the corruption and the hatefulness. And I'm glad James Comey's dead, all that stuff, that, like, you're pretty insulated. And what I found... James Comey, still alive, just to be clear. I'm not... Oh, I'm sorry.

Robert Moore. Yes. Sorry. I'm putting him in an early grave. He's walking the earth. He's doing rock memes. Yeah. He's trying to avoid indictment by the DOJ.

Yeah. Yeah, okay. Just to make sure. He's because he's also a Buller class members. Just wanted to make sure. Nobody was worried about James Combe. Yeah. Sorry.

Robert Mueller. My bad. But yeah, I just, I don't know. I don't think my parents will ever change. I really don't. It's tied in with their religion so much. I don't think they would. What about?

women, though, in red states. I do wonder if you feel like that you hear it all from women. I mean, like, you had this transformation. And one of the funny parts of your book was talking about your divorce. You end up going to a divorce lawyer. It's funny for me. Maybe not funny for you, because your husband was sleeping with every whore in the paycom center, I believe, was one of the lines that you used. And so, you know, I think that there are probably a lot of women in red state America who maybe you're just going along with what is in their cultural soup. I don't want to say that they don't have agency, but like everyone around them is Republican. their husband's a Republican.

It's like, well, you know, given that that's your background, maybe that's the first entry point. Maybe we can kind of pull some of those, you know, middle-aged women and younger women who are in Red America across the Rubicon. Okay, here's the deal, Tim. I really believed that because I live in an abortion ban state where doctors are prosecuted if they even tell you about any type of, like,

you know, abortion care. reproductive care of any kind. They would rather you die out in the hospital than, you know, do reproductive care. Okay. And I have college age daughter who has friends with mothers. Okay. Knowing all of this, they still voted for Trump. And here's why, in my opinion, when I look at it.

And this is based on my personal experience. When you're white, your upper middle class, so you have the protection. of privilege. And it's very easy to say, my privilege insulates me from if my daughter had a pregnancy that had to be terminated for medical reasons, I could afford to take her somewhere else to provide health care for her. There's no application to the greater good. And I mean, I cried for days about how many white women my age went to the polls and said, please, take my daughter's rights. And now we have Pete Heck Seth's pastor and all these people close to the administration saying women need to be at home. They need to be making babies. They don't need to be in

medical school and law school. Your daughter's friends, do you ever just kind of like throw them little DM them little Instagram clips? All the time. That's not working. Maybe the daughter's friends it's working on, but not the daughter's mothers. Okay, but that's good. So I'm going to keep trying. I'm not giving up, but I don't know how to reach them or if I know that they are unreachable because they're protected by so much privilege and it's not applying to their lives. Have you thought about doing a reverse Charlie Kirk thing where you and Jen go down to like, I don't know, where do mega women hang out in Oklahoma? Church.

It's like a church. Well, yeah, so it's probably hard to do it to church. There's something else is like a country club. Oh, yeah, country clubs. Ladies NASCAR or something and go there. and it's like, what's the ladies NASCAR? Explain to me what the ladies NASCAR. It's in Oklahoma.

Go there and like you guys fight with the ladies that have Mar-a-Lago face. Have you thought about that? I think that would be a good content. That is a good one. Because when you talk to people, I think it's harder to defend the position one-on-one than it is in mass. Yeah, sure, right. Q&A. It's just an idea.

We'll talk to your producers about it. Now I'd like to tell you about a new podcast. as the briefing with Michael Waldman, Michael's a former White House speechwriter, lawyer, and constitutional scholar. He leads the Brennan Center for Justice, which works to repair and strengthen American democracy across a range of issues from the abuse of presidential power to Supreme Court reform to corruption and more.

What makes a Brennan Center unique is that it's more than just a think tank. It's focused on turning ideas into policy. And that's what we like about the briefing podcast. You're going to hear new ideas, but you're also going to learn about the strategies of political fights and the dealmaking that will shape the next phase. of American democracy. If you care about American democracy,

this is a podcast for you. You can listen and subscribe to the briefing with Michael Waldman, wherever you get your podcasts, or visit Brennancenter.org slash podcast. That's B-R-E-N-N-A-N-Center.org slash podcast. You mentioned Hegseth's pastor. I interviewed James Telerico last week.

He's trying to do kind of like the liberal Christian thing, which I think is worth a try. I have some questions, but whether that'll land. I'm interested in your take on that. But before we talk about James, let's talk about what Higgsath's pastor said about him on a podcast earlier this week. Pray that God kills him. Ultimately, that means killing his heart and raising him up to new life in Christ.

That's the first thing. We want him crucified with Christ. That's exactly right. I think Saul of Tarsis, Tala Rico of Tarsus. Yes. That's what I want. Who would say, I was holding the garments while they stone Stephen. And now I'm the, yeah, that's what we want.

Yes, we want death and new life, right? And if it would not be within God's will to do so, stop him by any means necessary, oh God. The guy seems a little gleeful talking about killing and crucifying James Telerico for me. I don't know. These people are lunatics. They are fucking lunatics. Like Pete Heck says, I could start today and we could talk until I dropped dead about how vile. I think he is. And it's probably a personal trigger for me because he sits there. He's so godly.

I love Jesus and I'm a warrior for God. But yet, he has women signing in D-A's. He's taking employees to strip clubs. He's on the third baby mama. It has affairs. Like, he is the essential hypocrite and I will do whatever the fuck I want and have faced no accountability for it. So for me, he is, he's so personally vile because you, you say all this about you don't want women in combat and you don't, so you hate women, obviously, you know, you can't be faithful to one. But then you want to tell everybody how to live their life because you're a family values guy. Shut your fucking rattle trap.

It makes me crazy. Can I say, I do. Yeah, well, please. Honestly, honestly, you've been a little PG. PG for the podcast. And we've got Phil Gordon in segment too. Not a lot of fucking rattle trap, come-faced stuff from Phil

Gordon so we can get it all out of our system now. The crucifying, the calling to crucify James Talley like literally. It was not a figure of speech. Like he went out of his way to be like, I want God to kill him. I mean, I was Catholic. So, I don't know. Was that common

an evangelical church that you were growing up in? Like wishing death upon foes? That feels new. No, I don't think it was wishing death. We've gotten Christian nationalism times a million, and we've let these complete net jobs that are not tethered to reality into positions of power. But here's the thing. It's always kind of been there a little bit with... They feel emboldened now. It's emboldened, the enemy from within, vermin. Like, it's okay to say all that crazy shit now. And you think about it. Like, we have the dumbest people in the world in positions of power,

when you really look at it. You go around the cabinet and you think this is the biggest collection of dipshit I have ever seen in my entire life. It truly is. It would be hard to try to even get a collection of dips chits that are dumber. I was pretty concerned.

We played, I guess, on Monday's pod, the clip of the guy who's in charge of FEMA response, talking about how he teleported to a waffle house. You see that? Yes. He teleported to a waffle house in a car. And I received some messages from folks who are like career officials inside the administration.

And they're like, this guy is actually the median. If you knew some of the other people that I have to report to, they're like, you don't even know. Like the collection of dipsets that you see at the top are bad. But like once even when you go down the scale, you get more of the Waffle House teleportation guy. So Tel Rico's response was Jesus loves Christian nationalism kills. You may pray for my death pastor, but I still love you. I love you more than you could ever hate me. It's a nice sentiment.

I like it. It's not my natural impulse. Yeah. He's a bigger part. I mean, I love you. It's nice sentiment. You got more metros in Texas now. You know, he's trying to get Dallas suburbs voters, San Antonio.

It's still Texas. It's a little different than Oklahoma. But do you think that that the kind of liberal pastor thing is going to land? Do you think that that strategy was going to work with people? I mean, I'm optimistic, but I don't trust Texas voters because Ted Cruz gets reelected. Like, everyone universally hates him. And he still gets reelected. Do I think he stands a better chance than a Beto O'Rourke?

I do simply because Greg Abbott, Ken Paxton, these people are so radical and they are such hypocrites. I hope that people of Texas, even in rural America are seeing that. And then I think how the economy has been harmed under Trump, I think he'll get a natural boost from that. Do I think someone, let's say, for example, my parents super religious, but very Republican. They may be able to, I mean, there's a, there's more of a margin for that than, say, a Jasmine Crockett would have been. I increase his chances because he is the perfect cookie cutter. This is what a male Christian looks like. Do I think they're going to shame him for not like bodybuilding and, you know, running around on jeans in their shirt, probably? But there will be a

portion of the population that he's palatable to. I hope that's right. You mentioned the economy I mean like the problems for the Republicans in the midterms just based on Donald Trump fucking everything up. There was this special election yesterday in Florida, a couple seats. Democrats flipped two state house districts. This doesn't matter for Congress, but these are the representatives to go to Tallahassee. One of those districts was Palm Beach, where Marlago is. So Donald Trump now in the state legislature is going to be represented by a Democratic woman, Emily Gregory. We love that.

So Trump won that district by 11 points in 24. Emily Gregory won it by about two points last night. So it's a 13 point swing. And that's pretty good. Like Texas was a little bit more than that, but like Florida, Trump won by 13, Iowa, 13, Alaska 13. And if this shift is going to be that great, like, that's some good news for the Democrats, right? No, I think it is.

I mean, you're seeing a repudiation of Trump more than we love this person. Yeah. I mean, I don't know anything about that election, but I do think it's interesting. as much time as he spends in Palm Beach and has all these parties and they applaud when he gets up and, you know, walks into a room that he couldn't muster up an election for his candidate. So we'll see. I think Trump being on the ballot actually hurts the Republicans at this point. Is there a Democrat that's exciting you? Is there somebody that you're really?

Like already elected? Anything? Roe Conner. He excites me. Garcia excites me. I love Jasmine Crockett. I think it's a huge loss that she will no longer be in the house. I like Chris Murphy.

I like Elizabeth Warren. I mean, there's a lot of really good people. Bernie Sanders, AOC, love them. And then a lot of it is disappointing. Yeah. None of those people are really 2028 people. Are there any 2028 people you like? Oh, you mean like going forward?

Okay, here would be my dark horse, Andy Bershear. Really? This is so interesting. I have a theory of the case here for 2028, which is that. that for whatever reason, maybe there's some sexism involved. I think definitely there's some sexism involved with me. Absolutely. But it's not just Kamala and Hillary.

I think this might be true for Gavin also. So it's not just sexism, but there's a sexism element to it. Where Kamla got on the, there's this conundrum where she got into the sour spot. Where like progressives who really like the Vernies and the AOCs, they thought she was a corporate chill and didn't like her, right? It didn't fight hard enough, whatever. Moderates would be more like the Andy Beshear type. they looked at her and were like, you're a California progressive.

I don't like you. You're too liberal, whatever. And so you end up losing kind of on both sides a little bit. And it's interesting that you just laid out those people, a couple of people, the examples of which might be able to bridge that. And like Andy Bashir is an interesting example of that

because I hear this a lot from like progressive people and from middle of the road people that they both like him. We had him on the podcast in person. He was in Oklahoma. And he is such a kind. Where is in person? Is it like in your home or do you have a studio? No, Oklahoma City.

We have a studio in Oklahoma City. Dang. So it was in your house. I was going to fly. He came over to my house. We've left up under the covers and we decided here's what we're going to do. But something that spoke to me coming from a super religious background, he said, I have to protect trans kids because as a follower of Christ, I have to be kind and I have to stand up for

people that people are marginalizing. And he took that across, you know, different spectrums using his faith saying, because I'm a Christian, I have to lift up the people that are being bullied. It's my responsibility. And I thought, well, that's a twist we're not hearing on Fox News. So I thought that might be a message that could resonate. Now, I'm not up to date on what his politics are in terms of the war and the relationship with Israel. So I reserve the right to back off if he's a super, you know, super Netanyahu fan. For me personally, that would be a deal killer. But I do think there's potential there for him. All right, y'all. So last night I was doing my live stream, I'm trying to become a streamer. You can check out the archive of that either on

subsection or YouTube. I think it will still hold up. You just can't ask me questions live. But it was pretty good. So I'm going to be streaming. We're trying new things. While I'm streaming, I'm having a glass of wine last night. I was running a little late. Stream was about to start. Realized I didn't have a fresh bottle. Good news. I've had some wines laying around thanks to our friends at Naked Wines.

This podcast is sponsored by Naked Wines. Naked Wines is a Wine Club that directly connect you to the world's independent win makers so you can get a world-class wine delivered straight to your door. Use our code the bulwark for the code and password at Nakedwines.com and get 100% off your first order. That's six bottles of wine for just 39 and 99. On that very live stream last night, one of the commenters was asking me a lot of specific wine questions. Like, do you like your wine's tanic? Do you like them to be X percent whatever grape? That's just not me. I don't have the energy for that. I know what I like. I don't know

anything about why I like it. That's how I like to keep it. Naked Wines makes that very easy for me. Throw in the kinds of grapes and varietals. I've said that I've liked. They give me a bunch of different ones to try. Enjoy it. I like to do different things. I don't have to make the decisions. It's a perfect deal. Naked Wines brings you amazing wine straight from the winery at up to 60% less than what you pay in store. Like getting out extra costs like middleman markups, winemakers can pass those savings on to you without skimping on quality. Get the best wine at best price with naked wines. Now is the time to join the naked wines community.

Have to nakedwines.com slash the bulwark. Click enter voucher and put in my code, the bulwark for both the code and password for $100 bucks off your first order. That's six bottles for only $39.99 of the shipping included. That's $100 off your first six bottles at naked wines.com slash the bulwark. Use the code and password, the bulwark for six bottles of wine for $39.99. One other thing I do wonder, just about the democratic stuff, then we're going to get into hit it or had it.

which is a segment on your podcast and I'm stealing. Like there is this tension between kind of like the lefty that you seem to be kind of straddling, right? Because like, look, you're just a content creator. You know, you didn't like come up in politics. Like you don't really have a horse. It doesn't seem to me. And like the Bernie versus Hillary never ending wars like that you have inside the Democratic Party.

Like maybe now you have an opinion. But like you didn't like kind of come up through all of that where like there's all this tension. Hassan Piker said about you guys in a profile that you guys are the most radical progressive podcast of North America, the headquarters of the actual resistance, not the 2016 Hillary Clinton era resistance, but the real resistance. I see that stuff, and I kind of think that that's imaginary a little bit. And maybe that, maybe I'm wrong, like, that there's this big difference. I don't know. I think that, like, there's a, there's a category of people that, like, whatever, it makes them feel more hardcore or whatever to, like insult the No Kings crowd or the MS Now

watchers or the whatever, resist libs and the pink pussy hats or whatever. And I don't know, it seems like you're able to kind of bridge those two. But what do you think about that? Or do you also kind of cringe at some of other parts of the resistance? You know, here's my thing. I think we need all the help we can get in every area. But I feel like we're not in a position to be super down the middle centrist. We have to, because everything is marketed so much better on the right, the branding so much better, they push the message better, that we have to be very forceful.

and clear about. And something that Jennifer says that makes a lot of sense is you cannot leave a group out. You cannot say we are going to fight against anti-Semitism. We are going to fight against Islamophobia. You cannot pick and choose which group you intend to fight for. It has to be across the board. You have to fight for everyone. You can't graduate what you want to do in human rights. And that makes a lot of sense to me. Like, everybody should be equal in terms of protection. And that is just something we're not seeing. And now women are on the chopping block.

White women, liberal white women are on the chopping block. I agree with that as a principle. I do wonder, though, you know, politics is about as pragmatic, right, too. I don't know. Like, look, I live in Louisiana. You live in Oklahoma. A Democrat is not going to win here. Right.

like by centering the marginalization problems of Muslims and queer people and whatever. Like, I just, they just aren't. Like, so I'm not saying that they should attack them also. But like, isn't there sometimes a need to not be mushy in the middle to be forceful, but not always have to take every, you know, whatever, low position on everything to be successful in these states? No, I agree that that puts some people off, but I think if you take a message like in Oklahoma, we're the last in education. We are poor. Like, let's look at fixing the populist problems. And then if somebody comes up to you and says, well, but, you know, you voted for gay marriage or whatever, it'd be like, why do you fucking care who voted for gay marriage? What does it take away from you? You know, put people on the spot about these culture war issues that affect them.

zero, but they're all wound up about. I don't disagree with that. Okay. Before we get it or had it, actually, I want to just say we've both certainly had it with Mark Wayne Mullen, the Oklahoma Senator who is the head of DHS. I have two things talk to you about, but I kind of just want to hear you cook on Mark Wayne Mullen first. Okay.

First of all, he runs around and he is so tiny that he carries a box so that he can stand on it at podiums. How tiny is he? Maybe 5-2-ish, maybe. Really? Yeah. I mean, he's small. And he carries a box?

He carries a box. There's a picture. Your producer can find it. If him at like a podium, talking to another person, he's staying. So we call him Senator Booster box. I'm looking at this right now. He is in a box.

He's standing next to what appears to be like an Asian man who's frame-mogging him. He's being height-mogged by an Asian guy. He's on a little box. Here's the deal. Mark Wayne Mullen was picked because he is a dipshit. He is not smart. His grammar is horrible. And the reason they chose him is that he will do whatever they tell him because he is, A, not spark and be not interested in doing anything than plastering his lips to Donald Trump's ass.

So make no mistake. He is too stupid to run anything, much less the Department of Homeland Security. I was watching this video of him. You may have seen going around the Internet where he's talking about his daughters in the audience. He's talking about her boyfriends there. and he wants to drag her face. He told the boyfriend that if you ever sees him kissing his daughter, he's going to drag his face across the asphalt, which feels a little aggressive. He talks about how his daughter when she was a kid,

he liked to bust her butt, and she'd run around saying, no, daddy, don't hit me, no daddy don't hit me. Whatever you think about that, I think most people would be opposed. I was like, what is he speaking to? And there was a, the insignia was something called city elders, and then their motto was governing the gates. I want to read you what this is. City elders is a national network of elders charged with the mission of governing the gates of every city in America to establish the kingdom of God with strength, honor, and courage.

The group sees its mission as biblical. These modern-day zealots take Old Testament passages as direct literal mandates for their intent to take over city councils and school boards. They want Jonah and the whale to be a literal guide for the school board and city council legislation. And that's who Mark Wayne Mullen was talking to and he's talking about beating his daughter's ass. He is a religious zealot. And here's the deal. Like, it's comical when you read the definition.

But then you look at Project 2025 is making policy in the White House. These religious nuts are controlling policy because they've, like, the Heritage Foundation is the biggest bunch of cooks you've ever met in your life. But they're the same thing. It's like, we're going to, you know, make a Christian. nation. Like they've completely forgotten why the, you know, separation of church and state,

why the original people came to the United States, religious freedom. They want to impose their religion on everyone and they think they have a divine right to do it. People are nuts, Tim. Okay. Hit it and had it. Okay. Lay it on me. For people who don't get it, if people don't understand, it's pretty straightforward, but I notice that some of the dorky politicians get confused on the podcast. I've had it means I've had it with the person. Yeah. Hit it means I'd hit it. Right. I'm curious where you are on Mayor Pete.

I love Mayor Pete. How did it or hit it? I hit it because I think he's smart and I think he's engaging. Like if he were warning the Department of Transportation, I would have much more confidence. But I haven't kept up with him lately. The way he goes on Fox News and he speaks to people and the way he can talk. So I'm hit it on him as a messenger for sure. Great.

The man that I call the only good Republican left in America is the mayor of your city, David Holt. Hit it or had it. Hit it. He is fantastic. He's pragmatic. He's open to everyone. And that is not an easy task.

And what's interesting is he's like got huge approval ratings just reelected. He's fantastic. He's fabulous. I was nervous. I was nervous to say that because I like him. But I was worried that you're like, I live here and you don't know that he does this awful thing behind the scenes. No, he's wonderful. He's wonderful. Loved by everyone. I'm from Denver. I'm from Denver. The Nuggets possibly might meet

the Oklahoma City Thunder in the playoffs this year. And if they do, I have a new plan now that I just came up with, which is where I'm going to go to a game. And then I'm also going to go do your podcast in studio like Andy Beshear. I would love it. And maybe we'll hang out with David Holt too. So we'll see. We'll get a little thing going. I would love that. Me and D.H. went to college together. Chuck Todd. Hit it or had it. See, he's on a sports podcast every now. I mean, I guess I'm going to say Hadd it because I think he could have been so much more forceful. And because having heard him on forums other than like Meet the Press, political forums, he's much more open.

I think he should have stood stronger when he had the chance. But I don't, I don't know. I know it's hard. I understand the pressures of corporate media, but I wish you would have done more. Jesse Warner said it or had it. fucking had it. He is the most despicable. He is running around telling you what real men do and what real men are. And he is the biggest pre-Madonna I have ever seen in my life. I find him reprehensible in every way. Do you know that he slashed the tire of a younger woman that worked for him while he was married? He slashed her tire so he could give her a ride home and then ended up cheating on his wife with her and now they're married? Do you know that?

Is that who is married to? Yeah, that's his origin story. These people, I don't know how Jessica Tarlov does it. He is a nasty human and he, were you at the DNC? No. He was sashaying around like with this big hair and he just gives this aura of I am such hot shit. And I'm like, Jesse, your hair is way too dark. You have overdid that.

He wears a face full of makeup. I just can't stand him. Male Botox hit or had it. Male Botox. If it's done well, I hit it all day long. Okay, Mar-a-Lago face. Fucking had it. Had it, had it, had it.

Like, you can figure out how to avoid that. And I love Botox. Okay. We're not imputing. I'm just curious. We're hitting it on male Botox. Had it for Mar-Lago-Face. Tommy Tuberville.

Had it. He sucked as a football coach. He sucks as a human. Anybody that votes for him is dumb as a box of hot rocks. I cannot stand him. Had it. Candice. Okay, Tim.

Here's the thing. Don't do this. I was worried you're going to do it. That's why it was a trick question. Here's the thing. I've had it because she's a nut and she's a conspiracy theorist. There is something about Candice that you're watching her and you're kind of, she's making sense and you're kind of in. And you're like, and then she says something that's totally fucking crazy.

But there is something about Candace that draws people in. Like I think she's a nut, but I'm not above watching a 10 or 15. minute clip of Candace. All of a sudden, you know, you're like, maybe Brigitte McCrone does have a dick. I don't know. You're just going to watch it. I don't even understand what she's doing there. Shut the fuck up about the first lady of France.

It's none of your fucking business. Why do you care? I don't think she's very stable. I mean, I've had it. There's some kind of crazy. You're like, this is your reality show side coming back. Yes. You know, like there's something about an unhinged, crazy charming.

Fighting with Erica Kirk, who I also find reprehensible. Yeah. So Candace is a tough one for me. Okay. I'm glad you landed on Hadda, though. Sometimes I feel, sometimes I see some frogs getting a little too Candace curious for my taste. Objectively, she's compelling. She's compelled to watch.

As a podcast person who's trying to, you know, draw an audience and make people interested in what we're talking about because, you know, sometimes it can be depressing or whatever. You know, there are tactics that she uses that are obviously compelling. And she's the camera lights her. But she's also crazy as fucking full. Crazy. Okay, last thing, just going back to the reality show stuff, I do wonder if, like, you think there are any lessons from that? Like, you're on the show, and I don't know, like, for worse, I was about to say for better or

worse. For worse, like, our politics has really merged with Bravo. Like, the Bravo and politics, you know, similarities are hard to avoid. And I do think some Democrats fail at, like, learning reality show lessons. I think the Republicans are good. They're good at feuds. They do fake feuds. Like honestly,

I probably shouldn't have had you on to have a nice podcast. We should have had a fake feud. If we had a fake feud, that would probably have been better for both our shows. Fuck you, Tim, and the horse you wrote in on. You know what I mean? That's what they like. Exactly.

What do you know, Angie? Nothing. Dumb broad. Anyway, so they're good at the feuds. They're good at like creating engaging content, creating things that people want to watch, like stirring up drama. Trump is good at their.

a lot of the Republicans are. The Democrats are not as good at this. I'm just wondering if there are any, like, useful lessons from your reality life you think that could be imparted. Oh, in politics. Here's the deal. Our show was not, we didn't fight or anything. We were the outlier, which is why it didn't last.

People are, they love to see a hot mess. Yeah. So it's like Donald Trump is a lot of things and hot mess is at the top of the list. I mean, he's diabolical. He's evil. All the things. He knows how to be a reality TV show. And you see some Democrats and they're boring.

Like Chuck Schumer was just on. And I'm like, you're the Senate minority leader. And that's all the fire you can muster. He's taking us into the stupidest fucking war I could ever imagine. It's ruining people's lives. And you're like going, well, I don't know about the procedure here. Right. I mean, it's like you have to have some fight.

I think we have to have some fight and some spirit and not be afraid to say, fuck you. Like, you don't get to talk about what's going on in my bedroom. It's none of your fucking business. Mind your own. Like, I think we have to get forceful with people because people like that. Also, not be afraid to screw up. I just think, look, you guys have built a relationship with your audience, right?

Well, if you were Jen, if you came on this show and said something stupid that you regretted or said something wrong, like your audience is going to forgive you, right? Because they know you, right? Like, they know you. They've come to feel like they know you via the show and via social media. and so like that's like a part of Trump's secret to success. Like people feel like, I mean, he's full shit. Like we know that. But like people feel like they know him because he's given them their opinion on everything.

And so if he says something they don't like, so they're just like, whatever. They're either like, that's Trump being Trump or I don't care because I trust him on all these other things. And if you're always boring and always hedging and not showing any of yourself your humanity to people, then people start to wonder. You know what I mean? Then it's easier for people to be like, Like, yeah. Yeah. Right.

No, I agree with that. We have to be more. I mean, and they say authentic. That's overused. But I would like to see some real fire in a politician coming out and saying, we're not doing that. Elon Musk is a nut. He has no business in the federal government. You know, I mean, real talk instead of, well, you know, I do believe there's waste, fraud, and abuse.

And here's ways. It's like, he's not a forensic account and he's a dipshit. Like, no, we're not doing this. But I don't know, we'll see. We'll leave it with that. The podcast, or I've had it, and I hit news. And just go watch the first episode of Sweet Home Oklahoma. I rewatch it yesterday.

You kind of get what you need, I think. I mean, I'm sure the rest of the episodes are good, but it's funny. It's charming. Go back and watch it. That was before a Zimpic in my life. Okay. You look great. Oh, thank you.

I wasn't begging for a compliment, but I was just going to say, like, people say all the time. I was watching it with my friend who I was like, I have pumps on. he's a big fan of the show. So he's like, let me show you at least the first episode. And there were three of you. And I was actually, and I recognized Janet. And I was like, which one is pumps? I couldn't tell because you've had such a great glow up.

So kudos. Thank you. Great show. We're going to do a hard right turn for the podcast, listeners, into serious foreign policy talk to Phil Gordon. And so enjoy that. Pumps. I hope to see in Oklahoma City.

Yes. Let me know if you come up. He was most recently National Security Advisor to Vice President Kamala Harris. During the Obama administration, he was White House coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Gulf region. He also served as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. It's Phil Gordon. How you doing, Phil? Thanks for coming on the show. Thanks for having me on, Tim. Much to discuss. I kind of want to talk about sort of the politics of foreign policy and how the Democrats should think about that.

But first, obviously, we have a lot of news, what's coming out of Varan. And so biggest picture we're taping this Tuesday morning. What are your thoughts on the state of play? We're on a roller coaster and the cycles just keep getting faster and faster, which is to say that, you know, Trump is now pivoting, I think in today's financial times, you know, Ed Luce talked about the Armageddon Taco Shuffle. Like one minute we're threatening to wipe out their power plants, you know, which might even be a war crime.

It would lead to massive escalation and threatening them with strength and power that they've never seen before. And the next, he's talking about serious discussions about a total and complete resolution to the conflict. We might jointly manage the straight. Now, you know, he cycles and pivots all the time. But the degree. We're going to have an iatoll booth on the straight now, actually.

It's going to be Trump. And we don't know who yet. We don't know who the next iatoll is going to be, but they're going to have a joint venture. Look, you can't exclude anything at this point. But my point is that these cycles are getting both more extreme and more rapid. And I thought yesterday was encouraging that at least he didn't take the escalation route. You know, the power plant thing really would have led to deaths of numbers of civilians, Iranian response. It wouldn't have worked to open the street.

So I was encouraged that there does seem to be a limit to his escalation, but that's for now. And like by the time we done taping, we're done taping, something might irritate him. And then we're back on that loop again. And there was some bombing in Iran last night. I mean, some of this is it's hard to kind of process, like, what is coming out of Trump's mouth, you know, what Israel's doing, what the military is doing. And a lot of times it seems like there's not a ton of synchronicity. Well, I mean, he didn't call off all bombing. He didn't say he was going to call off.

He just didn't implement the, remember, he gave them 48 hours to this exact moment and we're going to wipe out their power plant. So he said, I instructed the military not to do that. He didn't say he would stop bombing. And Israel didn't say it would stop bombing. So that goes on, and of course Iran retaliated against Israel. So that's why yesterday, you know, there was a whole bunch of relief. Taco markets went back up as if he backed down. But that was my point about cycles.

Like this, you know, for over three weeks, we've had cycles between he's going to taco and find a way out and he's going to escalate. And we're just still on that roller coaster right now. Yeah. Let's talk about thinking about the Iran posture a little bit, at least publicly. obviously they have their own domestic concerns and, you know, factions and all of that. But, you know, publicly they've been kind of mocking Trump. They've been posting from their various accounts that, you know, in English, you know, memes. That how the Ayatollah isn't replying to his text messages about Trump being a baby, about how he's going to get fired.

You know, at this point, their posture seems towards escalation, at least publicly. So I think they're feeling pretty cocky. There was another one that military spokesman who said Trump was fired, and then he said, you know, thank you for your attention to this matter. So he's mocking him. And then when Trump said we had very serious and deep discussions about a complete and total resolution of the Middle East conflict, they said, you know, we haven't been talking at all, and we're getting our revenge. There's plenty of bluster to go around, and Iran has a history of bluster, so, you know,

you can't read too much into it. But it does seem to suggest that they're feeling cocky, that while they're really getting hit hard from the air, more than three weeks in, they're probably feeling pretty good about where they are. They had their asymmetrical response. They're imposing all the pain that they intended to impose. The regime is still there. The IRGC is still there. Trump is clearly squirming. I mean, he did back down, and that was the problem with this threat. It's classic Trump. The blofeation, big threat, it was never going to work. They were never going to do that in 48 hours. And now he looks weak. And the lifting sanctions on Iranian oil. that looks like a desperate and panic move.

So that's what I think part of it is just for show, but part of it is they're feeling pretty cocky. What is the off ramp at this point? Like what do you see as an off ramp or the possible ones? So I have, my base case has always been a version of declare victory and go home. Yeah. Where, you know,

Trump would have loved this to end, you know, both quickly and comprehensively, where we not only knock back their military forces, but we get out the highly enriched uranium where they have 400 kilograms of this stuff. still where maybe the regime, there's a Delci Rodriguez or even better, you know, a democratic regime. That's what he hoped and wished happened in the first week. It didn't. And the problem is now it

increasing looked like it's not going to. So yes, we did knock back their military forces significantly. That was one war aim. But the H.EU is still there. We don't have a plan for getting it. You know, you could send in special forces hugely risky and all that. And the regime is still there. And we're paying high, you know, the costs, casualties, Gulf economies, and obviously, most importantly, straight of Hormuz, oil prices, U.S. markets, I still think the way out is ultimately for Trump to say, this was, you know, heroic. We decimated their armed forces, we knocked their ballistic missiles out, we hit their bases, we sunk their navy, we killed the Supreme Leader. This is what I said I was going to do, and big success. I still think that is, you know, the, the

the most likely outcome, it's complicated, obviously, because Iran gets a say, and that's what most analysts are now focusing on, even if Trump does taco or pivot or declare victory, does Iran stop the war? And there's an argument out there that it wouldn't, that Iran needs to show that if you hit Iran, you're going to pay a big price and we don't let you finish the war. But the deterrence imperatives on their side, actually, kind of. The Iranian thinking right now is if we let this stop now and Trump gets to declare victory, then Israel and the U.S., just whenever they feel like it, we'll bomb Iran, and they are looking for some sort of guarantee that this won't happen again.

Now, the problem with that, just as I said, Trump has unrealistic objectives, like that guarantee doesn't exist. Like even if we were willing to give it, which we're not, even if this ended and U.S. Israel said, all right, you know, sorry, we'll never do this again. Or even if there was a Security Council resolution or at treatment, You name it. It's not going to guarantee that we're not going to do this again. I think Trump and Netanyahu have shown that, you know, they're willing to do that. So Iran is not going to get what it wants. So I do think it's realistic that Iran will say, no, we won. And we're keeping the straight closed, you know, indefinitely. But at some point, the two sides have to go back and forth. And then Trump says, if you do that, I'll restart the war. So like, that's ugly and messy and it's going to take some time. But ultimately, that is how I think this is. And that time is a real problem because I agreed with what I agreed with you and what a lot of analysts expected that him to do the declare victory after the first weekend and turn around because that's, it has been his political superpower, right? He can create a problem and then just say that he solved the problem.

And he has this huge megaphone and a huge, you know, propaganda support that kind of allows him to get credit for that in a way that your former boss is like couldn't have. And so that could have worked for him. That's tough now, though. Like, as you're saying, like even if you stop today, and we talk to Joe Wisenthal about the economics of this, like, you know, we're talking about months of economic disruption. If Iran keeps it going for a while, you know, that just elongates that. I'm sure, there'll be some Trump cult members that go along with whatever he says, but it is a little bit tougher to go back to the American people and say, hey, we won if what you did was just bomb some Iranian boats and the consequences are significant economic pain that everybody feels. Like, that's a tough sell. It's a tough sell.

And because there would be a lot that we didn't accomplish and we would have paid a very high price. That said, as you suggested, that is his superpower. You know, other presidents would be worried about credibility and, you know, my word, if I said I was going to do this and I didn't. She does not have that problem. He has backed down before. He did it after Liberation Day on tariffs, pulled back. Or think about, you know, Greenland. Remember the Greenland framework?

Yeah. So we had to have Greenland. Yeah, critical. We had 100%. There was no possible other option, and we were going to impose increasing tariffs in February and June and maybe even use military force. And then the Europeans stood up to him. Markets got shaken a little bit. And he announced that there was a framework and he went away and he moved on to the next thing and next thing, you know, then we're talking about other issues including Iran. So like, would it be awkward and would people like you and others and me say,

oh, you know, he didn't accomplish, of course. But he would move on to the next thing. And, you know, arguably it beats the alternative, which is keeping it going and going and going and, you know, have the price rise and unpopularity really weigh on his politics. To this point about how he has this ability to this where others don't, you posted this on Twitter the other day. I'm going to read part of it. When Obama sent Iran 400 million plus 1.3 billion in interest in 2016, Trump called it insane. And he and others spent a decade mocking the idea of pallets of cash, even though it was Iran's own sanctioned money, American prisoners released and Iran had just agreed to significant and verified reductions in its nuclear program for 15 years. Now, Trump is giving around up to 10 times that amount of revenue in exchange for marginal and temporary relief from the big increase in oil prices his actions have caused without any concessions from Tehran.

And even as Iran continues to target the United States, its allies and world oil supplies. So, I mean, that's pretty stark for people that are paying attention to this. but it's also telling about the power of their propaganda. That's kind of an illustration of the point I was just making. His willingness, others might think, boy, if I unsanctioned Iranian oil, they're going to come back at me and say, like, you know, you criticize something far less for which we got far more. Other humans and leaders might be reluctant to do that.

But he just does it. His supporters believe him, and he moves on. So in a way, that is the type of thing that suggests how he could get out of it as well. But on the substance of that, and you read it, so little to add to what I already said. But it is really thinking about, and that's why I called it a desperate and panicked mood. Iran will have seen that, that he's willing to do the opposite of everything he's stood for on this issue for over a decade. Because he's so worried about the oil prices, he's even willing to let Iran earn revenues. And if you saw, you know, Scott Bessent tried to explain this in the weekend shows, you realize that like.

It really is 10x, you think? No, I don't. And that's, and we should be careful with the numbers. I don't think it's 10x because that would imply that Iran was getting $0 for this oil. So the oil is floating out there in ships. That would mean that the expectation is they were going to get zero, and now they're going to get full price. Neither of those is true. They would probably get the oil anyway, which is why it won't bring down the oil price,

because it's actually on international markets. And they still probably won't pay full price because even though we authorized it, you know, American buyers just aren't going to buy. Iranian oil for other reasons. But tell the other Asian countries, well, and they are going to end up making more money than they would have. Yes, and it won't bring down the oil price. So, like, what are they doing?

That's why I say, you know, he was just desperate for something that might take a bit of the edge off of oil prices. And meanwhile, as, you know, as I said in that tweet, we did that in the context of a long-term deal where Iran was, you know, getting rid of nuclear capacity and so on. He's doing it while we're at war with Iran. So any revenue that they get from this is going to be used against us as opposed in the other context. So that brings us to the JCPOA. You know, obviously you were in there working for the vice president, but during the Biden-Harris administration,

why was there not more emphasis on trying to reenter that? Like what was basically the contours of those conversations during the Trump interregnum? Right. So I was in the White House when the Biden administration when we didn't go back to it. I was in the White House under Obama when we negotiated it and had been a strong. supporter of that deal, not because it was perfect. But I think, you know, what has happened since justifies the deal. I mean, it did deal with their nuclear program. The only, this is not a place to, like, rehash the JCPOA and I'll answer your current question, but I do want to under-

We can't if you want. Well, exactly, why not? Why not? The reason they have highly enriched uranium, the thing we're so worried about, and the reason, you know, Trump bombed them last summer is because Trump pulled out of that deal, which prohibited them from having highly enriched uranium. And Trump bombed Fordo last summer, was very proud of it. But the JCPOA didn't allow them to enrich at Fordo. So the problem we're dealing with now to this day is to a large degree because Trump tore up the JCPOA, a problem of his own making.

And so right now, Iran has 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium because that deal isn't in place. Now, the obvious follow-up to the question, that question is the one you asked. Like, why didn't the Biden administration resume that deal? I think, honestly, looking back, I wish we had. I think we could have gotten some extension of it. It didn't last forever.

There were sunsets. But even under the expiring deal, you know, people criticized it because certain provisions lasted 10 years, some 15, some 20. The main ones capping their enrichment levels were 15 years, which is to say it lasted until 2031. Would there have been something to discuss in 2031, of course. But that means it would have lasted all the way through a Biden term and then a Harris term, even if we just went along with the old provisions, let alone extended it.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is like, do you think that was it a policy disagreement with Biden about the deal or do you think it was just the blowback against the deal and what you had just said, like all the criticism about the pallets of cash, et cetera, made it feel like it wasn't worth the political cause. or was it something about the relationship with Israel and, you know, 10th, October 7th? Like, what was the reason? So I think a bit of all of the above. And again, looking back, I think we were probably too sensitive to the politics of it and perception.

I mean, you know, just as a factual matter. Especially because nobody really cares, actually. Like, it's like such a tiny percentage of people in D.C. That actually care about the substance of the JCPOA critique would be one reason to care less about the politics. Maybe with the caveat of the asterisks that some senators did care. and then there was a law that any new nuclear deal with Iran would have had to be ratified, and it's not guaranteed that we could have ratified it. So that's another, that's a more legitimate hesitation.

My own view, looking back, is I wish we had taken that on. So candidate Biden campaigned on going back into the JCPOA. Kamala Harris supported that. I was for it. That was like the Democratic position, and it was the Biden-Harris position. And then once he was elected and took office, it was, boy, there's a lot of, of opposition on the Hill, all these critiques. Let's try to get a better deal, remember longer and stronger. Sure. So the go in position was, yes, we do support the JCPOA, but, you know,

things are different now, getting closer to the deadlines. Let's try to get a better deal with the legitimate concern that Congress might not have supported a deal if it, quote, unquote, wasn't good enough because they would have to ratify any new deal. Looking back, I wish, and I don't like to give Trump credit for anything, but one thing he has shown. own an ability to do is just say like, here's what we're doing. And if you don't like it, tough. And I would have liked to test the proposition, have the president say, look, I campaigned on this, the American people support it. We're going back into the deal. And I'm going to make my case and put the onus on senators to reject it if that's what they were going to do. Now, obviously,

Trump controls his Congress in the way that Biden never did. So it was much harder for us to do what I kind of wish we had done. Because had we done it, that would have still prevented Iran from moving towards the nuclear capability all the way through the Biden term and the Harris term. And then we would not be a problem. You wrote an op-ed about this last year, actually, that the details of Wedge, given what's happened in Iran over the last three weeks, feel a little bit shakier about whether Trump can actually do things without political costs.

But I think that the broader point is something that resonates with me. And it was, the headline was, what Democrats can learn from Trump's approach to the Middle East, the willingness to challenge, received wisdom can yield results without political costs. And you kind of go through a list of things that he did, you know, moving the embassy, whatever, like, you know, meeting with the new Syrian leader. Like, you talk all these things that Democrats might be too cautious to do because they're worried that they're going to get criticized on the panel on cable news that night. Just riff on that a little more.

No, you gave a few examples, but other examples, he was also negotiating with Iran. Now we know it like it didn't work out and he bombed Iran, but he was prepared to negotiate with Iran, potentially do a deal. Even if like traditional Republicans might not have supported it, he showed a willingness. And had he gotten something, he would have just done it and said like go along. You mentioned sitting down with the new, you know, former terrorist leader of Syria. He negotiated with Hamas directly. We would have been killed for that and we would have been afraid of doing it. He did a ceasefire with the Houthis that excluded it.

Israel. Remember, you know, he escalated against the Houthis as well, which is relevant the current context. We could talk about that because it's interesting they haven't joined the fight yet, and that could be another huge cost on us if they do and they block the Red Sea. But he thought he could escalate against the Houthis. Biden was weak. I'm going to bomb them and they're going to come along, but they didn't. And then we started, you know, the cost started to rise a billion dollars a week. And then he just said, all right, that's off. And they didn't promise not to strike Israel, but he did it anyway. And there were later examples, including on the Gaza ceasefire. that he finally negotiated, and it looked like Israel was going to say, no, it's not good enough,

we need more. And Trump said, no, it is good enough. I'm taking Hamas's yes for an answer, even though it was a complete yes. So that's a long list of things, including, or maybe in particular in the Middle East, where he was just willing to say, look, this is what I'm doing. And if people don't like it, you know, too bad. So I do like have nostalgia and regret that we couldn't and didn't do more of that. But I will acknowledge, as I alluded to, it's just structurally different. He had a Congress that was going to be in a party that would just be completely compliant, and we didn't. He has a cult and we didn't. Yeah, he's a cult, yeah. Even still, strong and wrong, because with the Democrats, you see it on both sides. Like,

there's being scared of their own shadow on both sides, right? It's scared of the Republican critique. They're going to call them too weak, you know, but also, you know, scared of the internal you know, dynamic. Sometimes it's a left flank. Sometimes it's kind of the center flank. I just, you know, it depends on the situation, right? But I don't, strong and wrong, I think, because you're talking about the politics of it and not just the policy. Strong and wrong goes a lot, a long way. And sort of authenticity goes a long way to, like, this is my view. And, you know, I respect you if you have a different view. And the JCPI is a good example of that. It had been our view for 10 years, like we were right. And to just say, that's an example where I think

we could have, should have, and like should now. Yes, some will criticize this and they'll play politics with it. But here's why it's right and here's why we're doing it. And I think people respect that too. Liss is less of a complimentary trait, but the shamelessness also goes a long ways. Shameless is about changing views, shamelessness about whatever. When I told people I was having you on, obviously the number one question everybody wanted me to ask you is like, why didn't the vice president just distance herself from the Biden

in policy more, particularly with regards to Gaza. A lot of the feedback you get sometimes is like, well, would that have been believable? You know, would there have been blowback on that? It's the type of thing that if you're taking this lesson that you could have just said, no, I was against it and kind of bullied through that if that was her view. And I wonder whether you think that was the holdup, whether it was political concerns or something else. So I have a couple of things on that.

I mean, first of all, what we're talking about is not a sitting vice president of the United States. Like if she were just some random candidate or the president, we're both saying, I think there's a time for like, this is my view, like it or not, authenticity, strength, whatever. That is not ideal if you're the vice president of the United States and you've been supporting a policy all along. You know, she did speak out a couple of times that even, you know, raised some tensions at the White House in Dubai. And she talked about Palestinian suffering and in Selma the following spring and really made clear her feelings about what was happening. in Gaza and starvation and the need to support Palestinians, but she was also the vice president.

And even once she became the nominee, I mean, just think that through. We were also making policy and trying to get a ceasefire and to advertise in advance a strong difference with the president or maybe even, you know, willingness to stop sending arms to Israel while he's trying to use pressure on Hamas to get a ceasefire. Like that is not only not a good look, but it's not a good. policy. And I just don't think, you know, she was going to run the risk of affecting policy that the president of the United States was making. The risk of Donald Trump becoming president, I think, was a lot greater than the risk of her position impacting that negotiation, I think.

And so I do think it was kind of, and I interviewed her a couple months ago and said this. I think it was incumbent upon her on this and across a number of different areas to, like, ignore, you know, niceties or short-term political considerations or short-term geopolitical considerations in favor of doing the best she could in order to defeat Donald Trump, given the scale of the threat. Well, I certainly agree with that. Like winning this election and preventing Trump from being a president, arguably, you know, Trump's, no pun intended, virtually any other goal. I wouldn't minimize, you know, geopolitical concerns. There was a war going on. The most, it was really important to end it. obviously the Biden policy didn't work.

I mean, famously, it was only 107 days, you know, so people could have waited for the 107 days, you know, not to, again, not to minimize it. But also, this critique assumes that a different policy would have potentially won her the election. I'm not sure that's true. I mean, for a whole range of reasons. I haven't been convinced by the logic and, you know, I did policy and not politics, but the idea that she had a different tone or stance on Gaza, which is,

is not to say, and I've myself written about this and said we should have done different things differently on Gaza. So I'm not defending that, but I am questioning the notion that if she had come out for, you know, take your pick, something different on Gaza, that would have actually affected the result of the election. Yeah, who knows? What could have reflected in the result? My view is more that getting distance from Biden across a range of issues with this being one of them was absolutely necessary. It is one of them. I mean, I think immigration would have been on that list too. And there I do look back with regret that she didn't more clearly articulate her own views on the immigration question. You know, by the time she was candidate, we had actually

made some policy shifts. The EO, the president did early in the summer. But she could never really answer the question, well, if that was a good idea, like, why didn't you guys do it two or three years ago? So was there, I mean, you briefed her and stuff in private. I'm not asking you to betray confidences, but just generally speaking, like, were her views different than the policy on Gaza and immigration? So on Gaza, were they different? Yeah, I think it's fair to say they were different. And like that came out, even though, you know,

she was a super loyal vice president. She never split with the president, didn't say anything that, you know, didn't clear with the system to make sure everybody was comfortable with it. But I think you could see where her gut was on the issue. When she did the Selma speech

and called for a ceasefire and described that, you know, what should come from it, She was essentially using the same words Biden had used, but the way she used them, you could just tell. I mean, people felt like this was sincere. She had a passion. She cared about the issue. And people didn't get the same feeling from Biden. She addressed this issue, I think, very clearly throughout. The press conference after she saw Netanyahu, remember Trump once said, like, she refused to meet Denia. She didn't refuse to meet him. She did meet him. She didn't go to his speech to Congress while Gaza was going on.

But she did address the issue and said she always believed Israel had the right to defend itself and should have the means to defend itself. But then she spoke about the Palestinian issue in a way that I think showed a sort of instinctive feeling that was different from what the president's was. Let's have a little fun now with the counterfactual. You do have some of the left-wing critics who say that what's happening now, both parties are the same. we've had a, you know, bipartisan efforts into the Middle East. I mean, shoot, you've, you wrote a book called The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East. You were her top foreign policy advisor. I want to play for you a clip of a couple months ago now, in fairness.

This is Hassan Piker responding to a commenter saying that Conlo wouldn't be getting us into this mess in the Middle East. Let's listen to that. I'll tell you this. If Kamala Harris are president now, we wouldn't be drifting in the world with Iran right now. Trump is a fagless failure. We would be doing the. exact same thing that we're doing right now. The only difference would be

the only difference in terms of our dealings with Israel and Iran, we were doing the 100% verbatim the exact same shit. 100%. The only thing that would be marginally different would be the way that the Democrats are actually talking

about why we must do it. We'd be talking a whole game about how homophobic Iran is and how we must liberate the women there. we'd probably be a little bit more tactful about trying to implement regime change, be a little bit more competent in our imperial ambitions. But by and large, we know exactly what it looks like. You were a foreign policy advisor.

Is that true? Would we be doing the exact same thing? No. And the thing about counterfactuals is, of course, like you can say whatever you want. Like, I can't prove he was wrong. We'll never know. Kind of you could. I mean, do you imagine yourself being the national security advisor

for someone doing a regime change war in Iran? No. As you said, I wrote a whole book on how regime change in the Middle East always goes wrong and that we always seem to follow these same patterns of exaggerating the threat and then overstating what we can accomplish with military force and then finding out

their unintended consequences and then declaring victory because you think it's around the corner and then finding out that the costs are, and like that pattern we have repeated over and over again and lo and behold, it's exactly what Trump is doing, right? So suddenly Iran was an imminent threat. We couldn't survive a day longer unless we used force, and force would

save protesters and get rid of the regime and deal with the nuclear issue. And even the declare victory thing. He did that a number of times. He said, we've accomplished more in the first weeks we ever imagine. But then you find unintended consequences. Oil price, strikes on neighbors, Russia benefiting, running out of interceptors in Ukraine. So he is falling into the very trap that, you know, I wrote a whole book about, thought a lot about. And then I think that, you know, I think, you know, Kamala Harris would share in terms of perspectives. And she, she was very critical, you know, looking back about on Afghanistan and agreed that we needed to end that war after 20 years, very critical of the Iraq war. So the idea that she would go into this with the same attitude as Trump.

Now, to be fair, Trump, you know, was a critic of all of those things, kind of ran on the campaign of avoiding war. But, no, that just doesn't resonate with me. She supported the. Iran nuclear deal. She understood that Afghanistan and Iraq had gone, you know, terribly wrong and just, you know, wouldn't have done, I think, what we're seeing now. And when Trump did it, she was very clear about what she thought about what he was doing. So to me, this speaks to, I think, the Democrats brand issue on foreign policy. And like you said, you're a policy person, not as much to the politics. But I'm curious your view on this, like going forward now, because you get a little bit into the sour spot, right? We have guys like Hassan saying, there's no difference between, you know,

Harris and the people that got us into the Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan wars. Like, you have this left-wing, you know, kind of anti-Israel base of the party that is unhappy with the Democratic Party on foreign policy issues. And then you have like a center, centrist group that thinks that the Democratic Party is too weak, you know, that Biden-Harris did not do enough to support Ukraine. train, you know, that the Biden, Biden Harris wouldn't have done enough to, you know, that the Afghanistan withdrawal was a disaster. And so, like, you end up in this place where you have groups on both sides that care unhappy, right, with you. And so how does that get repaired going forward? Thinking about a few issues, you know, kind of how the Democrats, you know, could maybe more authentically

be anti-war, how do they think about Israel, how do they think about using military power? What would you recommend to the folks that are starting to think about this? So you are right that the party is divided. I mean, you've just got to be honest. All of those views are represented, which doesn't make it easy. And the issues are so. People are passionate for good reason. And, you know, not just about Gaza, but Iran, military intervention, Ukraine. These are like really serious issues. So it's hard to just allied them or sweep them aside. There's going to be a debate on these things. And everyone is not going to be happy because you kind of have to choose, which goes back to my point, about, you know, strong and wrong and authentic and whoever the candidates are, I think we'll just have to make a choice and say, look, this is what I believe, feel strongly about it, here's why, and if you don't like it, vote for somebody else. Now, there's obviously going to be a tendency to try to, you know, bridge the gap. That's going to be hard on certain issues. It actually won't be hard on Iran because I think there's a pretty strong consensus that...

That's a disaster. Yeah, that this is a disaster and we wouldn't have done it. Some may be more sympathetic to the threat that Iran did pose than others. Some would minimize it totally and others would recognize that it exists. And I think Kamala Harris would be in that camp. I would too. Iran is a threat. It's not an easy issue to deal with. But we just had better and different ideas about how to do so.

I think on Israel, where that was so divisive under Biden and Vice President Harris had to deal with her views. and supporting the president. I think it's still going to be controversial, but I think the politics on that have changed. And I think what in the past, and even the fairly recent past, something like arms conditionality

was just a bridge too far, would be deeply divisive, and a politician would be nervous about it. I think it points in the other direction now, and I've addressed that myself and think we should have gone in that direction earlier and it should do so now. What about the question

of just ending military assistance for Israel altogether. I mean, I come with this as a former Republican. There have been a lot of pro-Israel people that held this view. I mean, this was Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin's view for a long time, that it's like under, that basically what is happening now would happen. I mean, you hate to hand it to those guys, but like they saw this coming. It's like if Israel's that dependent on us, eventually that will breed resentments and, you know, the American people will start to, you know, turn against Israel and that they need to figure out, you know, how to fund their own

military. To me, that seems logical and like something that Democrats could do in 2028. Where are you on that? Agree. I think that issue has gone from something that would have been like bold and risky and controversial and moderate politician would shy away from to probably the base case. You know, I was in the Obama administration and Obama proposed to extend that MOU. And that was like a, you know, seemed to be smart politics show that you, you know, had Israel's back for a long period of time to come. I think now it would be tough to make the case that the U.S. taxpayers should be funding this pretty rich country. And I think that's probably where we're headed. Now, conditionality would affect arms sales as well as giving them money.

But I think that's probably where most of the Democratic candidates will be, like looking to wind that down. thinking about how to deal with our allies and then also Trump's new corrupt allies. So let's do the latter first. El Salvador cut a deal with Donald Trump where they started housing prisoners illegally. How should the Democrats think about how to deal with somebody like that going forward? Trump is in business with multiple leaders in the Gulf states. UA.E is in business with this family. Saudi is in business with his family. Qatar is giving him a plane. How do the Democrats, Assuming we get out of this and you have somebody coming in 2029, how do they deal with, you know, those nation states and our relationships with them and whether there needs to be accountability? Yeah, it remains stunning to me that there hasn't been more of a political price for such overt corruption. I mean, it's not even hidden. And let alone, we haven't talked about like markets. I began this conversation about the roller coaster and the wild swings. And, you know, the way they're timed when markets opening and closing, the opportunity and, you know, according to.

to some reporting, not just opportunity, but people take advantage of the opportunity to make money off of that is off the charts. And it's kind of disappointing to me that, like, that's not more of an issue. So many administrations in which I served, people were rightly just so sensitive about any perception of double-dealing, corruption, and everything went through ethics lawyers. I had to refrain from, like, even speaking at a think tank dinner if, you know, there was a meal served and that exceed, Like, there were people looking at the details of all of that, and now it's just in our face and doesn't seem to hurt the president's support. But it has to be an issue for Democrats to run on that anyway.

There's still, let's hope, Americans out there that don't want to see our country run as a kleptocracy like others. And, again, whoever the candidates are, whether it's, you know, legislation or commitments. Now, you know, press administrations are pretty firm on commitments of people serving. I think, you know, Jared Kushner is someone who is, you know, seen to be doing business while in the administration. We jumped through so many hoops. They passed the law that you couldn't have a special advisor for more than a year without support from Congress. And then, like, he's just serving in the administration, just blowing through that. I guess I also mean, though, what about our relationships with those countries?

Do we just move on? Like, nothing happened? Or, like, are there threats, investigations? I mean, imagine how Trump would deal with, if you would have come in and it would come out that like Hunter Biden really was making 500 million dollars, a billion dollars in a deal with some other country. I mean, I think that there would be a lot of threats and browbeating and, you know, forcing, you know, mea culpas, who the hell knows, right? I like, I'd feel like that was like a critique of the Biden administration last time is that everybody's just like, let's move forward. can you just move forward and have normalized relationships with Buckele and MBS and all these guys after? We're going to have to see where we are at the time. I'm not sure. We don't have someone speaking for the part. We don't know who the next president's going to be who could come out right now and say, I'm putting down a marker. These will be the following consequences for anybody who's dealing with Trump. But you can come out and say that these are things that we're not going to participate in. They're not going to be tolerated. We'll remember who does what?

and investigate and we can investigate at least we can investigate yeah and that's you know all the more reason of the need to take congress and congress should and can investigate and bring to light what has been happening both you know internally and externally and then what about the ally side of this i mean we also the mark carney speech earlier this year just talking about the way that the world is reorienting and it's kind of like again you know fool me once shame on you uh full me twice shame on me i think for a lot of our more traditional allies. And it's like, okay, let's say that, well, whoever, you know, some normal Democrat gets in next time.

Are those relationships repairable? Are things permanently changed? No, I get that question a lot from those allies. They're sort of like asking me, like, you know, is there any chance that you guys come back and we can repair these relationships or does Trump represent something, you know, just fundamentally different? And I wish I could promise that, you know, the last. wasn't the case, you know, because as I was just saying, you know, he got a lot of support.

He won twice. Clearly, he reflects some attitude and a lot of its resentment towards allies. I would like to believe that it's possible to come back to some respect for the importance of allies, for international law, for multilateral organizations. And if nothing else, Trump is showing us the value of those things. Straight of Hormuz thing was just a classic, where he just, you know, for over a year, treats our allies terribly, you know, does unilateral tariffs, demands an unbalanced trade deal, threatens to take Greenland with a military force, disparages their contributions to Afghanistan,

and then launches this war that they weren't consulted about. And then he shows up and says, like, you guys have to bail us out, bail me out in the strait. That's a great example of how treating allies terribly comes back to backfire. And I'd like to believe we, you know, Americans are seeing that and Trump is making a great case for you know treating allies with respect and and working with him I think I kind of felt like Greenland was a turning point on this issue yeah because right up through Greenland you know Davos Trump's learned experience was the allies would just suck it up and take it and we could do whatever we wanted the unilateral tariffs unbalanced trade deal what a on Ukraine and they would just come rushing after him praising him

flattering him, making concessions to him. But on Greenland, for whatever reason, it was just a bridge too far. And to that, when he said, I'm going to, you know, give me Greenlander, I impose tariffs, they said, well, we'll do counter tariffs. And we've got this anti-coercion instrument that'll punish your firms and will deploy troops to Greenland. And that started to affect U.S. markets. And then Trump, you know, invented this framework and back down. So I think that was a kind of turning point where the Europeans realized, you know, leveraged. against Trump works too, and sometimes you actually have to stand up to them. And they did the same thing on the straight of home moves. You're having conversations with a lot of, you know, folks around the world

who are kind of looking at various threats. What else is on people's mind? Well, the biggest thing on their mind is like the threat from us. And, you know, just like I think we both said earlier, that us winning the last election or the next one is the biggest geopolitical issue of our time. I think they would agree with that too. Because if America is, you know, is not an ally and a force for good and law and stability and justice, then everybody's in trouble. And I think they realize the degree to which they are in trouble. I think a lot of our allies, especially in Europe, were in denial for most of the first year, just like they were in denial for most of the first term of Trump, that, you know, okay, it was a tough patch, but he'll go away

and someone else will come back. And Biden kind of reassured them, you know, traditional views, America is back. And then the first year, too, they just, like, hope to get through it. But it is starting to sink in just how much they have to worry about. And so for the whole world, the stakes in our election, in our next election, just couldn't be higher. That's Phil Gordon. I really appreciate the time, man. Good to meet you.

Thanks for having me on. All right. Thanks so much to both of our guests today. I've wanted to have both of them on for a minute. And we've got such a good schedule this week. We just gave you all a double header. So hope you enjoyed the jumbo pie. I really appreciate Pumps and Phil Gordon for coming on the show.

We got a new guest tomorrow that I'm excited about. So make sure to check your feeds. We'll see you all then. The Borg podcast is brought to you thanks to the work of lead producer Katie Cooper, Associate producer Ansley Skipper, and with video editing by Katie Lutz, and audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.