The Bulwark Podcast - S2 Ep1047: Susan Glasser: American in Name Only

Episode Date: May 21, 2025

On deportations and on foreign policy, the Trump administration is swapping out American values and violating everything the U.S. has stood for in exchange for kleptocracy and transactionalism with the world's worst tyrants. But at the same time, Trump can't even seem to grasp that Putin has been waging war for decades to accomplish his goals and is not interested in cutting a deal to end the bloodshed in Ukraine. Plus, the very dim appointees running our federal agencies, Elon and Marco are now trying to deny they cut food aid, and the unwelcome honorific of being a Trump historian. Susan Glasser joins join Tim Miller. show notes Susan on Trump's plane envy The Playboy interview The president of Finland on a golf course with Trump

Hello and welcome to the Bullard podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. Delighted to have back staff writer at the New Yorker, which is a weekly column on life in Washington. She's the co-author of The Divider, Trump in the White House, which she co-wrote with her husband, Peter Baker, former Moscow bureau chief for the Washington Post. It's Susan Glasser. What's up, Susan? Hey, Tim. Great to be with you. Much to discuss. You're back from Estonia? I understand.

That is right. Got to go to Tallinn. It's an awesome place. Seriously, I'm actually a huge Estonia super fan. Pete Slauson Jeb was a huge Estonia super fan and Tallinn's been on my list. I don't think it's going to happen for me on my vacation this summer, but you know, hopefully next time you're invited to a panel, maybe you can nominate me as a co-panelist. I understand you're with the presidents of Estonia, Slovenia and Finland. I'm curious, what was the buzz there? Which one of those presidents do you like the most?

Well, it was a kind of an intimidating group, I have to say. It was the closing panel and I guess they decided this was the best they could do for American representation. Okay. But, you know, it's very interesting because Alex Stubbe is the president of Finland and you may not know this, I forgive you, you know, European president trivia, but he was a star golf player back in the day. And so his fellow Europeans, he's also a super brilliant, actually academic turned politician. So his fellow Europeans thought

it would be a really good idea to make him their designated Trump whisperer. And they sent him to Mar-a-Lago to play golf with the president. He spent seven hours doing that. And he has become a big proponent of the Engage Trump, wherever possible, school of European diplomacy. So it was very interesting to hear what he had to say. And I think the basic point is they need to be in Trump's ear more because there are a lot of people who are definitely not on the same page when it comes to the war in Ukraine and Europe and lots of other issues. Maybe just move to Palm Beach. Can you run Finland from South Florida, you know, and just kind of become a Mar-a-Lago member?

It would definitely be a lot warmer. Definitely be a lot warmer. But he was also then on the phone call the very next day after our panel with European leaders and Trump after Trump's phone call with Vladimir Putin. And I don't think things went quite so well for the Europeans in that call. Is the tone there, I mean, even off panel, like when you're talking to folks, just like, we've got to start to plan for no America, or is it more, you know, we can butter this guy up and buy his cryptocurrency and make it work or, you know, we'll just, you know, ride the way bumpy waves. Like, what's the mindset among the Eastern European crowd? Yeah, I mean, look, this is a group of people whose security depends, not just on the

outcome of the war in Ukraine, but on, you know, Trump, not completely blowing up NATO on, you know, what happens after the Ukraine war, you can't go to Estonia and not be aware of the vulnerability of the small countries who we accepted into NATO a couple of decades ago. small countries who we accepted into NATO a couple decades ago. I think this was a the West is over kind of crowd, a sense that it's not just a question of waiting a few more years for the US to snap back. It's really a very post-American conversation in many ways now, except I will say this, I still feel that

in their heart of hearts, they can't fully accept this. And you know, so there will continue to be you seeing this phenomenon in the Republican Party. It's not dissimilar to the phenomenon among our European allies and partners, because there's no obvious and easy solutions that don't involve the United States when it comes to how to confront Russia. And so, you know, there's a sort of a despair, but they keep, you know, the hope stays alive for these folks. Okay, well, maybe he's going to consider the sanctions. We they've assured us that he's not going to blow up NATO. They actually did have Trump's NATO ambassador come to this conference, which was interesting, Matt Whitaker that he chose to show up. But the flip side was the hopefulness. It's dash the very next day, right?

On Monday, oh, all of a sudden, wait a minute, America isn't on board with sanctions, even when Putin doesn't choose to go along with us. And so from my perspective, the rhetoric I'm hearing is tougher than in Trump's first term from the Europeans, right? Like they claim that they're more reality-based, but the vibe is still a bit of denial. They can't really believe it.

I forgot that middling Iowa football star, Matt Whitaker was our NATO ambassador. That was a fact I knew and talked about on the podcast, but just, you only have so much room in your brain for all these characters. And so that's interesting that he was there. Did you talk to him when he was there? I did not, but I saw him bustling around importantly, multiple times. He definitely had the most kind of middle America football vibe of anyone who was attending the security conference in Tallinn. I did talk to a lot of senior Europeans who feel that maybe they can avoid being at the center of Trump's attention because that's usually not a good thing.

But that's a kind of a best case scenario for them. In some ways, there might be some relief if he moves on from his idea that he's going to make a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, because I think they're so worried about what the terms of that would be. Well, that's a nice transition into that. So you mentioned that call. So we talked yesterday with David French about the Trump-Putin call, which was two hours apparently, and the Trump-Putin call, which was two hours apparently, and the readouts of which were quite different. A very Russian reserved calculated readout from the Putin side, the Trump, a braggadocious readout from the Trump side. And then as you mentioned,

there's then this follow-up call with the European stakeholders. And reports from the FT are pretty bleak about that call. Two people briefed on the call said Trump was clear he'd pulled the US back from engaging with the conflict and leave Ukraine and Russia to directly negotiate a ceasefire. He made no promise of future US sanctions against Russia. A different person familiar with the conversation said Trump was not ready to put greater pressure on Putin. Shocking.

What do you make about kind of that fallout? Yeah. I mean, I think this is a great example is that where Trumpology, if you will, often fails is because people who have a lot riding on the outcome of Trump will listen to the word of his staff or his enablers rather than kind of looking at what it wears Trump himself at. On the Ukraine, it's just been very clear for a very long time that Trump is not on the same team as the Europeans.

I understand diplomacy has to occur no matter what and seek to find space even where it doesn't exist. That's why as journalists are probably not well suited to that occupation because it requires to a certain extent the willful suspension of disbelief. When it comes to Putin and Trump, we've got eight years of a record here that suggests that Trump is looking to reset US ties with Russia and that that is the goal that stymied the war in Ukraine, that secondary to that bigger goal of a US-Russia reset that I think Trump has been pursuing since he entered political

life. I was really struck. There was a quote at the very bottom of the Washington Post write-up of this Putin-Trump call that I think really summed it up. And it was from Konstantin Kostyachev, who is the head of the Foreign Affairs Council and the Federation Council, sorry, committee and the Federation Council in the Russian Parliament. And he basically said, yeah, it's clear from this call, there are two sides in these negotiations. There's a US Russia side and a Ukraine European side. And you know, first of all, that's a gut punch of a quote.

But second of all, it's hard to take issue with that. I think that's accurate at the moment. Yeah, sure. And even to the extent that, you know, that the Trump administration, maybe not Trump himself, are trying to paper over that reality and at times talk about how Russia needs to step up and come to the table and it's time for them to do so and leaving the door open, as you mentioned, some staff leaving the door open to sanctions. The general contours of this have been pretty clear for a while.

You talked about the Trumpology of it, like the criminology of it is pretty clear, right? Like Putin's statements are all so qualified. You know, well, like with the beginnings of a, we're looking into the outlines of an agreement and there's more negotiation to come. Like meanwhile, stepping up the bombing, It's pretty clear that Putin sees this as these guys don't have the stomach for this, even if they were on the Ukraine Europe side. They're not going to stick around. If I can just keep stalling for time, eventually they're going

to do what they might be doing imminently, which is just walking away from this altogether. Yeah, Tim, I agree with your reading of the situation. If anything, I would say it's even more embarrassing for the Trump administration than that because Putin has already succeeded in getting Trump to abandon the goal that he outlined from the beginning. Trump said that he was demanding an immediate ceasefire that would then be followed by longer term peace talks. Okay. That that was the precondition. He's now given that up.

He basically handed that to Vladimir Putin who had to concede nothing in order to get that. So Trump's entire performative, you know, metaphorically beating the crap out of Vladimir Zelensky in the Oval Office was all designed to get Zelensky to go along with his extortionate minerals deal, but also with this demand for a 30 day ceasefire on the front end with no other conditions imposed on Russia. Now, Zelensky went along with that and Putin said, yeah, no, I'm not going to do that. And Trump, rather than saying, okay, well, there are costs to you for not agreeing to this, said, okay. So he's abandoned the entire

negotiating position that the US was setting up over the last three months. I mean, it's a really interesting example of Donald Trump and his alleged deal making prowess, the people who studied closely what Trump has done in the diplomatic arena as president in his first term and so far in his second term, he's not a very good deal maker. No, to say the least. Trying to divine the criminology of what's going on in Washington these days is something we're all working on. So I got Susan Glasser on the podcast today.

If you're looking for other folks who have their finger on the pulse, NPR Politics Podcast is a place that I go to decode what's happening over on the Hill and what every decision out there might mean for me and you. Every day, the NPR Politics Podcast team focuses on just one thing and blows it down to just 15 minutes or less. You can think of it as your political multivitamin. Obviously, I'm having more of a freewheeling conversation over here, trying to get into people's feelings.

You don't always got time for that. I mean, I always got time for it. But when you're consuming other people's information, it turns out like to have an alternative that's like tight. Give me what I need. Just the facts, ma'am. And the NPR politics team does a great job for that. You can listen now to the NPR politics podcast only from NPR wherever you get podcasts. Do you ever look at political headlines and go, huh? Well, that's exactly why the NPR Politics Podcast exists. We're experts, not just on politics, but in making politics make sense. Every episode, we decode everything that happened in Washington and help you figure out what it all means. Give politics a chance with

the NPR Politics Podcast, available wherever you get your podcasts. Broadening it out from what's happening in this negotiation to what we saw in the Middle East, you know Trump offers this what his Enablers and like kind of the fancy MAGA foreign policy types around him want to fashion into some doctrine with his speech in Saudi Arabia that I put the audio yesterday of Marco Rubio talking about how this is the most important foreign policy speech since the Brandenburg Gate or whatever. And you offered this explanation for the Trump doctrine, which I'd like for you to expand on, which I think is basically right. Trump's foreign policy doctrine is not a doctrine at all, but a way of life defined by extreme

transactionalism and self-interest. And that's really what it comes down to in both the Europe situation and what we see in the Middle East, right? Yeah, absolutely. And I think that's why actually Trump going to the Middle East for his first extended foreign policy trip of both his first term and his second term is really the tell here. Donald Trump wants to sort of be in the bizarre, and he's kind of value neutral about what's going to happen in the bizarre, except that good things should happen for him and his

interests. That's largely defined as, in a very personal sense. So, Qatar giving me a plane, and Qatar giving my son a business deal to build a new real estate development with my name slapped across the top. UAE, Saudi Arabia, these are all almost the personalization of American foreign policy. And that's why he's so comfortable, I think, in that milieu. By the way, to the point about Secretary Marco Rubio and the difference between him and Senator Marco Rubio, I saw that quote about Rubio claiming that Trump's speech in Saudi Arabia was the most important thing, which is a really remarkable thing to say because it was essentially plagiarized

from Trump's own speech in Saudi Arabia eight years ago when he said the exact same thing to the Saudis. He literally went to Saudi Arabia. And I have to say, even Trump's critics suffer from a very routine cases of amnesia. And I recognize we have all a lot of inputs here. It's hard to keep it straight, but a little bit more focused people on the history of what's already occurred with Donald Trump would be very useful in not getting, you know, sort of taken advantage of and spun over and over and over again. Donald Trump went to Saudi Arabia eight years ago and he gave a speech in which he said, America will no longer lecture to you and we won't

give you annoying rants about human rights and things like that. We're here to do business and by the way, I'm going to announce an unprecedented number of business deals which flash forward never materialized in the course of his four years in office. Well, the golf league came. We got the rival golf league. Well, that actually I believe was after, that was during his, he talked about it in his presidency, but I think it only came to be in his post presidency or his interregnum between presidencies. And he went last week and what did he say?

We're not here to lecture you and here's this unprecedented number of business deals that very likely will not fully materialize. A very good note, Susan. This is why we're bringing your hair for your... It's horrific that we have to be like, you're a Trump historian because it feels so long. I knew you were going to say that. I knew you were going to say that you're a Trump historian.

And it's... I have to say... I'm usually playing the Trump historian role, but this is an important job for you as well, unfortunately. So here we are. Tim, I remember, literally literally you're giving me nightmares because I remember back when Trump first started to run for office and when it was clear that he was very likely going to get the Republican nomination and actually be a serious candidate. I was the editor of

Politico at the time and I said, well, I was kind of like joking in a way. It started off as a jokey riff about Trump ology and how we're going to need to have it. And I was imagining the sort of like future department of Trump studies and, you know, the universities and, and, and I sort of went off on this riff with my colleagues, my good friend, Blake Hounshall, who was my fellow editor at Politico, and Michael Cruz, who's an excellent writer who's still there. And we decided, okay, we're actually going to convene the leading, at that time, Trumpologists, people who'd already written biographies of Trump. They'd never met each other, it turned out.

And I invited them to Trump Tower, to that really not very good restaurant in the basement, the Trump Grill, I think. With the taco bowl? Did you have a taco bowl? No, it was like a sort of really like a not so great chicken Caesar salad, I think, is what I ate. But we had these five biographers of Donald Trump meet each other for the first time and had this session that we called the Trumpologist.

And I thought it was very insightful, actually. I learned a lot about that. But of course, at the time, I didn't really think there would be future departments of Trump studies. And I certainly did not think that eight years later or nine years later, I would be labeled a Trump historian. But I think that's where we are. Pete We all have to go back to Trump Tower, bring Maggie, Tim O'Brien, We all have to go back to Trump Tower, bring Maggie, Tim O'Brien, a little coterie. Just really quick on Marco, we had moved on, but it's worth saying, in addition to it being repetitive of his Saudi Arabia speech eight years ago, it also is a direct rebuke of everything Marco Rubio ever stood for and ran for president on.

And it is worth noting, at least, see what you want about JD Vance, I have a lot negative to say, but like he at least has provided kind of some kind of pro forma rationale for his pivot, right? Like he has like offered an explanation. It's not particularly satisfying, but like at least some explanation for why he like went from saying Trump could be Hitler to wanting to be his VP. That's never really happened for Marco. And it's a little bit on the domestic stuff, this foreign policy switch from, I believe in American values throughout the world, I believe we should be welcoming people fleeing communism. like the whole, that whole, you know, kind of great American century, whatever it was called that Marco was pushing in 2016. I don't feel like I've gotten a satisfactory

answer for him for why now he is like, we just want peace and happiness and transactionalism and kleptocracy. And I think that's the right way for the world to work. Do you feel that way? We've gotten it? Well, I take your point, Tim, and I would just venture that perhaps you haven't gotten this satisfactory answer from Marco Rubio because he doesn't have one. Probably right. Maybe he doesn't agree. Like for example, on the Russia thing, he gave a long testimony yesterday on Capitol Hill

and he was asked about the Russia, the Putin Trump call. Yeah. And, you know, he did that classic, you know, what I think of as the sort of like GOP establishment two step that they always think it's, oh, they're being really clever. And he said, well, you know, the sanctions that the US had on Russia when I woke up this morning are exactly the same as they were before the phone call, you know. So we haven't backed off anything. And I've been watching that dance for a long time. It's just that Marco Rubio has parlayed that dance into Secretary of State.

I want to put a finer point in the Trump doctrine, just about the shallowness of it. We have this, as you described it, extreme transactionalism. Doesn't always work. Putin's not really interested in a golf resort deal with Trump. He has other historical and ideological and other things that he's thinking about. At that point, there's a news item from CNN this morning that says that the US has obtained new intelligence, suggesting that Israel is making preparations to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, even as the Trump administration has been pursuing a diplomatic deal with Tehran, according to multiple US officials familiar with the latest intelligence.

We'll see what happens with this. But again, it just betrays the limits of the transactionalism. There are much deeper wounds and ambitions and disagreements with regards to Iran and Israel or Russia and Ukraine that cannot be salvaged by meeting at a golf course and being like, hey, we're going to divide up the spoils like we do with the Qatari Emir. Geopolitics is more complicated than that. And so I'm just wondering what how you think the so-called Trump doctrine intersects with potentially what we're seeing with Israel and Iran and, you know, or take that any way you wish.

Yeah, no, I think it's a great question, because in both the case of Netanyahu and Putin, right, they actually have a view of what their own national security long-term requires that is very different than Donald Trump's definition of himself and the state as the overriding factor. Now, Netanyahu clearly has at times prioritized his own personal political survival. You can have any number of people on your show to talk about that and how Netanyahu has really distorted the politics of Israel and undermined arguably the security of Israel by prioritizing his own personal political troubles at various points. However, and it's big however, Israelis across a political spectrum see the Iran threat in

a very existential way that's very different than how it's viewed in Washington by someone like Donald Trump. And so I think that's important to underscore that same thing with Putin. Trump thinks, well, I can just make him just a whole array of concessions and then he'll do what I want because in the end, he doesn't really want this war except- He just wants money. His whole theory of the case when it comes to Russia and the war in Ukraine is completely flawed. The original mistake in it is thinking that Putin doesn't want the war, but in fact, it's Putin's war. The idea that that's the overriding goal for him, Putin's goal is to win the war,

not to have war not happen in and of itself. And he has accomplished many of the goals of his presidency through the use of war. Putin came to power 25 years ago by waging a war in Chechnya. He doesn't have a long record of ending wars with peace talks. He has a long record of remilitarizing Russian society in ways that aggrandize his own role and the role of the state. He has potential domestic political problems where he to end the war and then be accountable for all the deaths, especially if he didn't achieve the stated goals of the war. And he's also defined the war in very existential terms. If you say that Ukraine doesn't exist as a real state, that it's an illegitimate state, it's very hard to just go ahead and be like, oh, but actually Donald Trump asked so nicely.

Pete Right. Well, we also hit on a key point with this, really this with the Trumpology, about Trump not understanding, Trump misunderstanding the Putin rationale for the war. Trump really misunderstands a lot of these players in a lot of this case because, if you go back to the Trumpology, to those authors that you brought back together, what is Trump's framework of the world, right? He wants money, he wants fame, you know, he wants like, you know, riches and women for himself. Trump's a pretty simple animal, a pretty simple creature.

But he has all of those desires and the extreme, the megalomaniacal version of all of that. And so he looks at all these other people and he's like, well, Putin just wants to be able to make more money and get back into just like me and be the peace maker. He got new land and he just wants fame and money. And, or in the Atolla in Iran, like, oh, they just want to be able to cut a deal where they can, you know, where they, we can reopen with them and they can get oil and, you know, BB and then they just, they just want, you know, condos in Gaza, right? Like, and it is impossible for him to process like the idea that they might have religious ideological concerns for their, the interests of their nation, their nation state, because he doesn't, he doesn't relate to any of

that. He doesn't have any religious belief or deep ideological belief, right? And so I do think that that is like the fundamental flaw of all this, like eventually gets exposed and why it's more appealing to him to deal with like MBS is kind of more like him in that sense. Yeah, I think that's a very powerful theory, the case. What you're describing, Tim, is that I think the political scientists call it mirroring. That that's the big problem in foreign policy is that you mirror and you think that what matters to you is what matters the most to your interlocutor. And Trump, he also, he doesn't know history. He doesn't know context. He doesn't really care. He does have a long-term theory of the case when it comes to the world. You can go back. I always recommend to people to read this 1989 interview that he conducted with Playboy

Magazine. It's almost a sort of Rosetta Stone of Donald Trump's international views. It won't surprise you to know he thinks that America, even back then, was getting ripped off by its allies, that everybody was out to get us. At that time, it was Japan, not China, that he felt had an advantage in the world economic system. He was praising strong leaders and bemoaning weak leaders of other countries. At the time, he even thought that the Chinese had done exactly the right thing in Tiananmen Square

by cracking down and killing their own people to end protest. He contrasted that very favorably with the weakness of Gorbachev, who was leading to the Soviet Union's breakup. In a way, he told us everything we need to know about him as an international actor, back when the Cold War was still the Cold War. You can see the weaknesses of how all that ended up playing out based on his worldview as well. Hey guys, it's Tim and Sarah.

We're here with my friend, Ami John, Love It from Love It or Leave It. We're bringing you guys all a special crossover collab of the bulwark and crooked media. The Never Trump Rhinos Meet the Self-Important Podcast Bros. You are definitely the fucking self-important one. June is Pride Month and we're going to be live in DC on June 6th for World Pride, for a very special live show fundraiser featuring the three of us, plus some gay special guests. This one's a little different.

Proceeds from tickets will be donated to support André Romero, the makeup artist who the Trump administration wrongly disappeared to El Salvador and who is currently being held in Sikant. Crooked and the Bulwark will be donating the proceeds from this fundraiser to the Immigrant Defenders Law Center. Tickets on sale now at crooked.com slash events. These are going fast, so get yours before they're gone. Go to crooked.com

Events and we will see you all on June 6th In your article I forget your last one or the previous and how you went to visit marlago And he had had the model of his desired air force one Like on the what were you on the veranda and it was on an outside table. Where were you? and he had had the model of his desired Air Force One on the, what were you on the veranda? It was on an outside table, where were you? No, it was the inside lobby of Mar-a-Lago in the spring of 2021.

And we went there for a book interview. And it was just vintage Trump, of course, wanting to have an interview in essentially a public space so that everyone in the club could come through and see that he was there meeting with important people. And you know, literally, I didn't put this in the column the other day. But the detail that always struck me as we walk in there, and this was in late April of 2021. And it's just essentially

Trump sitting on the couch in the lobby, there are a couple of armchairs, there's a coffee table, the Trump sitting on the couch in the lobby. There are a couple of armchairs. There's a coffee table. The only thing on the coffee table is this model of Air Force One with the Navy red and white colors he wanted to have on it. Right next to this little seating arrangement, there's one of those like, you know, big easels and a poster board and it says sign up for your Mother's Day brunch now. And we sit there and you know, Kimberly Gu for your Mother's Day brunch now.

And we sit there and Kimberly Guilfoyle is walking through in the middle of this interview. RIP. Just amazing. But so we saw the Air Force One model and that was the very first thing that I mentioned to him in the interview is why did he bring that with him and did he think it would still come to pass even though he was out of office? What does Mar-a-Lago smell like? I'm never going to get to go to Mar-a-Lago, so it's fascinating to me a little bit.

You know, first of all, never say never. I did not think that Donald Trump was going to want me to come to Mar-a-Lago either. And I remember saying to Peter, my husband and co-author, are you sure that they know that I'm coming to this interview? Did you feel a chill walking in or that you kind of had crossed into, you know, the nether parts of the world? You know, any darkness? You know, it was very interesting. Remember that in the spring of 2021, Donald Trump was still very much in exile. It was not a foregone conclusion that he was going to come back and be president again. He was very isolated

at that time. He didn't have a big staff. He didn't have all the fawning kind of Republican members of Congress really around him anymore. It was just him and the paying guests. He was eager to talk to anybody at that particular moment in time. I refer to this as his Napoleon and Elba period. Yeah, sure. You didn't answer this about the smell though. It didn't have any particular smell that I recall. Maybe the whiff of money. I think either kind of dank because it's been around for so long. No, it wasn't dank.

A dank old hotel smell or like kind of cougar perfume smell is so intense that it overtakes everything, but neither of those. I feel like maybe the latter, definitely not the former. It wasn't dank in any way. There were a lot of portraits of Donald Trump, including by the way, in the ladies bathroom. Right? I know. Isn't this a terrible thing? We did stay for dinner at his insistence and watched the scene on the terrace as all the people stood and applaud him as he came up to dinner. The food was decent. The food was decent, Tim. I have to say, it was pretty good.

I can't take any more of this. I apologize for that follow-up. We're cutting that. We're not acknowledging any positive traits of Mar-a-Lago on this podcast. I'm just being honest. Don't censor me. I appreciate your candor. That is the spirit of this podcast, is radical candor, even if it means complimenting the

fucking food at Mar-a-Lago. Tulsi monkeying around with the Intel. We knew a new report from New York Times this morning. Emails documenting how Joe Kent, it's just so absurd that Joe Kent has such a prime role in intelligence gathering in our government. I once wrote an article where I monitored him get interviewed by an 18-year-old white nationalist who was doing the interview from his dorm room and Joe Kent was apologizing to him for saying something that was offensive to Nick Fuentes or whatever.

This was a deeply humiliating situation. I don't know if Joe Kent is a white nationalist, but he sure was happy to suck up to a teenage white nationalist to help get elected. He lost. Anyway, he's Tulsi's deputy now. This is the right-hand man. And I guess he sent an email to the experts of the DNI that said, we need to do some rewriting of this memo regarding Venezuela's ties to Trandor Oragua, quote, so this document is not used against the DNI or POTUS. As it turns out, there were a couple of honorable people in the intelligence community, Michael Collins, chair of the NIC, and his deputy Maria Langan-Rakoff,

who put out an accurate intel assessment. They were then fired. Pretty alarming stuff. I don't know what you make of what's happening with Tulsi at the DNI. Yeah. I mean, the National Intelligence Council is the main, you know, kind of analytic coordinating body for the US intelligence community and its assessments are very important and to be subjected to such a sort of almost embarrassingly transparent form of political manipulation,

right? You know, it's a big scandal when they're like, you know, kind of implicit winks and nods and you know, can't you just give me the raw intelligence kind of stuff in previous Republican administrations that we all remember. And yet here they are, these folks don't even bother to hide the corruption, right? And it is corruption. It is actually corrupt to say that we want our intelligence counsel, and I'm going to put it in writing, by the way, that we want our intelligence counsel to tell us that the United States is under invasion by a Venezuelan gang operating at the behest of the Venezuelan state. No part of that sentence is accurate. And why do they want that? So that they can justify the deportation of thousands of people under the Alien Enemies Act, an obscure 18th century law that has never essentially been used for this purpose. Obviously, this is still winding its way through the courts, but the underlying premise here is a fiction and that's what this controversy underscores, which is that it relies upon

the kind of Stephen Miller theory of the case, which is don't believe your own lying eyes. America is under invasion by a bunch of gangsters from Venezuela. Spoiler alert, America is not being invaded here, people. So if your entire legal case rests on the idea that America is being invaded, then you are asking lots of people in the federal government to lie. And I think this example really resonated for me

because it just shows that fiction, but it also shows the lengths to which these folks are willing to go and also that they're not very bright. Like, yeah, let's go ahead and put in writing that, yeah, please, would you rewrite this to say what I wanted to say? Because this is not helpful to me politically here. I mean, duh. Pete I would like to dial in just really quick on the not very bright part, because on the heels of the Signal controversy, where the Secretary of Defense is putting his wife and his brother on Signal talking about war plans and accidentally putting on Jeffrey Goldberg on Signal to discuss war plans, we have this, the key man at the DNI

putting in an email that he wants people to falsify intelligence records. I mean, this guy, did this guy not watch The Wire? Like, we're taking notes on a criminal conspiracy. Could he not have picked up the phone? I'm happy that they created a trail of their corruption. But it's pretty concerning. You'd think that the people at the top of the intelligence agencies would be a little bit more careful. But I mean, it feels like it's a clown show across the board here. I think if Donald Trump wanted somebody at the head of the intelligence agencies, he would have been a little bit more careful, then he wouldn't have chosen Tulsi Cabard

to be the director of national intelligence. Other related stuff regarding the Alien Enemies Act. Kristi Noem was testifying in front of Congress yesterday. I'm sure you've seen it already, but we deserve to listen to it one more time. So Secretary Noem, what is habeas corpus? Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the President has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their right to-

Let me stop you ma'am. Habeas corpus, excuse me, that's incorrect. President Blinken used it. Excuse me. Habeas Corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people. Hello, Senator Maggie Hasson there.

Excuse me, that's incorrect, actually. Well, I have to say, she didn't laugh. I mean, that's not easy to do. That's where you got to props to the politicians for putting their game face on. I mean, it's not something I could do. You listen to that and you're like, what the hell are you talking about, woman? She just doesn't know. I just think what that reveals is that she's been hearing all this discussion about habeas corpus, this's this word that she's heard.

And she heard it in the context of Stephen Miller saying that like, we can use this like thing in order to, you know, illegally kidnap more people. And so like she processed it in her brain as like, oh, that must be like kind of the Latin tool that we can use if we wanna go around the law. That's the only plausible explanation for it. Or else, I don't know, maybe the botulism got kind of leaked in.

That's also possible. I don't know. Any other theories? We're not at the top of our game here between Joe Ken and Kristi Ngo. The serious side of this, the non-humorous side, there's the Cato analysis that came out of the Venezuelans. And we've learned that, you might remember the CBS put out a list of like, I forget if it was 240 or 260 Venezuelans that we'd sent to Sokote in El Salvador. It turns out that

that wasn't a comprehensive list. There's actually more people that have not been named yet. But Cato was going through the list and there's a big group of the people that it's like hard to find what their process was. It's hard to track them down. But they were able to identify some percentage of that 250 some odd Venezuelans. And they found that 50 of them came here legally, never violated any immigration law and never violated any law in America. That doesn't mean who knows, maybe some subset of that 50 were gang members in Venezuela, I don't know.

But they came here legally either through the refugee process where there's vetting or through the CBP-1 app where they set up a meeting and came to a port of entry at the border and waited for their judicial review. So that's like 50 people that did not break any laws that we kidnapped and sent to El Salvador. I mean, it is truly, it is a scandal that is like beyond kind of what even like the kind of the worst Bush administration excesses, even though there were some bad ones, of course. Yeah, I think it's hard for us to wrap our minds around what a growth violation of everything the United States in theory stands for this would be. And I've been thinking about this because it's not just we tend to focus here and I understand why, but we tend to focus on the lack of due

process in the process by which these people end up on a plane and end up being sent to El Salvador. That's one aspect of it that's horrifying. But in a big picture sense, even more horrifying is that they have been sent there in an open-ended way to rot in a prison in a foreign country that is not even in their own home with no process, no ability to ever get out as far as we're aware. And they're just what? They're going to spend the rest of their life rotting away in some prison in El Salvador. No terms like the worst criminals in the world have not only the

right of due process, but the right to a fair and speedy trial, to a sentence, whatever that sentence is, at least you would then know it, that you've been cast judgment by a legitimate court. None of these things, none of these things have taken place, so those 50 people that you just mentioned in the Cato study, and there are very likely more, what's gonna happen to them?

They're gonna just spend their entire life in prison in a sort of Orwellian example of being condemned for life for an offense that they are never told what it is with no process of no possibility of appeal in a foreign land that is not their own. It's really one of the worst things that I've heard the United States do and so contrary to every aspect of our founding. No, it would literally be like a criminal, a gang or whatever. Speaking of gangs, we're the gangs in this situation. It would be like a gang kidnapping somebody out of a car and then throwing them into a hole at the bottom of their compound and

then the person has to sit there and rot and wait and hope that cooler heads will prevail or something. As you said, even the worst criminals, they get a phone call, they get a visitation. Their mother knows where they are. The other thing the Cato analysis said was that, I don't know in front of me, but some percentages of guys obviously have children. It's like they can, their children can see them, can write them letters. David Noriega did a story about a man, I don't know if he has his name right, Widmer Sanguino.

David Noriega did this segment for NBC News. I'll put a link in the show notes if you want to watch it. And it's like, this guy came again legally, like with his family, they had a CBP one nap, they had a meeting, his he was there with his mother and with a brother. And he is the only one that gets pulled aside because I guess of the tattoos. And then he's disappeared. And David's interviewing his mother. And it's like, and it's crazy. It's crazy. It's like, you know, they, they

now are free, like living in America, waiting, going through the process, you know, doing what people do. And it's like her son and this guy, the guy's brother is just gone. And it's sickening. Anyway, I don't know what more there is to say about that. The, we're also doing, there's another new story, I guess we're sending people to Libya and South Sudan now now as well, immigrants. One other thing I wanted to get a figure of brand and I saw you did a post about an article, a little tweet or whatever about PEPFAR. Back to our friend Marco, who said that I guess he's trying to claim that it's been like 85% of PEPFAR has been maintained or whatever. I know you guys, you've covered a lot of sort of that stuff in this world.

Elon is also trying to backtrack on this. He's at the Qatari Economic Forum trying to claim that it wasn't true that they cut all the aid. Just wondering if you have any thoughts or reporting or heard anything about what's happening in the biggest own goals in world politics I've ever seen, which is Rubio going along with Elon Musk and others who came in at the beginning of this second Trump administration and basically destroyed in a very short amount of time America's soft power in the world, shutting down our efforts to broadcast truthful, independent information to people in Asia, for example, shutting down refugee programs that benefit people, childhood nutrition programs around the world in Africa as well as in Asia, basically saying, we're not going

to do anything positive. And so the only thing that's left for America as far as projection of itself and its image in the world are stories like the stories we were just talking about, sending people off to rot in prison with no due process. You mentioned- Kleptocracy. Yeah. Well, kleptocracy also taking a free plane from the government of Qatar for our president's

personal use. I think that when the story of this all is written, the shutting down unilaterally with no process of programs approved by Congress, authorized and funded by Congress, by Marco Rubio himself, who not only voted for these programs as a senator, but was a chief proponent of many of them. He was a board member of the International Republican Institute until the minute he was sworn in as the Secretary of State. What have we done? We've shut down all of America's election monitoring missions around the world.

I can tell you those things matter to people who are fighting for freedom and democracy around the world. Those things really matter. The theory of the case now that Donald Trump has, and I don't think that most Americans really understand this, Donald Trump believes it doesn't matter that the United States can partner with the world's worst tyrants, strongmen, and killers, and that that's just fine. And maybe we're just like them in the end. And I think that that's a very, very dubious proposition for how this country can go forward

in the world. But that's what's happened with all of this. And to have Rubio then under oath, I noticed that many of his former Democratic colleagues were very chagrined in this hearing yesterday. They voted 99 to zero to confirm Marco Rubio, the US Senate did, because many Democrats, as well as many establishment Republicans, felt that he was the best possible secretary they could get under these circumstances. I call your attention to a really painful back and forth between Rubio and Chris Van Hollen, a Democratic Senator from Maryland, who told him to his face, well, I regret my vote for you. You're not who you said you were for all these years. And Rubio quickly retorted back, well, if you regret it, then I guess that means it's confirmation I'm doing a good job. Oh, just because you mentioned it, you know, there are all these like minor corruptions

that happen that happen outside of view, you know, because we focus on the big ones. But IRI, the International Republican Institute, is one of those. Like this was a pure, you know, the more Republican oriented internationalist organization that was about spreading democracy abroad, election monitors. John McCain was a big proponent of it. It's another one of those things. I know at least one person who was pushed out of there for their commentary criticizing Trump on all of this, because it's like any other one of these little institutions wants to stay in the good graces of Trump, even though he's anathema to what the whole point of the institution is. So, all right, last thing, any other Hill thoughts? You mentioned the

confirmation hearing, I guess I haven't noted on the pod Jared Kushner's dad. So we're going with nepo-grampy as the term for Charles Kushner. And he got confirmed from ambassador to France. Cory Booker voted for that, which I thought. I haven't heard a good answer on why that is. But that's happening. Obviously, over on the next level, I'm going to talk about what's happening with the reconciliation bill. But any other thoughts on what's been happening over on the Hill? Yeah. I mean, I think the bottom line is that Democrats haven't really gotten their act together. They have not yet figured out

a way to use any of their remaining levers of power, which are minimal, to affect any kind of constraint on Donald Trump. There's not even a whimper, it seems to me, of a sign yet that Republicans, even those who oppose some of what Trump's doing, are willing to stand up for the institutional prerogatives of Congress. They're basically still, it seems to me, waiting for the courts to do what Congress itself has refused to do, which is to say, wait, only we have the power under our Constitution to determine how America's taxpayer dollars are spent. And, you know, until Congress wakes up, we are a government that's out of control, in my view. We're a government that's not functioning

the way our constitution envisioned it. But I don't think anybody should be expecting Republicans on Capitol Hill to wake up anytime soon. Pete I mean, either another uplifting episode of the Bullock Podcast with Susan Glasser. Thank you so much. My love to Theo and the fam and we'll be talking to you again soon. So great to be with you, Tim. Thank you. Sorry for the depressing note.

Nah, hey, it comes with the territory. Everybody else, we'll be back here tomorrow with another edition. We'll see you all then. Peace. We'll be back here tomorrow with another edition. We'll see you all then peace I'm the hole in the yard, sailing cemetery seas After crew leaves they move on You have no idea how right my head is screwed on When I wake up and put this suit on I feel escape begin Explorations are needed, I facilitate the end There are two types of mornings in this life I can surmise I wake early in the first to help supply the second time

Technician or repetition clips and the numbers of traditions hits The little wondrous blunders that can summon one's demise I know the line that walks off softly, punch a clock ain't done I see the shelter in contrition, best to let me wagging tongues But today's a confrontation with a thought that's not assured She's inching closer to my services and further from my world I'm not a loser, I'm not a loser This is job everybody you thought we creep up in your conscience too Nope, in fact I'm so enamored with the scandal that being handed the commander, it's almost romantic

The lack of it I'd take it if I didn't understand I'm saying you're gonna change your big gig if you ever heard of the crazy despite the traitor's label Makes you nervous as a kid, maybe beyond a day's not that there's something else meant for her Christmas with the beauty of 24729007 Oh god, you gotta be joking, I get it, she's smoking, go get a taste, I'll hold you down for 30, she must be 30, you're hoping you're secret safe with me, going to rape and it's a great idea, I got a couple numbers of my own, she's returning furtive. Nah man, it's actually none of my mind's not as different this time of the day, she's a creature so sublime and you're willing to be alive for the gun, and I'm either one of

the species, she seems almost defenseless, and her eyes are the surprising effect of rendering me restless. So the rhymes are the surprise and effect of rendering me restless. The Bullork Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.